Skip to main content

Full text of "Most of a century : law and public service, 1930s to 1990s : oral history transcript / 1995"

See other formats 


University  of  California  •  Berkeley 


Regional  Oral  History  Office  University  of  California 

The  Bancroft  Library  Berkeley,  California 


University  of  California 
Source  of  Community  Leaders  Series 


Louis  H.  Heilbron 
MOST  OF  A  CENTURY:  LAW  AND  PUBLIC  SERVICE,  1930s  TO  1990s 


With  an  Introduction  by 
Clark  Kerr 


Interviews  Conducted  by 

Carole  Hicke 

1989-1993 


Copyright  ©  1995  by  The  Regents  of  the  University  of  California 


Since  1954  the  Regional  Oral  History  Office  has  been  interviewing  leading 
participants  in  or  well-placed  witnesses  to  major  events  in  the  development  of 
Northern  California,  the  West,  and  the  Nation.  Oral  history  is  a  modern  research 
technique  involving  an  interviewee  and  an  informed  interviewer  in  spontaneous 
conversation.  The  taped  record  is  transcribed,  lightly  edited  for  continuity  and 
clarity,  and  reviewed  by  the  interviewee.  The  resulting  manuscript  is  typed  in 
final  form,  indexed,  bound  with  photographs  and  illustrative  materials,  and 
placed  in  The  Bancroft  Library  at  the  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  and 
other  research  collections  for  scholarly  use.  Because  it  is  primary  material, 
oral  history  is  not  intended  to  present  the  final,  verified,  or  complete 
narrative  of  events.  It  is  a  spoken  account,  offered  by  the  interviewee  in 
response  to  questioning,  and  as  such  it  is  reflective,  partisan,  deeply  involved, 
and  irreplaceable. 


************************************ 


All  uses  of  this  manuscript  are  covered  by  a  legal  agreement 
between  The  Regents  of  the  University  of  California  and  Louis  H. 
Heilbron  dated  December  30,  1992.  The  manuscript  is  thereby  made 
available  for  research  purposes.  All  literary  rights  in  the 
manuscript,  including  the  right  to  publish,  are  reserved  to  The 
Bancroft  Library  of  the  University  of  California,  Berkeley.  No  part 
of  the  manuscript  may  be  quoted  for  publication  without  the  written 
permission  of  the  Director  of  The  Bancroft  Library  of  the  University 
of  California,  Berkeley. 

Requests  for  permission  to  quote  for  publication  should  be 
addressed  to  the  Regional  Oral  History  Office,  486  Library, 
University  of  California,  Berkeley  94720,  and  should  include 
identification  of  the  specific  passages  to  be  quoted,  anticipated 
use  of  the  passages,  and  identification  of  the  user.  The  legal 
agreement  with  Louis  H.  Heilbron  requires  that  he  be  notified  of  the 
request  and  allowed  thirty  days  in  which  to  respond. 

It  is  recommended  that  this  oral  history  be  cited  as  follows: 


Louis  H.  Heilbron,  "Most  of  a  Century: 
Law  and  Public  Service,  1930s  to  1990s," 
an  oral  history  conducted  1989-1993  by 
Carole  Hicke,  Regional  Oral  History 
Office,  The  Bancroft  Library,  University 
of  California,  Berkeley,  1995. 


Copy  no. 


Louis  Heilbron,    1995 


Cataloging  Information 


HEILBRON,  Louis  H.   (b.  1907)  Lawyer 

Most  of  a  Century:   Law  and  Public  Service.  1930s  to  1990s.   1995, 
xxi,  397  pp. 

University  of  California,  Berkeley,  and  Boalt  Hall,  1920s  and  '30s; 
state  relief  and  welfare  agencies,  1930s;  Postwar  reorganization  of 
Austrian  government;  law  and  labor  negotiations  work  with  Heller, 
Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe  law  firm,  1930s- '90s;  California 
postsecondary  education  issues  in  1960s:   development  and  activation 
of  the  California  State  Colleges  system;  1969  protest  at  San  Francisco 
State  College;  public  and  professional  services:   Jewish  Community 
Center,  World  Affairs  Council,  KQED  television  station,  Congregation 
Emanu-El;  Golden  Gate  University;  California  Historical  Society. 

Introduction  by  Clark  Kerr. 

Interviewed  1989-1993  by  Carole  Hicke  for  University  of  California, 
Source  of  Community  Leaders  Series.   Regional  Oral  History  Office,  The 
Bancroft  Library,  University  of  California,  Berkeley. 


This  oral  history  of  Louis  H.  Heilbron  was  made  possible  by 
contributions  from  the  following  sources 


California  State  Archives 

Heller,  Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe 

University  of  California,  Class  of  1928 

University  of  California,  Class  of  '31  Endowment  Fund 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS --Louis  H.  Heilbron 

PREFACE  i 

INTRODUCTION- -by  Clark  Kerr  ix 

INTERVIEW  HISTORY- -by  Carole  Hicke  xii 

BIOGRAPHICAL  INFORMATION  xv 

I   BACKGROUND  1 

Family  History  1 

Primary  and  Secondary  Education  3 

University  of  California,  Berkeley  8 

Boalt  Hall  School  of  Law,  1928-1931  18 

II   RELIEF  IN  CALIFORNIA  IN  1930s  26 

Appointment  26 

Revision  of  the  State  Indigent  Laws  27 

Emergency  Relief  for  Unemployed  Residents  30 

Aid  to  Transients  40 

Self-Help  Cooperatives  46 

Rural  Rehabilitation  Program  47 

Consultant  to  Department  of  Social  Welfare  50 

III   FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  AND  MILITARY  SERVICE  57 

Pearl  Harbor  and  California  57 

Board  of  Economic  Warfare  58 

Joining  the  U.S.  Army;  Training  62 

Further  Preparation  in  England  66 

England--Vls,  V2s,  and  D-Day  69 

Through  Italy  to  Austria  75 

Allied  Control  Commission,  Austria  80 

Occupation  of  Vienna  83 

Return  to  the  U.S.A.  and  Law  Practice  99 

IV   HELLER,  EHRMAN,  WHITE  &  McAULIFFE  LAW  FIRM,  1934-PRESENT  100 

Law  School:  Boalt  Hall  100 

Joining  Heller,  Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe,  1934  102 

Early  Days  104 

Hillside  Support  Case  106 

United  Airlines  Crash  108 

Choosing  the  Jury  109 

Senior  Partners  and  Clients  111 

Office  Space  and  Routines  126 

Depression  Work  127 

More  on  Early  Practice  129 

Japanese  Relocation  133 

Labor  Practice  135 

Postwar  Years  136 

The  Art  of  Negotiating  139 

Notes  Re  Negotiation  in  Labor  Agreements  140 


ERISA  143 

Changes  in  Offices  145 

World  Trade  Center  147 

Golden  Gateway  149 

1200  California  Street  151 

Petrillo:  Educating  the  Client  152 

A  Settlement,  a  Development,  and  the  Prime  Rib  155 

KQED  and  the  Tower  158 

Power  in  Bureaucracy  160 

Legal  Work  Over  the  Years  162 

Other  Legal  Matters  163 

Growth  of  Heller,  Ehrman  166 

Outside  and  Inside  Activities  171 

Overview  175 

V   HIGHER  EDUCATION:  MEETING  CHALLENGES  IN  THE  1960s,  1970s, 

AND  1980s  184 

State  Board  of  Education  184 
Master  Plan  for  Education  and  the  California  State  College 

System  189 

Survey  Committee:  Its  Recommendations  and  Legislation  189 

Transition  Planning  195 

California  State  Colleges  198 

First  Chair  in  a  New  System  198 

Expansion  and  New  Campus  Sites  203 

Problems  for  a  California  State  Colleges  Trustee,  1960-1961   206 

Protests  and  Strike  at  San  Francisco  State  College  214 

Coordinating  Council  for  Higher  Education  234 

Accreditation  246 

Chairman,  Advisory  Board,  San  Francisco  State  University 

1970-1976  257 

International  House,  Berkeley  263 

Class  of  1928  269 

VI   SECTARIAN  INTERESTS  270 

Temple  Emanu-El  270 

Jewish  Community  Center  289 

American  Jewish  Committee  291 

VII   OTHER  COMMUNITY  SERVICE  294 

World  Affairs  Council  294 

California  Historical  Society  304 

Western  Jewish  History  Center  315 

Human  Rights  Commission  for  San  Francisco  City  and  County, 

1969-1975  316 

Golden  Gate  University:  Board  of  Trustees,  1969-present  320 

KQED  Television:  Its  History  342 

Phi  Beta  Kappa,  Northern  California  Chapter  357 

Philanthropy  359 

VIII   THE  HEILBRON  FAMILY  361 

TAPE  GUIDE  371 


Appendix  A.  Selected  speeches  from  From  the  Beginning:  Commencement 
Addresses  and  Selected  Papers  of  Louis  H.  Heilbron,  California 
State  University  Long  Beach,  1983  373 

Appendix  B.   Louis  H.  Heilbron,  Family  and  Childhood,  by  Louis  Heilbron, 

1995  386 

Appendix  C.   "An  Upright  Man,"  California  Monthly,  November  1989        394 

Appendix  D.   "Year  of  Crisis:  How  the  State  Bar  Survived;  San  Francisco's 
David  Heilbron  is  Widely  Credited  with  Saving  the  Bar,"  The 
Recorder,  September  12,  1986  395 

INDEX  398 


PREFACE 


On  the  occasion  of  the  50th  anniversary  of  our  graduation  from  the 
University  of  California  at  Berkeley,  the  Class  of  1931  made  the  decision 
to  present  its  alma  mater  with  an  endowment  for  an  oral  history  series  to 
be  titled  "The  University  of  California,  Source  of  Community  Leaders." 
The  Class  of  1931  Oral  History  Endowment  provides  a  permanent  source  of 
funding  for  an  ongoing  series  of  interviews  by  the  Regional  Oral  History 
Office  of  The  Bancroft  Library. 

