05-28-1974 Per Curiam

On April 24, 1972, after oral argument, we granted Vermont\u27s motion to file a complaint against New York and the International Paper Company which alleged that as a result of discharge of wastes, largely from International\u27s mills, that company and New York are responsible for a sludge bed in Lake Champlain and Ticonderoga Creek that has polluted the water, impeded navigation, and constituted a public nuisance

05-20-1974 Memorandum to the Conference

On April 24, 1972, after oral argument, we granted Vermont\u27s motion to file a complaint against New York and the International Paper Company which alleged that as a result of discharge of wastes, largely from International\u27s mills, that company and New York are responsible for a sludge bed in Lake Champlain and Ticonderoga Creek that has polluted the water, impeded navigation, and constituted a public nuisance. 406 U.S. 186. Issue was joined and the Honorable R. Ammi Cutter was appointed Special Master. 408 U.S. 917. Later the United States sought leave to intervene stating it had numerous interests in these waters under federal statutes. We referred the motion to the Special Master, 409 U.S. 1103, who granted intervention. During the year 1973, 75 days of testimony were received. Vermont presenting substantially all of her direct case, New York has put in about half of her direct case. Neither International nor the United States up to now has offered any evidence

03-01-1973 Justice Douglas, Dissenting

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR JUSTICE MARSHALL concur, dissenting

03-20-1973 Justice Douglas, Dissenting

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL concur, dissenting

04-22-1971 Justice Douglas, Opinion

This case is very close in its essentials to Negre v. Larson, 400 U.S. -, decided March 8, 1971. The Church to which that registrant belonged favored just wars and provided guidelines to define them. The Church did not oppose the war in Vietnam but the registrant refused to comply with an order to go to Vietnam because participating in that conflict would violate his conscience. The Court refused to grant him relief as a conscientious objector, overruling his constitutional claim

11-04-1974 Correspondence from Douglas to Rehnquist

Dear Bill: I agreed once with your opinion in 73-5768, FRANCISCO v. GATHRIGHT. I regret only that you made it a per curiam. I hope you change your mind on that

04-22-1971 Memorandum to the Conference

I am sending each or you a memo in the Clay case, No. 783, because it was poorly briefed and argued, and the record is not too revealing. My travels in Islam, however, got me interested in the Koran; and as a result of this hobby I send this memo, which may or may not be helpful to you but which explains my position

Lethal Conflict

A book review essay considering Surviving to 3000, an Introduction to the Study of Lethal Conflict, by Roy L. Prosterman (1972)