Issue 20-70 "Panel on the Chicago Seven Trial"

NBER the national educational radio network presents

special of the week from WGA you see the radio station of

the University of Cincinnati.

A panel discussion on the Chicago Seven trial heard originally by

listeners to the U.S. forum moderated by Dr. Campbell Crockett.

The reason why we're going to be talking about this I suppose is

obvious. It has elicited a great deal of interest

in the country and Cincinnati and at the university.

Some of the principal persons in this drama have

been at Cincinnati in the recent past.

Mr. Counselor one of the defense attorneys spoke here a week or so ago

and Jerry Rubin one of the defendants was a student at the University of

Cincinnati. One of the things that has intrigued me about the trial

and the aftermath is the extremes of

positions and feelings with respect to it.

For some people as I listen to the Judge Hoffman seems to

represent the last fortress of American freedom

the American way of life is regarded as a hero by some.

To others however he is the principal villain in this piece

and is regarded as one who has in effect obstructed the

cause of freedom and democracy. Well

here to discuss the Chicago trial some of its meanings and some of our

feelings and prejudices about it are professors

Bill Hamrick from the English department and Professor Dan beaver from the

history department to get us started Dan and since you

are a professor of history why don't you give us a kind of brief recap

of the hour the trial in terms of your information about it.

Thanks Campbell.

Well the roots of the Chicago trial go back to the

Democratic convention. One thousand sixty eight. Late summer in

1968 when people came into Chicago

from all over the country in an attempt some said to

influence the decision of the Democratic convention to

protest the way in which the United States had been pursuing its foreign

policy objectives to protest the internal

structure of the United States and perhaps

to persuade the Chicago police to do what it seems that they

did and that is create an incident of both national and

international significance.

There are some who say also that the attempt was made.

Primarily to bring all political institutions a political

process of the United States itself into a

absurd confrontation with a group

of people outside the political establishment.

At the end of the Chicago affair that admittedly was

loud noisy and brutal but not terribly bloody.

A decision or at least the beginnings of a decision were made

in Washington and that is that the

men who allegedly had brought the riot about in

Chicago were to be brought to trial under an amendment to

the 968 Civil Rights Act the so-called Rap Brown Amendment.

The whole situation though became very confusing very fluid after

November because of the defeat of the Democrats and the entry

of a new administration into Washington. Apparently the

decision was made to prosecute by Attorney General

Mitchell and the

so called instigators were brought to trial in Chicago for two

things. First conspiracy

and second for crossing state lines in order to incite

to riot. Now the thing of that

that interests me here is that.

Well it's seems as if these these people did they did

conspire and they did cross state lines and order a side to riot.

But everybody knows everybody in the legal profession at least knows that this is the hardest possible thing to

prove legally as conspiracy so obviously

there was something else involved besides just the simple fact of bringing people to trial to try to

get justice. And so what we find confronting each other in

Chicago over a period of months are three

fundamental positions. One and this is just a personal

opinion I don't think any of us know really what was going on very

much. One of the alleged conspirators

whose objective even during the

so-called riots was to bring the institutions of the United

States into contempt if you will and to reveal

the destructive nature of these institutions.

Second the federal authority. Who is

object in my mind at least was to use the courts and use the law

a patently in in my opinion patently unconstitutional law especially in the

conspiracy areas. To harass.

Over a long term basis and to use up the resources of radical

organizations. So here you have two groups confronting each

other.

The agents of the executive branch and a group

of anti establishment establishment Ariens

both of whom want to use a particular institution of the United States

government in order to harass each other.

That institution of course is the court system and the whole

idea of the law to use the law to harass each other.

At this point and in the third institution and that is the law that can seize of

itself as independent of the executive branch most certainly not an agent of the

executive branch and most certainly independent and in

a judging Capet relationship with the conspirators.

And here course enter Also Judge Hoffman Judge

Hoffman who I suspect I don't know I can't see in a man's mind this way but I

know a few judges who conceives of himself as as very

much the representative not of the government but the representative of the law.

And here the law is under attack here the law is

within at least and it has the possibility of being rendered absurd.

And Hoffman the whole series of inept actions

plays into the hands of the two groups of people.

We're most interested in in using him now I could be I'm

giving more jobs often than he deserves and it could be I'm giving more to the

conspiratorial than they deserve. But this is my mind

this is a confrontation. Radical anti-establishment Tarion forces with

the agents of the executive branch of the government both are using in a

way that no lawyer would would condone and no judge would most

certainly condone. The institutions of the

law to harass each other and in the process running a very very real

risk of bringing the whole institution of

the law and IMO I'm pretty Hobbs in in this area under

contempt which in this sense is a loss to all of us.