The  commitment  of  the  endowment  is  to  carry  out  interviews  with 
persons  related  to  the  University  who  have  made  outstanding  contributions 
to  the  community,  by  which  is  meant  the  state  or  the  nation,  or  to  a 
particular  field  of  endeavor.   The  memoirists,  selected  by  a  committee 
set  up  by  the  class,  are  to  come  from  Cal  alumni,  faculty,  and 
administrators.   The  men  and  women  chosen  will  comprise  an  historic  honor 
list  in  the  rolls  of  the  University. 

To  have  the  ability  to  make  a  major  educational  endowment  is  a 
privilege  enjoyed  by  only  a  few  individuals.   Where  a  group  joins 
together  in  a  spirit  of  gratitude  and  admiration  for  their  alma  mater, 
dedicating  their  gift  to  one  cause,  they  can  affect  the  history  of  that 
institution  greatly. 

The  oral  histories  illustrate  the  strength  and  skills  the  University 
of  California  has  given  to  its  sons  and  daughters,  and  the  diversity  of 
ways  that  they  have  passed  those  gifts  on  to  the  wider  community.   We 
envision  a  lengthening  list  of  University-inspired  community  leaders 
whose  accounts,  preserved  in  this  University  of  California,  Source  of 
Community  Leaders  Series,  will  serve  to  guide  students  and  scholars  in 
the  decades  to  come. 

Lois  L.  Swabel 
President,  Class  of  1931 

William  H.  Holabird 

President,  retired,  Class  of  1931 

Harold  Kay,  M.D. , 

Chairman,  Class  of  1931  Gift  Committee 


September  1993 

Walnut  Creek,  California 


ii 


DONORS  TO  THE  CLASS  OF  1931  ANNIVERSARY  FUND 


Jane  Bolton  Adams 

Robert  E.  Agnew 

Harry  Albert 

Margaret  F.  Allen 

Dr.  Wallace  E.  Allen 

Zal  Alter 

L.  Stern  Altshuler 

Margaret  B.  Ancker 

Janet  Mills  Anderson 

Dr.  Miles  H.  Anderson 

Marie  F.  Anderson 

Harry  C.  Andrews 

Anonymous 

Beatrice  Armstrong 

Jean  Cope  Armstrong 

Florence  Hahn  Ashley 

Hope  G.  Athearn 

Tadini  Bacigalupi,  Jr. 

Charles  L.  Badley 

Mary  H.  Baker 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Robert  E.  Baker 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Howard  F.  Ballinger 

Ralph  C.  Bangsberg 

Pina  J.  Barbieri 

Ellen  Silver  Barnett 

Harold  E.  Barhart 

Thomas  F.  Barrett 

Beryl  Evelyn  Flick  Bates 

John  D.  Bauer 

Grace  Wallace  Beckett 

Charles  F.  Bedford 

George  R.  Bell 

Barbara  Dunton  Benedict 

Hertha  P.  Bengston 

Mary  Woods  Bennett 

Virginia  Smith  Bennett 

Anna  0.  Bent z en 

Betty  Bergemann 

Lester  J.  Berry 

Brigadier  General  Paul  Berrigan 

Jerome  W.  Bettman,  M.D. 

Lucille  K.  Bewley 

Raymond  Biagi 


Vivian  Y.  Blevins 

A.  Harry  Bliss 

Irene  Fisk  Blowers 

Max  Bogner 

George  D.  Bogert 

Katherine  Smith  Bolt 

Helen  H.  Bondshu 

Aileen  E.  Boogaert 

Helen  R.  Bottimore 

Dr.  and  Mrs.  James  J.  Brady 

Clark  L.  Bradley 

F.  Glenn  Bramble 

Yaye  Togasaki  Breitenbach 

A.  R.  Brooding 

Dorothy  W.  Brown 

Alan  K.  Browne 

J.  F.  Brust 

Ada  Buckingham 

Philip  Buckingham 

Jean  C.  Burtchaell 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  William  T.  Butner 

California  Alumni  Club  of  Rossraoor 

Fred  A.  Camp 

Mary  E.  Carapioni 

Judge  Walter  Carpeneti 

Walter  W.  Carter 

Adeline  Cassettari 

Elena  Bianchini  Catelli 

Gladys  N.  Ceccotti 

Daisy  Wong  Chinn 

Francis  Lai  Chinn 

Katherine  I.  Clark 

E.  F.  Chase 

Julia  A.  Cline 

Betsy  Kinkel  Clopton 

lone  Cockrell 

Joel  Coffield 

Waldo  E.  Cohn 

Hilma  Colton 

Marie  F.  Colwell 

James  F.  Conley 

Maylou  B.  Conroy 

Robert  E.  Cooper,  Jr. 

Margaret  Coope 


iii 


Dr.  James  Hal lam  Cope 

Raymond  Cope 

George  L.  Cory 

Lemuel  C.  Cragholm 

Harlene  Eachus  Cripe 

Arthur  P.  Crist,  Jr. 

Cecil  Cross 

Ralph  Cross 

Sam  Cross 

Wilhelmina  Cumming 

Professor  Charles  C.  Gushing 

Charlotte  Cerf  Gushing 

Theodore  D.  Dabagh 

Dorothy  E.  Dady 

George  H.  Danis 

John  0.  Davis,  Jr. 

Vernon  DeMars 

Sidney  V.  Dennison 

Marie  Fitzgerald  Devin 

Marion  Devlin 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Leland  Dibble 

Frances  C.  Dieterich 

Elizabeth  Dittman 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Fred  A.  Divita 

Alice  K.  Dolan 

Ted  A.  Dungan 

Cordell  Durrell 

Mildred  Squier  Earl 

Charles  K.  Ebert 

Helen  G.  Ebert 

Mildred  Long  Ehrhardt 

Adele  C.  Eisman 

Dr.  Maurice  Eliaser,  Jr. 

C.  A.  Emery 

Eleanor  Engstrand 

J.  Gordon  Epperson,  M.D. 

Dr.  Ervin  Epstein 

Helen  E.  Estep 

B.  D.  Evers 

Doris  F.  Falk 

J.  Clarence  Felcino 

Dr.  John  M.  Fernald 

Mildred  Field 

Clair  N.  Fishell 

Margaret  O'Brien  Fisher 

Dr.  Howard  B.  Flanders 

Katherine  A.  Fleager 

Julia  A.  Foote 

Dr.  John  Douglas  Forbes 

Elvin  L.  Fowler 


Robert  H.  Frank 

Julius  H.  Freitag 

Mary  C.  Freitas 

Arthur  Frick 

Edward  Frick 

Evelyn  L.  Friedenthal 

Gail  Merwin  Fritz 

Arthur  A.  Frost 

Elizabeth  L.  Fuller  (Gladys  Lund) 

Y.  Fred  Fujikawa 

Mary  Gamburg 

Adelia  S.  Garard 

Dr.  and  Mrs.  Levon  K.  Garron 

Edwin  C.  Garwood 

William  S.  Gavin 

Charlotte  Ham  Gerdes 

Helen  C.  Gibson 

Winifred  S.  Gibson 

Ivy  Winn  Gill 

Virginia  Gilloon 

Steven  M.  Goldblatt 

Grace  Goodfriend 

Ruth  H.  Goodrich 

Marion  Gorrill 

Virginia  W.  Grace 

Evelyn  Graham 

Harvey  T.  Granger 

Florence  Gray 

Sterling  Steffen  Green 

Edward  Gustafson 

Mary  Catherine  Gustavson 

K.  Verner  Haapala 

Robert  S.  Hager 

Elizabeth  G.  Hahn 

Theodore  E.  Haig 

Marlin  W.  Haley 

Wilbur  H.  Halsey 

Carl  W.  Handy 

Mary  Beth  Hansen 

Maurice  A.  Harband 

Maurine  S.  Hardin 

Harrison  Harkins 

William  L.  Harr 

Katharin  F.  Harrell 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Robert  Harris 

Vivian  C.  Harrison 

Robert  M.  Hartwell 

Edith  C.  Hassan 

Howard  Hassard 

Lois  H.  Hastie 


iv 


Helena  A.  Quail  Hawkins 

Hazel  J.  Hawkinson 

Margaret  I.  Hayden 

Juan  C.  Hayes 

Marjory  Hayes 

Edna  Heatherly 

Glan  T.  Heisch 

J.  Henry  Heide 

John  J.  Helm 

Annie  Henry 

Emily  C.  Herndon 

Edith  Meyer  Herreshoff 

Stephen  G.  Herrick 

Nathan  R.  Hertzberg 

Walter  S.  Hertzmann 

Max  L.  Herzog 

Dr.  Allen  T.  Hinman 

Mabel  Hirschman 

Elsie  D.  Hoeck 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  William  H.  Holabird 

