Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
7338921
label
Remarks of the President at the Yale Sesquicentennial Convocation Dinner [Ford Speech or Statement]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7338921
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Remarks of the President at the Yale Sesquicentennial Convocation Dinner [Ford Speech or Statement]
citationUrl
collections
White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)
Press Releases
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7338921
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
25
logicalDate
1975-04-25
month
4
year
1975
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c58d953676ce2d8a
ocrText
Digitized from Box 10 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
487
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 25, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(New Haven, Connecticut)
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AT THE
YALE SESQUICENTENNIAL
CONVOCATION DINNER
YALE LAW SCHOOL
9:57 P.M. EDT
President Brewster, Dean Goldstein, Governor
Grasso, Justices Stewart and White, the Secretary of HUD,
Carla Hills, the Members of the House of Representatives
with whom I served, and others who are now Members,
but with whom I did not have that privilege and pleasure,
good mayor, fellow alumni, students, and guests of Yale
Law School:
Obviously, it is a very great privilege and
pleasure to be here at the Yale Law School Sesquicentennial
Convocation, and I defy anyone to say that and chew gum
at the same time. (Laughter)
Every time I come back to Yale, I find myself
almost overwhelmed by nostalgia. It has been so long,
and so much has happened since I first got off the train
at the New Haven station in 1935.
For the first several years I was an assistant
football coach, but during that period, I decided
against a career in athletics and set my goal as a
degree in law.
At that time, one of the entrance requirements
to the Yale Law School was a personal interview
with three distinguished members of the faculty. In
my case, one of them was Professor Myres McDougal,
whom I am delighted to see is with us tonight.
It was wonderful to chat with you, Myres,
before dinner.
You might be interested to know that Professor
McDougal, in remarks given to the Yale Law School
Association in Washington last year, mentioned the fact
that he still had his notes from that interview.
MORE
Page 2
He said that under the appropriate headings
there were entries like the following: Good looking,
well dressed, plenty of poise, personality excellent.
(Laughter)
Then, under another heading: Informational
background, not too good. (Laughter)
Professor McDougal, what he doesn't know is
that while he was keeping notes on me, I was keeping
notes on him. (Laughter) By coincidence, I just happen
to have them with me here tonight. (Laughter)
Under the appropriate headings, I find entries
like these: Good looking, well dressed, plenty of
poise, personality excellent. Then under another heading:
Informational background about football, not so good.
(Laughter)
As I remember it, the only benchwarmerr
Professor McDougal took an interest in at that time was
Oliver Wendell Holmes. I won't go into any more details
about that interview. Suffice it to say that Professor
McDougal was extraordinarily impressed with my capabilities
and so caught up with my capabilities. and my vision, and
my potentialities that in a whirlwind of enthusiasm, he wrote:
"I see no reason why we should not take him." (Laughter)
My biggest problem at that time was convincing
the school I could continue as a full-time assistant
football coach and still carry on a full schedule in
the law school.
Fortunately, I was able to convince them, and
I have always been very grateful for the help, the
encouragement I consistently received from such great
educators as Gene Rostow, Thurman Arnold, Jimmy James,
and, in particular, Myres McDougal.
Myres, all I can say is may your retirement
provide you with the same riches of fulfillment and
satisfaction your career has already brought to the
students of Yale.
May God go with you.
MORE
Page 3
Obviously, a lot has happened since I left Yale
Law School in 1941. I practiced law. I joined the Navy.
I was elected to Congress, became Minority Leader, Vice
President, and now President.
But no matter how far I have traveled, something
from Yale has always followed with me -- and I am not
just referring to those letters from the Alumni Fund
(Laughter) -- but something very special, something
that adds to character, something that clings to our
character, and in time, something that becomes our
character.
It is rather hard to Dut feelings into words,
but the motto of our school is, "For God, for country,
and for Yale," and I think that says it all.
The 150th anniversary of this great law school --
one of the outstanding institutions of the world for
the study of law -- suggests better than I the subject
for my remarks this evening. On May 1, we celebrate
Law Day. Most of you in this audience have devoted your
academic years, and a good part of your lives, to the
development and to the promulgation of the law.
Today as President, I sense, and I think the
American people sense, that we are facing a basic and
a very serious problem of disregard for the law.
I would like to talk with you tonight about
law and the spirit of abiding by the law. I ask you to
think along with me about the concern of so many Americans
about the problem of crime. Let us start with the great
Preamble of our Constitution which seeks "to insure
domestic tranquility."
Have we achieved on our streets and in our
homes that sense of domestic tranquility so essential
to the pursuit of happiness? With the launching of our
Bicentennial year, it has been argued that the American
Revolution was the most successful in history. because
the principles of the Revolution -- liberty and equality
under the law -- became the functioning Constitutional
principles of our great Government.