Bell how do you react to Dan's factual not judgmental

drought. I don't know why I'm here.

Yeah Dan is very can sometimes be very disarming

and his fair mindedness I expected.

More of a more biased presentation.

I'm in substantial agreement with the outlines of what went down as a matter of fact I like his three

way analysis.

I think that my only My only addition would be that I

say that to Dan stated or when Dan says that I was a conspiracy and

Chicago I. I would like to add I think that I think there were

certainly two conspiracies. Judging from the reports of people who were at the Democratic

National Convention in the line of duty including our colleague Larry Wolf

there was pretty clear evidence that Daley and his and his people had

conspired to deny the routine

rights of even delegates to the to the Democratic National Convention

and that the authorities of Chicago could easily

be shown I think to have gone out of their way to deny

rights to an assembly and an expression to the to the

demonstrators as well as to bona fide delegates to the

convention. Well let me then pick up on one thing you

said and kind of play a role here also since some of my best

friends are judges.

And since most of us and some respect other use Judge malfunctions

at one time or another. Let me ask specifically to for you to cite

anything that Judge Hoffman did that you I believe used the word and at one point.

But you know he acted as a judge. What did he do that was wrong. She said

Oh I've got I've got a theory here and I'm a military historian and a diplomatic historian

and I've got one simple rule of life in.

And institutional procedures that is when you're in confrontation with someone else perhaps on a national

level on an international level or even on a personal level. And that is

if you know fairly well what someone wants you to do

then it's a fairly good idea not to do it because it's going

to ultimately reflect to your disadvantage and to his

advantage. Now it seems to me that the

conspiratorial were very very clear in what they want to Judge Hoffman to do and that is

precisely what he did do as what better what better example

of judicial What better example of the due

of judicial harassment than to have Bobby Seale in

chains and gag chained to his

chair in a in a court room where he's unable

to unable to speak. So when you play the opposition game I call that

inept I think. What about the

contempt citations which have been discussed some that if you were in Judge

Hawkins shoes what would you have done with a. I'll refer to it as acting out behavior on the

part of the defendant.

File contempt citations but at the same time keep my mouth shut. That is

after all they didn't have to be lectured from the bench.

This was a this was a critical thing as the idea of the law that is

the. The right that every citizen has to a quick and speedy

trial to proper procedures to

be free if you will from harassment from the bench. Now

I'm going to spin off just a little bit in the other direction because this raises all kinds of

questions about the activities of Mr. consumer too and that is that.

And does he have the right to do this.

Rejected his role as an officer of the court

in the in the trial. That is a lawyer in a trial as as we

all know is not only a defense legal defense for his climb but he's also an office of the

court and through playing the role of as often officer

of the court.

He has an obligation to follow the traditional procedures of the

court counselor by not following the traditional procedures of the court and by

rejecting his role as an officer of the court.

Brought himself into the into a contemptuous condition a contemptuous relationship

with the court and I suspect that the American Bar Association is

going to look at this fairly carefully in the next few months and come to come to some sort of a judgement that is

when a man rejects the role of an officer of the court that's inherent in his position of lawyer

and his position as lawyer and what are we supposed to do here that is not only

Hoffman was acting contemptuously.

This is my point.

Everybody was acting contemptuously and Hawkman just happened to be the most inept

of all of them because Hofmann seems to be the man who was playing the game that everyone else wanted him to play.

And as a result the court procedure comes down a heap. Oh what do you do Dan with a defendant

who will not stay in his place and his chair who won't who

continually talks in such a ways to interfere with the proceedings.

If you don't gag him chained to the chair what do you do.

What happens in the court room.

All right no nobody knows Campbell. I like to I like to hear Bill on this one because

it's never it's never come up. Even John Browne when he was tried.

Follow the procedures of the court and awaited the away to the appropriate time to

to make a statement which was a very effective statement and carried forward fascinating carried

forward completely within the framework of the traditions of American and English

jurisprudence at the time.

As a result some would say that Brown did try him because he

carried the thing forward he his act was outside the frame of

established practice but when he was tried he wanted to be it wanted to be absolutely clear

that the procedure was followed to the letter that there was no attempt to

interfere with the procedure and the procedure guilty.