Vera  Holleuffer 

Robert  W.  Hollis 

Wilfred  Elliott  Horn 

Marjorie  A.  Howard 

W.  George  L.  Hughes 

Donald  E.  Hunter 

Jean  Hurlbert 

Dorothy  Hynding 

Ward  D.  Ingrim 

Erma  M.  Jacobsen 

Leonore  A.  Jacques 

Raymond  W.  Jewell 

A.  H.  Johnson 

Mrs.  Donald  Johnson 

J.  W.  Johnson 

George  H.  Johnston 

Ilene  F.  Joyce 

Lillian  M.  Kavanagh 

Dr.  and  Mrs.  Harold  Kay 

Irma  Meyers  Kennedy 

Mary  M.  Kennedy 

Evelyn  Kerkof 

Albert  H.  Kessler 

Dorothy  M.  Kesseli 

Kenneth  A.  Keyes 

Frank  M.  King 

Katherine  E.  King 

John  Knight 

Margaret  Farley  Koehler 

Howard  A.  Roster 


Etta  Jean  Kotcher 

Adrian  A.  Kragen 

Arleen  A.  Krentz 

Charlotte  Kruger 

Fred  N.  Kruse 

Ruth  Ann  Lage 

Anne  Gibson  Lanpher 

Scott  H.  Lathrop 

Lowell  A.  Ledgett 

Dr.  Sanford  E.  Leeds 

Jack  R.  Lehmkuhl 

Edwin  T.  Lindley,  Jr. 

Mary  Ann  Linsdale 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Edwin  Lisherness 

Flora  Mattoon  Locke 

Dorothy  Ford  LoForte 

Wilraer  Grace  Logan 

Atha  Darby  Loggins 

Fred  W.  Lorenz 

Katherine  S.  Lorenzen 

Marguerite  A.  Lorton 

Dorothy  R.  Lowe 

Bernice  E.  Lowenstein 

Juliet  Lowenthal 

Morris  Lowenthal 

Victor  F.  Ludewig 

George  J.  Lyons 

Mildred  Wall  MacLean 

Kathryn  Prost  MacLeod 

Baxter  C.  Madden,  Jr. 

Elizabeth  F.  Mahon 

Genevieve  T.  Malstrom 

Plato  Malozemoff 

Edward  W.  Martin 

George  W.  Martin 

H.  E.  Mathis 

Benjamin  S.  Matsuda 

C.  Geneva  McCann 

Harold  McCann 

Sue  McCarthy 

Tom  McCarthy 

Horace  R.  McCombie 

Thomas  B.  McCord 

Blanche  E.  McCormick 

George  H.  McElroy 

Sister  Mary  A.  McFeeley 

Helene  Bing  McGalliard 

Imogene  W.  Mclndoe 

Jewel  Smith  McKenna 

Ruth  E.  McNulty 


Frank  W.  McQuiston,  Jr. 

Clifford  L.  Merkel 

Arthur  H.  Middleton 

Roger  F.  Miller 

Hazel  Emery  Mills 

Florence  Mintz 

Henry  G.  Mishkin 

Tulie  Toru  Miura 

Jane  Moore  Mock 

Margaret  G.  Molarsky 

Alice  Mollison 

John  F.  Molony 

Betty  W.  Moore 

Alice  K.  Montin 

Edwin  Morby 

Iwao  M.  Moriyama 

Kenneth  L.  Morris 

Anna  C.  Morrison 

Jean  Mosheim 

Rush  S.  Mossman 

Ruth  S.  Mossman 

Robert  S.  Mott 

R.  P.  Murphy 

Margaret  D.  Myers 

Hudson  F.  Nagle 

Genshiro  Nakamura 

Natalie  Neher 

Alma  Goyun  Neubarth 

Clem  J.  Nevitt 

Scott  and  Ruth  Waldo  Newhall 

Arthur  W.  Newman 

Ferril  R.  Nickle 

Meredith  H.  Nicoles 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Richard  H.  Nida 

Neal  J.  Nomura 

Florence  M.  Odemar 

Edith  C.  Oldendorf 

Nichi  Oka  Onuma 

Esther  Carlson  Osnas 

Charles  P.  Paccagnella 

Marion  D.  Pack 

C.  J.  Paderewski 

Edwin  W.  Palmrose 

Mabel  E.  Parker 

Catherine  Chapin  Parsons 

Elsie  Jeanette  Plath 

Jeryme  C.  Potter 

Harold  Trent  Power 

Milton  H.  Price 

Margaret  Sellers  Priest 


Bea  Edwards  Pruiett 

Randall  Ramey 

Charles  Randolph 

Claire  Hagerty  Ranken 

Walter  H.  Redit 

William  D.  Reidt 

Marie  C.  Reinhart 

Frederick  W.  Reyland,  Jr. 

Embree  E.  Reynolds 

Larry  Rhine 

Nancy  Surr  Richardson 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  John  D.  Riner 

John  Rinne 

James  H.  Ripley 

Mary  E.  Ritchie 

Agnes  R.  Robb 

Lawrence  M.  Roberts 

Elsie  Merrill  Robinson 

Elsie  B.  Roemer 

Edgar  0.  Rogers 

Elizabeth  D.  Rollins 

Matilde  Ronne 

Alice  Frances  Rooney 

Barbara  D.  Ross 

Elaine  Routbort 

W.  Byron  Rumford,  Sr. 

Elizabeth  Y.  Rusk 

Margaret  Scherer  Sabine 

William  L.  Sanoorn 

Kermit  Sather 

Marietta  Schlaman 

Walter  C.  Schmidt 

Victor  Schoch 

Dorothy  Sciutto 

Griffith  W.  Sherrill 

Helen  C.  Shirley 

Ross  T.  Shoaf 

Lois  M.  Shupe 

Edna  Stanbridge  Sibole 

Anne  Meux  Siegfried 

Johanna  Sigelkoff 

Dr.  A.  E.  Simmons 

Helen  C.  Skidmore 

Mansuetta  Slater 

Dr.  C.  C.  Smith 

Valerie  W.  Smith 

John  C.  Snidecor 

J.  Robert  Snyder 

Frank  Solinsky  III 

Halcyon  B.  Spencer 


vi 


Evelyn  Spiegelman 

Harry  C.  Stanley 

Lois  I.  Startt 

Marie  Stayton 

Alta  V.  Steengrafe 

Charles  Stefanetti 

H.  G.  Stevens 

Elizabeth  M.  Stevick 

Lucien  B.  St.  John 

Fred  Stripp 

J.  Ralph  Stone 

Leonora  Hohl  Strohmaier 

G.  Douglas  Sturges 

Robert  Sutro 

Lois  L.  Swabel 

George  E.  Sweeney 

Irene  Tamony 

Anna  Rose  Taylor 

Kathleen  Lapham  Taylor 

Elise  Heyman  Terrill 

Dr.  Mary  F.  Thelen 

Bernhard  Tieslau 

Eleanor  Todd 

Sanford  M.  Treguboff 

Charlotte  Treutlein 

Helen  Kathryn  Trevey 

Irma  B.  Uren 

Arthur  W.  Van  de  Mark 

Elvin  Van  Ness 

Robert  N.  Varney 

Lawrence  0.  Vireno 

Ruth  R.  von  Uhlit 

Clifford  Wayne  Vredenburgh 

Katherine  A.  Walsh 

Margaret  A.  Ward 

Mae  Heisler  Watkins 

Margaret  H.  Watzek 

Priscilla  S.  Wegars 

Ralph  W.  Weilerstein 

Robert  A.  Weimer 

Dorothy  Weis 

Kenneth  and  Elsie  Wells 

Margaret  C.  Weymouth 

Phyllis  B.  White 

W.  A.  Wilkinson 

Ralph  E.  Williams 

Jean  Williamson 

Garff  B.  Wilson 

Honora  K.  Wilson 

Paul  S.  Windrem 


Helen  J.  Winkenhofer 

Elmer  C.  Winkle r 

Frederick  De  Boom  Witzel 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  Leonard  R.  Wohletz 

Russell  Wolfe 

Marion  G.  Wolford 

Harold  A.  Wood 

Jane  A.  Woods 

James  S.  Wyatt,  Jr. 

Mrs.  Robert  W.  Yates 

Verna  F.  Zander 

Margaret  Zealear 

Edward  M.  Zeller 

Claude  E.  Zobell 


Donors  1986  to  1991 

Valentin  0.  Arellano 
Jean  C.  Armstrong 
Mary  C.  Baker 

BankAmerica  Foundation  (matching) 
Mary  Woods  Bennett 
Alan  K.  Browne 
Raymond  W.  Cope 
Fitzgerald  Abbott  &  Beardsley 
Elinor  B.  Freitag  in  memory  of 
Professor  Julius  H.  Freitag 
Mrs.  Levon  K.  Garron 
Charlotte  H.  Gerdes 
Marlin  W.  Haley 
Robert  M.  Hartwell 
Juan  C.  Hayes 
Edna  Heatherly 
J.  Henry  Heide 
William  H.  Holabird 
William  H.  Holabird  in  memory  of 

John  J.  Helm 
Aubrey  H.  Johnson 
Adrian  A.  Kragen  in  memory  of 

Alan  K.  Browne 
Flora  M.  Locke 
Mrs.  Wilmer  G.  Logan 
Victor  F.  Ludewig 
Kathryn  Post  MacLeod  in  memory  of 

Alan  K.  Browne 
Plato  Malozemoff 
Margaret  G.  Molarsky 


vii 


Donors  1986  to  1991 

Anna  C.  Morrison 

Mabel  E.  Parker 

Jason  Plowe 

Jeryme  C.  Potter 

Helen  Redfield 

Mrs.  R.  Q.  Roemer 

Edgar  0.  Rogers 

Elaine  L.  Routbort 

UCB  Alumni  Club  of  Rossmoor  in 

memory  of  Alan  K.  Browne 
Arthur  W.  van  de  Mark 
Katharine  A.  Walsh 


Donors  1994  to  1995 

Margaret  F.  Allen 
Helen  R.  Holabird 
Willa  K.  Baum,  in  memory  of  Dr. 