The founding fathers governed well and governed
prudently, with restraint and respect for justice and
law. There was no reign of terror, no repression,
no dictatorship. The institutions they have founded
became durable and effective.
Because of all of this, we tend to think of
them now as respectable and conservative. But the fact
is that ours remains the great Revolution of modern
history, and we should be proud of it.
MORE
Page 4
A leading feature of the American Revolution
was its devotion to justice under law. Once one gets
past those two glorious opening paragraphs, the
Declaration of Independence reads very much like a
legal brief.
The argument was made that sound government and
just laws had to be restored to the land. The theme
was that independence was needed to restore a representa-
tive government of laws in order to secure liberty.
Our revolutionary leaders heeded John Locke's
teaching: "Where there is no law, there is no freedom."
Law makes human society possible. It pledges
safety to every member so that the company of fellow
human beings can be a blessing instead of a threat. Where
law exists and is respected, and is fairly enforced, trust
replaces fear.
Do we provide that domestic tranquility which
the Constitution seeks? If we take the crime rates as
an indication, the answer has to be no.
The number of violent crimes rises steadily
and we have recently suffered the national disgrace of
lawbreaking in high places. Violent crimes on our
streets and in our homes makes fear pervasive. They
strike at the very roots of community life. They sever
the bonds that link us as fellow citizens. They make
citizens fear each other.
Crime in high places, whether in the Federal
Government, State government, or in business or in
organized labor, sets an example that makes it all the more
difficult to foster a law-abiding spirit among ordinary
citizens.
When we talk about obeying the law, we think of
police and courts and prisons, and the whole apparatus of
the law enforcement process. But the truth is that most
of us obey the law because we believe that compliance is
the right thing to do and not because the police may be
watching.
As far as law violations in high places are
concerned, let me stress this point: In the present
Administration, I have made it a matter of the highest
priority to restore to the Executive Branch decency,
honesty and adherence to the law at all levels. This
has been done, and it will be continued.
MORE
Page 5
I urge the same effort and the same dedication
in State governments where recently there have been too
many scandals. I urge the same standards in local govern-
ments, also in industry and in labor. There is no way
to inculcate in society the spirit of law if society's
leaders are not scrupulously law-abiding.
We have seen how law-breaking by officials can
be stopped by the proper functioning of our basic insti-
tutions -- Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches.
But America has been far from successful in
dealing with the sort of crime that obsesses America day and
night -- I mean street crime, crime that invades our
neighborhoods and our homes, murders, robberies, rapes,
muggings, hold-ups, break-ins -- the kind of brutal
violence that makes us fearful of strangers and afraid
to go out at night.
In thinking about this problem, I do not
vindictive punishment of the criminal, but protection
of the innocent victim.
The victims are my primary concern. That is
why I do not talk about law and order and why I return to
the Constitutional phrase -- insuring domestic tranquility.
The overwhelming majority of Americans obey the
law willingly and without coercion, but even the most
law-abiding among us are still human, and so it makes
ordinary common sense that we promulgate rules and that
there be enforcement of the rules to buttress the normal
inclination of most people to obey the rules.
As James Madison asked in The Federalist, and
I quote, "But what is government itself but the greatest
of all reflections of human nature? If men were angels,"
said Madison, "no government would be necessary."
MORE
Page 6
Since men and women are not angels, we must
have the apparatus of law enforcement. Those who prey
on others, especially by violence, are very, very few
in number. A very small percentage of the whole
population accounts for a very large proportion of the
vicious crimes committed.
For example, in one study of nearly 10,000
males born in 1945, it was found that only 6 percent of
them accounted for two-thirds of all of the violent
crimes committed by the entire group.
Most serious crimes are committed by repeaters.
These relatively few persistent criminals who cause so
much misery and fear are really the core of the problem.
The rest of the American people have a right to pro-
tection from their violence.
Most of the victims of violent crime are the
poor, the old, the young, the disadvantaged minorities,
the people who live in the most crowded parts of our
cities, the most defenseless.
These victims have a valid claim on the rest
of society for the protection and the personal safety
that they cannot provide for themselves- short, for
domestic tranquility.
Hardly a day passes when some politician does
not call for a massive crackdown on crime, but the problem
is infinitely more complex than that. Such an approach
has not proven effective in the long haul. It is
not the American style.
We need a precise and effective solution.
One problem is that our busiest courts are overloaded.
They are so overloaded that very few cases are actually
tried.
One study showed that in a county in Wisconsin,
only 6 percent of the convictions resulted from cases
which came to trial. According to another study, over
a three-year period in Manhattan, only about 3 percent
of the persons indicted were convicted after trial.
I think this audience knows the explanation.