And I think Brown made his point much much better than the

Chicago conspirators have so far made their point because everyone has managed to fudge

this thing.

This is this is exactly my reaction that the

all the yuppie enterprise that seems to have taken control of some of the

defendants behavior is pretty self-defeating in

this way. I think that that one

thing should be we should remind ourselves of one thing that at that at least two

of the defendants have openly and avowedly rejected the values that

Dan holds that I hold and that the that the majority hold. RUBIN And

Abbie Hoffman I think take the position of that that they are not

valid and to follow these procedures and this is what them something like a

philosophical position counselor came in his talk

awfully close to accepting this view. If he didn't in fact accept it or

did make the position which I think supports one of your earlier contentions that it helped to explain

the motives of the defendants that

he said something to the effect that if the court is to be used as a political weapon by the state

the state must be willing to accept the consequences of that act and that that it will become

a political species of political warfare rather than a trial. And I think this is

probably the way the defendant saw this.

But now let's.

This is the way they see it. This may even be the way the attorney general's office sees it.

But this does not necessarily mean that this is the way Judge Hoffman sees it

and that is to see the federal people as using the courts as an agency of political

warfare someone seems to indicate this is a new thing. You know Mark Hoffman

understood what was going on in his court in the East and these terms. Oh yeah

I think I we can't that we can't look into people's minds as what

that's the only way you can explain away the hysterical reactions. The mistake that is

it's very possible I'd love to get into those papers I'd love to I love to read

the other memos that go back and forth. You

could just simply be for example it could be a lot easier than were trying to make it it could be just simply that

that everyone is involved in creating a situation whereby an appeal will occur.

And this is the thing that interest me because a counselor and the defendants

have said over and over this reveals the hypocrisy of the whole system so on and

so forth. What are those men going to do when that case goes to the Appeal

Court. And I believe very sincerely that is going to be thrown out.

Now I'm waiting for Mr concerned of these cases to perform an appropriate medical book

preferably at the meeting of the American Bar Association with all the news media

present where he says the system worked the way it's supposed to work and

I'm not going to hold my breath until he does it. I should say I can support

that. I find myself in the Ryan room which is you know the

be the collecting place near the mustard counter is a collecting place for the remnants of the New Left.

I find myself informing people that the

Oakland seven were acquitted. This is a not a very well-known fact on

the left at the Oakland seven were tried for for conspiracy and were flatly acquitted in a

in A and exemplary trial by my

by a fine fair judge and a and a very humane

and intelligent jury as well as a competent defense.

And they and I say a competent prosecution. But you see Bill if

if they would have really wanted to nail these people. They had all the necessary law

that they needed in Chicago and by the way I agree with you that is that

what should have occurred at the Chicago was an investigation of the Chicago police report department and a

considerable number of badges listed in all probability. But that doesn't doesn't change

the legal situation and the situations of ours we as citizens are concerned. Just

because two groups happen to at one particular time want to use an institution that's a bad

event a just all of us and perhaps keeps all of us from becoming animals.

And frankly I don't want to have to slow around the 45 on my hip to protect myself

against against somebody else in the war of all against all of this whole thing

collapses.

I've got other things I want to do and those would take up far far too much of my time.

We've got a vested interest in the thing too and if the

process works they had to they had all the they had all the law they needed they

could have tried them under the laws of the state of Illinois for incitement to riot

but they didn't do that. The situation obviously is a political situation but not

necessarily a political situation insofar as the bench is concerned or at least it's a different

political situation and so far as the bench is concerned they'll do You heard Mr.

Counselor when he spoke at the University several days ago. Your impression of him from that parent.

Frankly I was impressed by the by the

revolutionary fervor and of course as you say I don't think it's an unfair characterization I

think he he. In effect if not in fact classified himself as a

revolutionary and so very a man of

great capability will I think my lawyer

friends have I have faulted him the exactly the same way that Dan has that

that his his behavior and the behavior of the Chicago defendants

was from my revolutionary point of view to the extent that I am a

revolutionary or tactically unsound. And I think say

that John Brown's behavior was was the better kind of behavior

for a for a revolution. And I use this term very loosely of course for a

revolution that attempts to establish just principles.

The the end of the end is.

Ends and means get mixed up here. Remember Saul Alinsky his famous remark when asked if

the ends justify the means.