Harold  Kay 
Germaine  LaBerge,  in  memory  of 

Dr.  Harold  Kay 
William  Lucas  Blanckenburg,  in 

memory  of  David  C.  Dunlap 


Donors  1991  to  1992 

Mrs.  Levon  K.  Garron 

Marlin  W.  Haley 

J.  Henry  Heide 

Mr.  and  Mrs.  William  H.  Holabird 

W.  George  L.  Hughes 

Anna  C.  Morrison 

Mrs.  Jeryme  Potter 


Donors  1992  to  1993 

Frances  W.  Garron 
J.  Henry  Heide 
William  H.  Holabird 
Adrian  A.  Kragen 

Donors  1993  to  1994 

Wallace  E.  Allen 

Charlotte  C.  Gushing 

Sidney  V.  Dennison 

William  R.  Eastman,  Jr. 

Frances  W.  Garron 

Charlotte  H.  Gerdes 

Edna  Heatherly 

J.  Henry  Heide 

William  H.  Holabird 

John  Howard  Henry 

Adrian  A.  Kragen,  in  memory  of 

William  Holabird 
Esther  M.  Osnas 


viii 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
SOURCE  OF  COMMUNITY  LEADERS  SERIES 


Robert  Gordon  Sproul  Oral  History  Project.   Two  volumes,  1986. 

Includes  interviews  with  thirty- four  persons  who  knew  him  well. 

Bennett,  Mary  Woods,  class  of  '31,  A  Career  in  Higher  Education:   Mills 
College  1935-1974.  1987. 

Browne,  Alan  K. ,  class  of  '31,  "Mr.  Municipal  Bond":   Bond  Investment 
Management.  Bank  of  America,  1929-1971.  1990. 

Devlin,  Marion,  class  of  '31,  Women's  News  Editor:  Vallelo  Times-Herald. 
1931-1978.  1991. 

Heilbron,  Louis  H. ,  class  of  '31,  Most  of  a  Century:  Law  and  Public 
Service.  1930s  to  1990s.  1995. 

Hassard,  H.  Howard,  class  of  '31,  The  California  Medical  Association. 
Medical  Insurance,  and  the  Law,  1935-1992.  1993. 

Kay,  Harold,  M.D.,  class  of  '31,  A  Berkeley  Boy's  Service  to  the  Medical 
Community  of  Alameda  County,  1935-1994.  1994. 

Kragen,  Adrian  A.,  class  of  '31,  A  Law  Professor's  Career:  Teaching, 
Private  Practice,  and  Legislative  Representative,  1934  to  1989. 
1991. 

Peterson,  Rudolph  A.,  class  of  '25,  A  Career  in  International  Banking 
with  the  Bank  of  America.  1936-1970.  and  the  United  Nations 
Development  Program.  1971-1975.  1994. 

Stripp,  Fred  S.,  Jr.,  class  of  '32,  University  Debate  Coach,  Berkeley 
Civic  Leader,  and  Pastor,  1990. 

Dettner,  Anne  deG.  Low  Beer,  class  of  '26,  social  activist  and  radiation 
researcher,  in  process. 

Hedgpeth,  Joel,  class  of  '33,  Marine  biologist,  in  process. 

Trefethen,  Eugene,  class  of  '30,  Kaiser  Industries  administrator,  in 
process . 


ix 


INTRODUCTION- -by  Clark  Kerr 

Louis  Heilbron,  as  his  oral  history  well  documents,  has  led  several 
lives.   One  of  these  lives  has  been  as  a  good  citizen  devoting  his  time, 
energy,  and  wisdom  to  the  welfare  of  his  community.   I  should  like  to 
call  particular  attention  to  his  contributions  to  higher  education  at  a 
crucial  time  in  its  history  in  the  state  of  California. 

The  crucial  time  was  the  early  1960s  when  higher  education  moved 
from  a  developing  chaos  to  becoming  the  best  overall  system  of  higher 
education  in  the  nation  and,  beyond  that,  in  the  world. 

The  developing  chaos  had  several  sources.   First,  the  three  tidal 
waves  augmenting  each  other  of  (1)  population  growth  in  California,  (2) 
the  children  of  the  GIs  nationwide  advancing  on  higher  education,  and  (3) 
the  movement  from  mass  to  universal  access  to  higher  education.   Second, 
the  lack  of  facilities,  physical  and  human,  to  match  these  tidal  waves. 
Third,  the  uncertainty  over  whether  the  politicians  or  higher  education 
should  lead  in  developing  solutions.   Fourth,  disagreements  over  the 
respective  roles  within  higher  education  for  the  University  of 
California,  the  state  colleges,  the  community  colleges,  and  the  private 
institutions . 

The  answer  was  the  Master  Plan  for  Higher  Education  of  1960. 

Leadership  was  taken  by  higher  education,  the  roles  of  the  segments  were 

set  forth,  the  facilities  were  specified  and  supplied.   An  historic 
accomplishment . 

Several  persons  played  crucial  roles,  since  any  one  of  them  had  the 
power  of  life  or  death  over  the  negotiations: 

Governor  "Pat"  Brown,  who  watched  the  process  more  than  he 
participated  in  it  but  who  signed  the  necessary  legislation  and  then 
later  became  a  very  strong  supporter; 

Roy  Simpson,  who  was  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  and  who 
was  in  charge  of  the  state  colleges  but  was  willing  to  relinquish  them  to 
their  own  independent  board; 

Glenn  Dumke,  then  president  of  San  Francisco  State  College,  who 
became  the  crucial  leader  of  the  powerful  roster  of  presidents  of  the 
state  colleges  and  who  went  along  with  the  Master  Plan  against  aggressive 
opposition  within  his  own  group; 

Louis  Heilbron,  who  was  appointed  in  March  1959  to  the  State  Board 
of  Education  by  Pat  Brown  and  then  elected  as  its  chair  in  February  1960 


when  everything  hung  in  the  balance,  and  who  later  in  1960  became  the 
first  chair  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  state  colleges.   In  these 
roles  he  advised  Pat  Brown,  was  chair  of  the  board  to  which  Roy  Simpson 
reported,  and  chair  of  the  state  college  board  that  appointed  Glenn  Dumke 
as  chancellor  of  the  state  college  system. 

Each  of  these  four  persons  was  in  a  very  difficult  position.   Many 
in  the  state  colleges  wanted  full  research  university  status.   This  was  a 
time  when  federal  funds  for  research  and  development  were  beginning  to 
rise  rapidly.   Research  university  status  meant  more  prestige,  higher 
salaries,  and  lower  teaching  loads.   By  this  time  in  their  development, 
the  state  colleges,  historically  teachers'  colleges,  had  become  liberal 
arts  colleges  as  well,  and,  in  addition,  were  adding  more  and  more 
professional  programs  as  in  engineering  and  business  administration. 
Also,  more  and  more  faculty  members  had  advanced  degrees  from  research 
universities  and  would  greatly  have  preferred  to  be  employed  in  similar 
institutions.   "Academic  drift"  was  well  underway,  and  academic 
aspirations  kept  well  ahead  of  the  drift.   Several  of  the  most  powerful 
of  the  state  college  presidents  had  their  own  desires  to  lead  research 
universities,  and,  for  internal  political  reasons,  had  promised  their 
faculties  to  achieve  research  university  status  for  them  and,  in 
addition,  had  so  promised  their  local  communities. 

A  boiling  cauldron  of  hopes,  promises,  and  expectations.   However, 
California  already  had  three  private  research  universities  (Stanford,  Cal 
Tech,  and  the  University  of  Southern  California)  and  two  well-established 
public  research  universities  (UC  Berkeley  and  UCLA) ,  with  seven  more  in 
development  (Davis,  San  Francisco,  Santa  Cruz,  Santa  Barbara,  Riverside, 
Irvine,  and  San  Diego).   This  would  total  California's  full  share  of  what 
came  by  1987  (Carnegie  Classification  of  Institutions  of  Higher 
Education)  to  be  seventy  Research  Universities  I  nationwide  —  far  beyond 
California's  proportional  share  on  a  population  basis.   To  add  twenty 
more  (the  then  number  of  state  colleges)  was  beyond  reasonable 
expectations  given  the  cost  and  the  lack  of  necessity;  and  who  then  would 
train  the  teachers  and  the  technicians?  And  where  would  all  the 
qualified  students  come  from?  There  was  an  enormous  gap  between 
aspirations  and  realistic  possibilities.   But  that  did  not  dampen  the 
aspirations.   Someone  had  to  say  "no,"  and  take  the  consequences.   A  key 
person  was  the  new  chair  of  the  State  Board  of  Education. 