It is plea bargaining --in many cases, plea bargaining
required by the ever growing pressure of an increased
caseload.
The popular notion that trial follows arrest
is a misconception in a vast majority of cases, and this
audience will also be quick to guess one of the basic
reasons.
MORE
Page 7
The increase in arrests has been much more
rapid than the increase in the number of judges,
prosecutors and public defenders. The most obvious
response to this imbalance has been to accept pleas
of guilt in return for short prison terms or sentences,
or no sentences at all.
According to a recent authoritative report,
half of the persons convicted of felonies in New York
received no detention whatsoever. And of the other
half, only one-fifth were sentenced to more than one
year of imprisonment.
Imprisonment thus too seldom follows conviction
for a felony.
In the Sixties, crime rates went higher and
higher, but the number of persons in prisons, State
and Federal, actually went down. A Rand Corporation
report of one major jurisdiction showed that of all
convicted robbers with a major prior record, only 27
percent were sent to prison after conviction.
Notice, please, that I am speaking only of
convicted felons. I am not chastising our system for
determining guilt or innocence. I am urging that
virtually all of those convicted of a violent crime
should be sent to prison.
This should be done especially if a gun was involved
or there was other substantial danger or injury to
a person or persons. There certainly should be
imprisonment if the convicted person has a prior record
of convictions.
Most serious offenders are repeaters. We
owe it to their victims--past, present and future--to
get them off the streets. This is just everyday common
sense, as I see it. The crime rate will go down if
persons who habitually commit most of the predatory
crimes are kept in prison for a reasonable period, if
convicted, because they will then not be free to commit
more crimes.
Convicts should be treated humanely in prison.
Loss of liberty should be the chief punishment. Improve-
ment in the treatment of and facilities for prisoners
is long overdue, but it is essential that there be less
delay in bringing arrested persons to trial, less plea
bargaining, and more courtroom determination of guilt
or innocence, and that all -- or practically all -- of
those convicted of predatory crime be sent to prison.
MORE
Page 8
What can the White House do about this? The
Federal role is limited because most violent crimes
are matters for State and local authorities. Further,
the creation of criminal sanctions and their interpre-
tation are the concerns of the Legislative and Judicial
Branches, as well as the Executive Branch.
The principal role of the Federal Government
in the area of crime control has centered in providing
financial and technical assistance to the several
States. However, while we are all aware that the
actual control of crime in this country is a matter
primarily of State responsibility under the Constitution,
there are several areas in which it is the chief respon-
sibility of the Federal Government.
MORE
Page 9
In many other areas, it is the responsibility
of the Federal Government to augment the enforcement
efforts of the States when it becomes necessary. What
else can we do? The Federal Code can be modified
to make more sentences mandatory and, therefore, punishment
more certain for those convicted of violent crimes.
We can provide leadership in making funds available
to add judges, prosecutors and public defenders to the
Federal system. This Federal model should encourage
States to adopt similar priorities for the use of their
own funds and those provided by the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration.
We can encourage better use of existing prison
facilities to minimize detention of persons convicted
of minor crimes, thus making more room for the convicted
felons to be imprisoned.
There are a number of estimates of how much
the crime rate would be reduced if all convicted criminals
with major records were sent to prison instead of being
set free after conviction, as too many are today.
Although we might expect the certainty of a
prison sentence to serve as a deterrent, let us
remember that one obvious effect of prison is to
separate lawbreakers from the law-abiding society.
In totalitarian states, it is easier to assure
law and order. Dictators eliminate freedom of movement,
of speech and of choice. They control the news media
and the educational system. They conscript the entire
society and deprive people of basic civil liberties.
Dy such methods, crime can be strictly controlled.
But, in effect, the entire society becomes one huge prison.
This is not a choice we are willing to consider.
Edmund Burke commented appropriately in his
Reflections on the French Revolution. Burke said, and
I quote, "To make a government requires no great
prudence. Settle the seat of power, teach obedience
and the work is done. To give freedom is still more
easy. It is not necessary to guide, it only requires
to let go the rein. But to form a free Government, that
is to temper together these opposite elements of liberty
and restraint in one consistent work requires much
thought, deep reflection, a sagacious, powerful and
combining mind."
Page 10
Since these words were written, the world has
changed profoundly. But the old question still remains:
Can a free people restrain crime without sacrificing
fundamental liberties and a heritage of compassion?
I am confident of the American answer. Let
it become a vital element on America's new agenda. Let
us show that we can temper together those opposite elements
of liberty and restraint into one consistent whole.
Let us set an example for the world of a law-
abiding America glorying in its freedom as well as its
respect for law. Let us, at last, fulfill the
Constitutional promise of domestic tranquility for all
of our law-abiding citizens.
Thank you very much.
END
(AT 10:25 P.M. EDT)