He said I'd like to know what the hell else does. But at the same time the ends and

the means are defined by the end. And what Dan and

Dan has pointed out that if if these

he say question these give this shall we say excessively

violent behavior not only rhetorically violent but actually violent behavior is

employed in our society it is it is a serious threat. Well

NCR are not Alinsky pardon me the councilors got him got himself into into a real

bind got himself into a bind very similar I think to the to the early utilitarians.

There's one particular statement that he made that interested me and that is his statement

if you got to be against violence you got to be against all violence from the breaking of a window

to do the murdering of a child. Now this reminds me a great deal of the

of the early utilitarian problem not being able to tell the difference between pushpin and chess.

There's no there's no there ia for our no area for judgment in this position

no area for adjustment. The idea being that this

is the first priority issue all the way through to be

taking this one point to be against violence. Well personally I can't

buy that. That is my problem has always been whether to use rock salt or

double a double lot bookshop that this is that this is the problem. Why are

both of you suggesting that councillors actions during the trial were

tactical calculated premeditated r Did he at times lose control.

I can't imagine a man of consolers capability losing control he didn't look

nor sound to me like a man who would lose control but I think it was my guess.

If I may guess that counselor had himself a real bag of worms with this particular bunch of

people and it that he may not have been in any sense his decision of how the

defense was going to be conducted and would be held guilty for liable. Anything we

say on thats a missed drug I want to call Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin a bag of worms I think they

would be good. I'll be very frank and say this is

this estate personal is not intended in a libelous way. I would not all be surprised to find

Mr Kunstler running for office in New York State it's an appropriate time in the near future. Could be.

Speaking as a bag of worms and not referring of course to ourselves at the moment.

Dan and Jerry Rubin was a dicier student here and he was here. What was your impression of

hammer is your impression.

Yeah well in a kind of indirect

way.

The impression I had of Jerry was it was contained in this square article

I think was selling was sometime last summers and I don't know yet a lot was the name.

Yeah I like

Jerry. If he had said it I know I'm no

good C student. CB

you're a man of independent means my young man on the go a man

intent on making his mark who

never got quite the recognition that he thought he ought to get who was not made

chairman of the board as early as you thought he should have been made. Would you say he's modeling his behavior

after you as if you were his advisor if you mean he's a

phony I suspect maybe he was almost the last thing I heard.

We're all full and you know we're all phony and in a certain number of ways I just think you know it's

sort of the problem of the Animal Farm I think has a little phone you than others.

I wonder you heard a couple of times to the John Brown trial and how what

an exemplary way he performed at the trial what was the outcome for him

that way. Yeah.

That somehow kind of disenchant me if I'm putting myself in his role. I think I

might prefer other kinds of actions even though they might not conform to

the exemplary behavior that you know action. Well then Steven Vincent Benet will never write a poem about

you. That's his problem not mine. OK. No I don't I think that

I'm saying John Brown's case there was nothing he could have done to prevent himself from being hurt. I

think that when you say I mean what could he have done he could have split for Africa I guess

but that would have destroyed the point I think he probably would have. It raises up you know it raises

up all kinds of questions about what these these people are really about.

I don't know whether they're really seriously engaged in what they're doing

and whether they as you know more about most certainly know more about this Campbell than the rest of us do or

whether there are gays in a whole series of roles for by the stakes really aren't very high yet.

I wonder how they do it if you will I wonder how we'd respond right now.

Hi this is Howard K. Smith raised this point last week on an editorial.

I wonder if these people were followers of George Lincoln Rockwell

whether I'd be sitting here being as careful and as sympathetic

as as I am to say toward Jerry Rubin as if these

were if these were brown shirts and I've got a something deep down in my heart this is the same thing.

That they really are brownshirts yet they mouths the

slogans that we find it difficult to default.

I just wonder what would happen if they were on the other side of that.

I don't know one thing I do believe that from what I have read about

them seen about them I think that Hofmann councilor Ruben and others are really

quite serious I don't think it's a frivolous game and I didn't know I was going to take the

last word on this but our time is up.

My thanks to Bill Hamrick an English department and Dan beaver from the history department for

participating in this discussion. The moderator for this special of the week was Dr. Campbell

Crockett director of the University of Cincinnati whose Institute for Research on training

in higher education. His guests doctors Bieber and Hamrick are

professors absence of Nati. Our thanks to WG you will see the radio

station of the University of Cincinnati for this program which WJ U.S. listeners

heard originally in the U.S. forum series. This has been special of the week

from any are the national educational radio network.