At  a  crucial  meeting  held  in  the  Regent's  Room  at  Berkeley  in  March 
1960  (I  can  still  see  in  my  mind  where  he  sat),  Louis  Heilbron  made  a 
statement  giving  unequivocal  support  to  the  draft  of  the  Master  Plan. 
Among  other  things,  he  said  that  UC  should  keep  the  "crown  jewels":  basic 
research  and  training  for  the  Ph.D.,  the  M.D. ,  the  law  degree,  and  other 
advanced  degrees.   I  heaved  a  big  sigh  of  relief.   The  last  piece  of  a 
complicated  puzzle  was  now  in  place.   Louis  Heilbron  had  not  participated 
in  the  Master  Plan  Study  Committee  and  thus  was,  until  this  meeting,  not 


xi 


publicly  committed  to  its  report.   He  then  joined  others  of  us  (he  and  I 
were  the  chief  presenters)  in  appearing  in  Sacramento  before  the  Assembly 
and  the  Senate  to  support  the  plan,  which  was  subsequently  adopted  with 
only  one  dissenting  vote  among  the  120  legislators.   Louis  was  steadfast 
throughout,  although  some  of  the  state  college  presidents  and  many 
faculty  members  were  in  semi-revolt. 

Heilbron  and  Dumke  then  got  the  new  state  college  system  off  to  an 
excellent  start.   Once  the  system  was  underway,  Louis  set  the  central 
theme  as  "let  us  cultivate  our  own  garden"  and  not  just  continue  to  covet 
the  garden  of  someone  else.   And  "our  own  garden"  was  already  a  huge 
garden  that  was  being  expanded  to  cover  the  M.A.  in  all  fields.   It  was 
the  garden  of  all  the  polytechnic  skills  at  the  operational  level  that 
were  growing  so  fast  in  the  labor  market  of  an  advancing  industrial 
economy.   And  the  state  colleges  were  being  given  their  own  Board  of 
Trustees  and  other  advantages.   Enrollments  went  from  60,000  in  1960  to 
350,000  in  1990.   This  bigger  garden  came  to  be  well  cultivated. 

Louis  Heilbron  played  an  historic  role:  taking  responsibility,  using 
wisdom,  standing  fast  on  the  basic  agreement  in  the  face  of  internal 
opposition. 

This  was  not,  of  course,  the  only  time  that  Louis  Heilbron  played 
the  role  of  good  citizen,  as  this  oral  history  so  well  demonstrates,  but 
it  was  one  time  of  tough  testing.   History  has  shown  that  he  passed  the 
test  with  highest  honors.   And  Louis  passed  so  many  other  tests  the  same 
way,  as  has  his  son,  John,  as  the  Vice  Chancellor  at  UC  Berkeley,  1990  to 
1994. 


Clark  Kerr 


September  1994 
Berkeley,  California 


xii 


INTERVIEW  HISTORY- -by  Carole  Hicke 


Louis  H.  Heilbron  is  a  distinguished  San  Francisco  lawyer,  a  noted 
public  figure  in  California's  public  education  system,  and  a  dynamic 
component  of  many  community  service  agencies  local,  regional,  state,  and 
national.   Born  in  1907,  he  was  educated  in  San  Francisco  public  schools, 
obtained  a  B.A.  from  the  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  in  1928,  and 
graduated  with  a  J.D.  from  Boalt  Hall  School  of  Law  in  1931.   Heilbron 
married  the  late  Delphine  Rosenblatt  (1907-1993)  in  1929,  and  they  raised 
two  sons  David,  who  is  a  partner  of  McCutchen,  Doyle,  Brown  &  Enersen  and 
the  firm's  managing  partner  from  1985  to  1988;  and  John,  historian, 
professor,  and  the  vice  chancellor  of  the  University  of  California, 
Berkeley  from  1990  to  1994. 

Heilbron1 s  career  encompasses  more  than  five  decades  of  law  practice 
and  a  similar  period  of  public  and  community  service.   He  practiced  law 
with  Heller,  Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe  from  1934  to  1978,  specializing 
for  much  of  the  time  in  labor  law.   Dealing  with  relations  between  San 
Francisco  businesses  and  labor  unions,  he  became  a  skilled  negotiator,  an 
expertise  which  he  also  put  to  use  in  other  arenas. 

During  the  1930s  he  also  worked  for  the  California  Welfare  Board, 
helping  to  manage  California's  enormous  load  of  indigent  natives  and 
immigrants  from  the  Dust  Bowl  Depression.   Military  service  in  the  1940s 
took  him  to  post  World  War  II  Austria,  where  his  work  in  restoring 
Austrian  governmental,  social,  and  economic  institutions  led  to  an 
interest  in  labor  law. 

In  addition  to  his  subsequent  career  as  a  labor  negotiator,  Heilbron 
participated  in  the  planning  and  administration  of  California's  higher 
education  programs:  as  a  member  and  president  of  the  State  Board  of 
Education,  he  helped  develop  the  state  college  system;  then  as  the  first 
chair  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  new  California  State  Colleges,  he 
helped  to  activate  the  system. 

Somewhere  he  has  also  found  time  to  be  active  in  the  Jewish 
community  in  San  Francisco  and  to  serve  on  the  boards  of  several 
nonprofit  organizations.   In  spite  of  a  busy  schedule,  Heilbron  has 
authored  two  books:  The  College  and  University  Trustee  (1973);  and  From 
the  Beginning  (The  California  State  University)  (1983).   He  has  written 
the  following  articles:  "Higher  Education  for  the  Millions  in  California, 
The  Dynamic  State,"  1966;  "A  Look  at  Academic  Freedom"  (in  Challenge  to 
American  Youth,  1963).   Also,  many  of  his  speeches  have  been  published  as 
articles.   Whether  writing  or  speaking,  his  work  is  polished  with  the 
determination  of  a  perfectionist. 


xiii 


In  recording  Heilbron's  recollections,  I  discovered  that  he  has  had 
a  longtime  interest  in  local  and  state  history,  which  has  manifested 
itself  in  ways  such  as  serving  as  president  of  the  board  of  trustees  of 
the  California  Historical  Society,  and  in  directing  the  research  and 
writing  of  his  law  firm's  centennial  history:   Heller,  Ehrman,  White  & 
McAuliffe:  A  Century  of  Service  to  Clients  and  Community.   Not 
surprisingly,  he  is  chosen  annually  to  give  a  talk  on  the  history  of 
Heller,  Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe  to  firm  members. 

With  this  long  record  of  work  and  service,  Heilbron's  oral  history 
documents  many  aspects  of  life  in  California.   Although  this  volume 
encompasses  his  entire  career,  some  parts  of  it  are  also  available  to  the 
researcher  elsewhere.   Chapters  II  and  V  of  this  volume,  which  pertain  to 
his  work  for  the  state  government,  have  also  been  bound  separately  and 
deposited  in  the  California  State  Archives,  titled  Louis  H.  Heilbron, 
Oral  History  Interview.   A  brief  oral  history  covering  his  first  two 
years  as  president  of  the  California  State  Colleges  was  conducted  by 
staff  of  the  California  State  University,  Dominguez  Hills,  and  is 
deposited  in  the  California  State  University  Archives  there.   (These 
years  were  also  discussed  in  the  present  volume;  see  Chapter  V.) 

Interviewing  for  this  oral  history  began  in  1989  as  part  of  the 
background  research  for  the  centennial  history  of  Heller,  Ehrman,  White  & 
McAuliffe  mentioned  above.   These  recorded  sessions,  which  mainly  covered 
his  law  career  (Chapter  IV) ,  took  place  in  his  office  on  the  29th  floor 
of  the  333  Bush  Street  highrise  in  downtown  San  Francisco.   From  his 
corner  office,  we  could  see  a  good  part  of  the  San  Francisco  skyline, 
including  one  section  he  himself  helped  to  change.   "It  doesn't  add  too 
much  architecturally,"  he  grins  as  he  relates  the  story  of  building  the 
Sutro  Tower,  but  to  many  San  Franciscans,  its  top  emerging  from  a  bank  of 
fog  is  a  city  landmark. 

The  interview  sessions  resumed  in  1991  when  funding  became  available 
to  document  the  other  aspects  of  his  life  and  career.   For  all  of  the 
interview  sessions,  Heilbron  made  careful  preparations,  reviewing  the 
proposed  outline  and  list  of  topics  to  be  discussed  that  day,  then  making 
extensive  notes  and  researching  such  facts  as  he  needed  to  fill  out  the 
story.   These  interviews  took  place,  for  the  most  part,  in  his  Russian 
Hill  apartment  with  views  of  the  Bay  and  Golden  Gate  Bridge  from  its 
sixth  story  windows.   Mrs.  Heilbron  offered  strong  support  and  took  an 
encouraging  interest  in  the  proceedings. 

After  my  initial  review  of  the  transcript,  Heilbron  read  the  draft 
carefully  and  emended  it  to  his  satisfaction.   He  also  reviewed  the 
final,  corrected  version.  With  his  scrupulous  attention  to  accuracy  and 
concern  for  detail,  Heilbron's  review  took  some  time.   The  process  was 
made  more  difficult  by  the  illness  and  subsequent  death  of  his  wife. 
Because  of  this  meticulous  review,  the  researcher  can  be  assured  that  the 


xiv 


record  is  reliable.   For  example,  Heilbron  was  so  determined  to  be  sure 
of  his  recollections  that  when  he  mentioned  a  Cunard  Line  ship  on  which 
he  traveled  in  1914,  he  called  Cunard 's  New  York  offices  to  make  sure  the 
ship's  name  was  correct. 

Throughout  the  planning  sessions,  the  interviews,  the  reviews,  the 
checking  sessions,  the  occasional  lunches  and  afternoon  tea,  Heilbron' s 
warmth  and  geniality  made  working  with  him  a  perfect  delight.   His 
engaging  sense  of  humor  is  a  perfect  foil  to  the  seriousness  with  which 
he  undertakes  a  piece  of  work,  whether  it  be  crucial  negotiations  between 
management  and  unions,  implementation  of  the  California  Master  Plan  for 
Higher  Education,  or  his  oral  history. 

This  oral  history  has  been  funded  by  several  sources:  the  UC 
Berkeley  Class  of  '31  Oral  History  Endowment  and  the  California  State 
Archives  underwrote  documentation  of  the  government  and  public  service 
aspects  of  Heilbron1 s  career.   His  law  firm,  Heller,  Ehrman,  White  & 
McAuliffe,  bore  some  of  the  costs  of  the  interviews  that  cover  his  legal 
career.   His  University  of  California  graduating  class  of  1928  also 
helped  fund  the  oral  history,  and  Heilbron  himself  has  contributed  to  the 
Regional  Oral  History  Office. 

Special  thanks  are  due  to  Dr.  Clark  Kerr,  who  wrote  the 
introduction.   Although  Kerr's  remarks  refer  to  only  one  aspect  of 
Heilbron' s  career,  his  contributions  to  California's  higher  education 
they  illustrate  the  time,  care,  and  wisdom  that  he  devoted  to  all  of  his 
work,  whether  public  or  private. 

This  interview  is  part  of  the  ongoing  documenting  of  California 
history  by  the  Regional  Oral  History  Office,  which  is  under  the  direction 
of  Willa  Baum,  Division  Head,  and  under  the  administrative  direction  of 
The  Bancroft  Library,  University  of  California,  Berkeley. 


Carole  Hicke 
Interviewer /Editor 


July  1995 

Regional  Oral  History  Office 

The  Bancroft  Library 

University  of  California,  Berkeley 


XV 


LOUIS  H.  HEIL3EO:; 

A.B.  1928,  University  of  California 

J.D.  1931,  University  of  California 

L.L.D.  1961,  University  of  California 

L.L.D.  1970,  Golden  Gate  College 

Assistant  Dean  of  Men,  U.C.  Berkeley   1928-31 

Special  Consultant  for  the  State  Relief  Adr.ir.i  strati  on  and 
State  Department  of  Social  Welfare   193^-^2 

Principal  Attorney  for  the  Board  of  Economic  V'arfar 

Major  Military  Government  AUS  (attached  to  SH.-EF) 

Deputy  Director  of  U.S.  Army  Labor  Division  Allied  Control 
Commission  for  Austria 

Trustee  U.C.  International  House   1953  - 

Trustee  Newhouse  Foundation   1955-7^ 

President  California  State  Board  of  Education   1960-61 

Trustee  California  State  Colleges   1960-69 
Chairman  of  Board  of  Trustees   1960-63 

Vice-President  and  Trustee  Bay  Area  Educational  Television  Assn. 
(Station  KQSD)   1960-72 

Member  California  Coordinating  Council  for  Higher  Education  1961-69 

President  World  Affairs  Council  No.  Calif.   1965-67 
Trustee  and  member  of  Executive  Committee   1951  - 

Trustee  Golden  Gate  University   1969  - 

Member  of  Human  Rights  Commission  for  San  Francisco  City  and 
County   1969-75 
Acting  Chairman  1975 

Chairman  Advisory  Board  San  Francisco  State  University   1970-75 
Member  National  Tenure  Commission   1971-73 


xvi 


Trustee  University  of  California  Foundation  1972  - 

Public  Member  of  Federation  of  Regional  Accrediting  Commission 
of  Higher  Education  1972-74 

Public  Member  of  Council  of  Post-Secondary  Accreditation  1975- 
Vice -Chairman  Golden  Gate  University   1974  - 


Partner  of  Law  Firm 

Heller,  Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe 
44  Montgomery  Street,  30th  Floor 
San  Francisco,  CA  94104 


1976 


March  Fong  Eu 
Secretary  of  State 


xvii 

California  State  Archives 
1020  O  Street,  Room  130 
Sacramento,  CA  95814 


Information 
Document  Restoration 
Exhibit  Hall 
Legislative  Bill  Service 
(prior  years) 


(916)  4-15-12' 
(916)  445-42' 
(916)  445-07 
(916)  44S-2& 


STATE    GOVERNMENT    ORAL    HISTORY    PROGRAM 
INTERVIEWEE    BIOGRAPHICAL    SKETCH 


SUBJECT'S  FULL  NAME:    Louis  Hairy  Heilbron 


ADDRESS:     2164  Hyde  Street,  Apt.    1612. 


San  Francisco.  California     94109 


TELEPHONE:     Office    (415)   772-6016 

SUBJECT'S  PARENTS: 

Father's  Full  name      Simon  L.  Heilbron 


Home  (415)   776-4811 


Birth  date    Nov.   10,   1878 Occupation  Food  Processing 

Mother's  Full  name    Flora  Karp  Heilbron 


Birth  date  Jan.    9,    1980 


Occupation     Housewife 


SUBJECT'S 

DATE  OF  BIRTH  May  12,  1907 


PLACE  OF  BIRTH  Newark,  New  Jersey 


SUBJECT'S  PRLMARY  AND  SECONDARY  EDUCATION: 
(Where  obtained,  dates  attended) 

Primry:  Spring  Valley  School,  1913-1914;  Civic  Heights,  1914-1920; 
Secondary:  Lowell  High  School,  1920-1924; 


HIGHER  EDUCATION: 

(Where  obtained,  years  of  graduation,  majors,  degrees) 

University  of  California,  graduated  1928;  Major:  Political  Science;  Degree;  B.A. 
Boalt  Hall  School  of  Law;  Graduated  1931;  Degree:  J.D.        


PROFESSION  OR  OCCUPATION: 

(Job,  dates  entered  upon/retired  from,  where  practiced) 

Attorney,  Heller  airman  Vttiite  &  Mcftuliffe;  Entered  1934;  Retired  in  1978; 


Employed  by  State  of  California,  1932  and  1933; 


GOVERNMENT  OFFICES  HELD: 

(City,  county,  state,  and/or  national,  dates  of  service) 
UC  Asst  to  Dean  of  Men  1928-1931  (part  time) 

State;  Secretary,  State  Department  of  Social  Welfare.  1932; 

Assistant  Ackninistrator  -  State  Emergency  Relief  Administration,  1933; 
Special  Consultant  to  iftnp-ngency  Relief  Admin i.<?tration  —  Department  of 
Social  Welfare  (part-time),  1934-1941;  , 

Member  and  President  -  State  Board  of  Education.  1959-1960; 

Trustee,  California  State  Colleges,  1960-1969; (Board  Chairmn,  1960-1963) 

City  &  County  of  San  Francisco:  Member,  Hunan  Rights  Commission.  1970-1976; 

Member  &  Pres.  Advisory  Board  SF  State  Univ  1970-1976;  Principal  Atty  US  Bd  of  Economic 
POLITICAL  PARTY:  ^^^  Cal  Coordin^iR§eC§gRcii9^gM  1&43!961- 

(Registration,  official  positions  held,  dates  of  service) 

Democratic  


MILITARY  SERVICE: 

(Branch,  rank,  dates  of  service) 

US  Army,  Military  Government,  Captain  to  Major,  Oct.  1943-April  1946. 


CIVIC  AND  COMMUNITY  ACTIVITIES: 
(Organization/activity,  offices  held) 

World  Affairs  Council  of  N.Calif  (Internatl  Affairs  Info  &  Education ) -VP  &  Pres.;  CA 
Historical  Society  1978-1985  (collecting  &  disseminating  info  rp  Oil  higtoryl-vp  &  Pres 
Jewish  Community  Center  (social, cultural  &  recreational  activities ) -VP  &  Pres.;  Phi 
Beta  Kappa  Assn.  of  N.  Cal.-VP  &  Pres.;  KOED  (public  TV)-VP:  Intpmai-1  Hnngpf  R^rlfg  1  ey 
(residence  &  program  for  US  &  foreign  students)-VP  1953-1977;  Golden  Gate  Univ  Board 
Chairman;  Natl  Post-  Secondary  Edn  Commissions  1972-1986; 

RELIGIOUS  AFFILIATION  AND  ACTIVITIES: 
(Offices  held,  if  any,  and  dates  of  service) 

Congregation  Emanu-El,  SF  -  VP  &  Pres. 


SUBJECT'S  SPOUSE: 

(Name,  date  and  place  of  marriage,  occupation) 

Delphine  P..  Heilbron,  married  Oct.  30/29.  Brokerage  statistician  1927-1932. 
Housewife  1932-Aug.  21/93  (deceased). 

CHILDREN: 

(Names,  years  of  birth) 

John  Heilbron  born  3/17/34;  David  Heilbron  born  11/25/36. 


XIX 

"TITLES  AND  DATES  OF  PUBLICATION  OF  BOOKS  AND  ARTICLES  AUTHORED  BY  SUBJECT: 

Books:  The  College  &  University  Trustee  (1973);  From  the  Beginning  (The  California 

State  University)  1983 

Articles:  Higher  Education  for  the  Millions  in  California,  The  Dynamic  State  1966, 

A  Look  At  Academic  Freedom  (in  Challenge  To  American  Youth  1963;  many  lectures  printed  a 

articles  -  up  t< 

MISCELLANEOUS:  *" 

(List  any  pertinent  facts  not  requested  above) 


PREPARED  BY: 

DATE:       3  /  I 


XX 

HEILBRON,  DAVID  M(ICHAEL).  lawyer,   b    S»n  Francisco.   Nov   25.        From   Who '  S    Who    in    America, 

1936;  s.  Louis  H   and  Ddphwe  A.  (Rosenblatt)  H.;  m.  Nancy  Ann  CHsoi. 

June  21.  I960:  children — Lauren  Ada.  Sarah  Ann.  Ellen  Sdma  B.S  samnu 
cum  laudc.  U.  Calif..  Berkeley.  1958;  A.B  first  class.  Oxford  L  ,  Eng..  I960 
LL.B  magna  cum  laudc.  Harvard  L'..  1962  Bar  Calif  1962.  U.S.  Dot  Ci 
(no.  dist.l  Calif  1963.  U.S  Ct.  Appeals  (9lh  cir.)  1963.  U.S  Ct  Appeals 
(D.C.  cir.)  1972.  U.S  Ct.  Apnemh  (8th  ctr.).  1985.  U.S  Cl  Appeals  (IB  cir.) 
1987.  U.S.  Ci  Appeals  <10th  or.)  1988.  U.S  Ct.  Appeals  (7th  cir/)  198k 
U.S  Ci  appeals  (1 1th  dr.)  I98S,  U.S  Out.  Ct  Nev  1982.  U.S.  Dm.  Ct 
(cen  dist.)  Calif.  1983.  U.S.  Sopreme  Ct  1988.  U.S.  Q  Appeals  (3rd  ar.) 
1992  Auoc.  McCutchen.  Doyle.  Brown  &  Enersen,  San  Franasco,  1962-69; 
ptnr  McCutchen.  Doyle,  Brown  A  Enenen.  1969—,  mng  pmr..  1985-88. 
vis.  lectr.  appellate  advocacy  U.  Calif.  Berkeley,  1981-82.  82-83,  mem.  vis 
com  Golden  Gate  U.  Sen,  La*.  1983 — .  Trustee  Golden  Gale  U.,  1993;  bd 
din,  San  Francisco  Jewish  Community  Ctr.,  1974—.  Legal  Ax)  Soc.,  1974- 
78,  Legal  Assistance  to  Elderly.  San  Franasco,  1980,  San  Franasco  Renais 
sance,  1982 — ;  pres.  San  Franasco  Sr.  Ctr..  1972-75;  co-chmn  San  Franasco 
Lawyers'  Com  for  Urban  Affairs.  1976  Rhodes  scholar  Fellow  Am.  Bar 
Found.;  mem.  State  Bar  Calif  (cfamn.  com  cts.  1982-83,  bd.  govs  1983-85. 
mem  cornmn  on  discovery  1984-86,  pres  1985-86),  ABA.  Bar  Assn.  San 
Francisco  (chmn  conf  dels  1975-76,  pres.  1980),  Calif  Acad  Appellate 
Lawyers,  Am.  Coll  Trul  Lawyers.  Am.  Arbitration  Assn.  (bd.  dirs.  1986—. 
adv.  council  No.  Calif,  chpt..  1982 — .  chmn.  1987 — .  jud  council  1986-88. 
instr.  and  panelist  arbitrator  tng.  programs)  Democrat  Clubs  Calif  Ten 
nis  Office:  McCutchen  Doyle  Brown  &  Enersen  3  Emborcadero  Ctr  San 
Franasco  CA  94111-4003 

HEILBRON,  JOHN  1_  historian,  b.  San  Franasco.  Mar  17.  1934;  t.  Louis 
Henry  and  Ddphine  A.  ( Rosen btan)  H.;  m  Patricia  Ann  Lucero,  Mar.  25, 
1959  AB,  U.  Calif..  Berkeley.  1925.  MA.  1958,  PhD.  1964.  Laura  in 
Philosophy  honons  causa.  U.  Bologna.  1988  Asst  di:  Sources  for  History 
of  Quantum  Physics.  Berkeley  and  Copenhagen,  1961-64,  asst.  prof,  history, 
philosophy  of  so.  U.  Pa..  Pbila..  1964-67,  asst  prof  history  U.  Calif., 
Berkeley,  1967-71.  assoc  prof.,  1971-73.  prof..  1973—.  dir.  Office  for  History 
of  Sci.  and  Tech.,  1973 — .  class  of  1936  prof,  history  and  history  of  sci., 
1985 — ,  editor  Hist  Studies  in  Pbys.  Scis..  1980 — ,  vice  chancellor.  1990 — ; 
Andrew  Dickson  White  prof,  at  large  Cornell  U.,  1984-90,  chmn  Acad 
Senate  Berkeley  div  U  Calif.,  1988-90  Author:  H  G.J  Mocetey.  The  Life 
and  Letters  of  an  English  Physicist.  1887-1915,  1974.  (with  P.  Forman  and  S 
Wean)  Physics  area  1900:  Personnel  Funding  and  Productivity  of  the 
Academic  Establishments,  1975.  (with  W.  Shumaker)  John  Dee  on  Astro 
nomy,  1978.  EJectnaty  in  toe  17th  and  18th  Centuries  A  Study  of  Early 
Modem  Physics,  1979;  Historical  Studies  in  the  Theory  of  Atomic  Structure. 
1981.  Elements  of  Early  Modern  Physics.  1981,  (with  R .W.  Sadel  and  B.R 
Wheaton)  Lawrence  and  his  Laboratory:  Nuclear  Science  in  Berkeley,  1931- 
61,  1981,  (with  B.R.  Wheaton)  Literature  on  the  History  of  Physics  m  the 
20th  Century,  1981.  (with  Wheaton)  An  Inventory  of  Published  Letters  to 
and  from  Phyaasts.  1982,  Physics  at  the  Royal  Society  during  Newton's 
Presidency.  1983,  The  Dilemmas  of  an  Upright  Man:  Max  Planck  as 
Spokesman  for  German  Science,  1986.  (with  E.  Crawford  and  R.  Ullrich) 
The  Nobel  Population,  1901-1937:  A  Census  of  Nominees  and  Nominators 
for  the  Prizes  in  Physics  and  Chemistry.  1987.  (with  Seidel)  A  History  of  the 
Lawrence  Berkeley  Laboratory,  vol.  1:  Lawrence  and  His  Laboratory,  1990. 
Quantitative  Science  Around  1800,  1993;  editor:  Benjamin  Franklin's  Briefe 
von  der  Elektnbtat.  1983,  (with  T.  Frangsmyr  and  R  Rider)  The  Quanti 
fying  Spirit  in  the  18th  Century,  1990  Mem.  History  of  Sci  Soc..  Bnt.  See 
History  of  Sci.,  Soc.  for  History  of  Tech.,  Am.  Hist  Soc  ,  Am  Acad.  Am 
and  Sets..  Am  Philos  Soc..  Internal  Acad.  History  of  So..  Royal  Swedish 
Acad.  Scis.  (fgn.).  Home:  689  Alvarado  Rd  Berkeley  CA  94705-1557  Office: 
U  Calif  470  Stephens  Hall  Berkeley  CA  94720 

HEILBRON,  LOUIS  HENRY,  lawyer;  b  Newark.  May  12,  1907;  s.  Simon 
L  and  Flora  (Karp)  H.;  m  Ddphine  Rosenblatt,  Oct  30.  1929.  children 
John  L..  David  M.  AB.  U.  Calif..  Berkeley.  1928.  LLB.  1931.  LLD.  1961; 
LLD,  Golden  Gate  Coll.,  1970;  DHL.  San  Francisco  State  U,  1988.  Bar: 
Calif  1931  Assoc.  Heller.  Ehrman.  White  &  McAuliffe.  San  Francisco. 
1934-48,  ptnr..  1948—;  sec.,  spl.  cons.  Dept  Social  Welfare.  State  of  Calif.. 
1932.  asst  relief  admmstr.. Calif..  1933.  spl  cons  Dept  Relief  Admmstrn.. 
1934-41;  pnn  ally.  Bd.  Econ  Warfare,  1942-43  Mem  Calif  Bd  Edn.. 
1959-61,  pres.,  1960-61.  mem  Calif  Coordinating  Council  Higher  Edn.. 
1961-69.  chmn  bd.  trustees  Calif  State  Colls..  1960-63,  chmn.  ednl.  policy 
com  and  faculty  staff  com..  1963-69.  mem  Nat.  Commn  on  Acad  Tenure. 
1971-73.  Select  Com.  to  Rev.  Calif  Master  Higher  Edn  Plan.  1971-72.  Fedn 
Regional  Accrediting  Commns  Higher  Edn.,  Council  Post  Secondary  Edn., 
1972-86.  pres  San  Franasco  Jewish  Community  Ctr.,  1949-52,  San 
Francisco  Pub  Edn  Soc.,  1950-52-  chmn  San  Franasco  Com  Fgn.  Rela 
tions,  1977-79.  trustee,  exec  com  World  Affairs  Council  No  Calif..  1951 — . 
pres..  1965-67.  trustee  Sta.  KQED,  1966-72.  v.p.,  1971-72;  trustee  Golden 
Gate  U.,  1969— .  chmn..  1979-81;  trustee  Newhouse  Found..  1956-76.  U 
Calif  Internal  House.  1953-77,  U.C  Found..  1973-79;  trustee  Calif  Hist 
Soc..  1978—.  v.p.,  1981-83.  pres..  1983-85.  mem  San  Franasco  Human 
Rights  Commn..  1969-75.  chmn.  adt  com  San  Franasco  State  Coll.,  1970- 
76  Served  to  maj  AUS.  1944-46.  ETO  Decorated  Bronze  Slar.  Mem 
ABA,  Labor  La*  Com..  Phi  Beta  Kappa  (pres.  No.  Calif  1972-73).  Zeu 
Beta  Tau  Jewish  (pres  congregation  1954-57)  Home  2164  Hyde-St  San 
Francisco  CA  94109-1701  Office  333  Bush  St  San  Franasco  CA  94104-2806 


xi 

AWARDS  AND  HONORS 

LLD.  University  of  California,  1961 

LLD.  Golden  Gate  University 

Doctor  of  Humanities,  California  State  University 

Distinguished  Service  Award,  California  Polytechnic  College,  1970 

Distinguished  Service  Award,  San  Francisco  Bay  Area  Chapter  of  American  Jewish 
Committee,  1994 

Human  rights  award  from  NAACP  Legal  Defense  Education  Fund,  1978 

Distinguished  Citizen  Award,  San  Francisco  Examiner 

Doctor  of  Humane  Letters,  California  Siate  University,  1988 

President's  Distinguished  Service  Award,  California  State  University,  1976 

Tribute  reception.  California  Historical  Society,  1993 

Tribute  to  Builders,  World  Affairs  Council,  1992 


I  BACKGROUND 


Family  History 


[Interview  2:  November  18,  1991]  y///1   [Session  1  has  been 
deleted  and  material  from  it  incorporated  into  text  of 
succeeding  sessions] 


Hicke:     I  think  that  we  should  just  start  this  afternoon  by  getting  some 
of  your  family  history. 

Heilbron:   I'll  go  back  to  my  grandparents. 
Hicke:     That  would  be  wonderful. 

Heilbron:   My  grandfather  was  born  in  a  little  town  called  Donau-Eschingen 
in  Bavaria  close  to  the  headwaters  of  the  Danube  River. 

Hicke:     Is  the  name  of  the  town  Donau  or  is  Eschingen  a  state,  or  is 
it-- 

Heilbron:   No,  it's  the  town.   It's  a  hyphenated  town. 
Hicke:     Oh,  I  see.   Okay. 

Heilbron:   He  came  over  to  the  United  States  as  so  many  young  men  did  to 
avoid  the  draft  into  the  army. 

Hicke:     I  guess  I  should  make  sure:  these  are  your  paternal  or  maternal 
grandparents? 


V/#  This  symbol  indicates  that  a  tape  or  tape  segment  has  begun  or 
ended.   A  guide  to  the  tapes  follows  the  transcript. 


Heilbron: 
Hlcke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


This  is  paternal. 
Okay. 

His  name  also  was  Louis  Heilbron.   And  he  came  over  at  the  age 
of  sixteen  to  the  land  of  opportunity,  but  unfortunately  he  went 
south  and  Immediately  got  conscripted  into  the  confederate  army 
in  the  Civil  War. 

Oh  dear. 

And  he  served  until  the  battle  of  Antietam.   Now  the  story  that 
has  come  down,  through  my  father,  is  that  he  was  riding  a  supply 
wagon  during  that  battle,  and  the  driver  got  tired  and  exchanged 
places  with  him,  and  shortly  after  that  the  wagon  was  ambushed 
and  the  driver  killed,  my  grandfather  wounded,  but  survived  to 
the  great  benefit  of  my  father,  myself,  and  succeeding 
generations . 

Good  for  him. 

Well,  I've  heard  from  a  fairly  reliable  source  that  there  is 
some  skepticism  to  be  attached  to  this  story,  that  there's  a 
certain  amount  of  folklore  about  people  who  have  survived 
calamities  because  they  had  exchanged  seats  just  before  the 
disaster.   But  I  haven't  any  question  that  my  grandfather  would 
be  telling  what  happened  and  that  my  father  would  be  repeating 
it. 

I  think  that  we  should  note  for  the  record  that  your  son  John  is 
an  historian. 


And  he's  the  source  of  the  skepticism, 
grateful  of  further  results. 

[laughter] 


Although  he's  very 


My  grandmother  was  born  in  Louisville,  Kentucky.   Her  maiden 
name  was  Sachs.   I  don't  know  when  her  parents  came  to  this 
country,  but  her  family  dates  from  the  early  1800s. 

From  where  do  you  suppose? 

From  Germany,  probably  Saxony,  but  I  can't  give  you  the 
location.  Now,  skipping  where  my  grandparents  lived  from  time 
to  time,  they  wound  up,  when  my  father  [Simon  L.  Heilbron]  was 
about  seven  years  or  six  years  old,  in  Sacramento  and  they 
became  a  Sacramento  family. 


Hicke:     Did  they  come  West  after  the  Civil  War? 

Heilbron:   No,  they  lived  for  a  time  in  Cincinnati,  and  I  believe  in 

Philadelphia,  and  I  believe  in  Los  Angeles,  and  finally  found 
their  way  to  Sacramento.   My  father  spent  his  time  in  Sacramento 
until  the  age  of  eighteen.  He  had  his  own  little  orchestra  in 
high  school  in  that  small  town.   They  gave  concerts,  and  his 
family  felt  that  he  was  destined  to  be  a  musician  and  that  he 
should  go  to  Europe  for  his  training.   It  was  an  age  when 
doctors  went  to  Vienna  for  their  training,  and  musicians,  it  was 
assumed,  would  do  the  same.   He  spent  six  years  in  Stuttgart  at 
the  conservatory  and  met  my  mother  [Flora  Karp  Heilbron]  during 
this  period.   She  was  in  another  conservatory  in  Stuttgart  where 
she  was  a  graduate  student  in  the  piano.   So  they  fell  in  love, 
and  in  1904  my  father  came  back  to  the  United  States  and  after  a 
year  sent  for  her.   They  were  married  and  settled  in  Newark  [New 
Jersey] ,  near  New  York,  where  he  was  attached  to  several 
orchestras  and  he  also  taught  the  violin  as  my  mother  did  the 
piano.   My  mother  was  prepared  to  be  a  concert  artist  and  had  an 
opportunity,  after  her  graduation,  to  take  an  American  tour 
under  the  same  direction  that  Madame  [Ernestine]  Schumann -He ink 
obtained,  but  she  elected  marriage  instead. 

To  go  back  to  my  grandparents ,  they  remained  in  Sacramento 
until  1906  and  moved  down  to  San  Francisco  four  days  before  the 
earthquake  and  fire.   They  purchased  a  home  there,  furnished  it, 
and,  unfortunately,  it  all  went  up  in  flames. 

Hicke:     Where  was  it?  Do  you  have  any  idea? 

Heilbron:   I  think  it  was  either  on  O'Farrell  or  Geary  Streets.   They  spent 
the  rest  of  their  lives  in  residential  hotels,  which  was  not  an 
uncommon  arrangement  for  retired  people  in  San  Francisco. 
Actually,  my  grandfather  was  not  retired  during  most  of  his 
life.   He  was  a  vice  president  of  Rucker- Fuller,  the  furniture 
company,  and  managed  an  estate  or  two. 


Secondary 


Heilbron:   I  was  born  in  Newark,  but  soon  developed  an  illness  called 
Summer  Sickness.   It's  my  understanding  that  this  kind  of 
illness  affected  the  lungs  and  was  a  serious  matter.   The  final 
recommendation  of  the  doctor  was  to  take  me  to  a  more  consistent 
and  warmer  climate.   So  really,  it  was  my  yelling  and  protest 
that  caused  us  to  move  to  San  Francisco.   I  don't  think  anybody 
in  the  family  ever  regretted  the  move. 


I  spent  my  grammar  school  days  at  Pacific  Heights  School, 
that  is,  from  the  time  of  the  second  grade  on. 

My  mother  had  been  born  in  Vienna.   Her  family  was  still  in 
Austria,  and  when  I  was  in  the  first  grade,  1  was  taken  out 
because  she  took  me  over  to  Europe  to  visit  her  family.   It  had 
been  ten  years  since  her  marriage;  she  hadn't  seen  them,  and 
she,  naturally,  looked  forward  to  this  reunion.   It  was  not  the 
best  time  for  such  an  adventure.   She  had  two  sisters,  and  after 
visiting  with  one  family,  we  went  to  the  other  in  Sarajevo  and 
arrived  on  the  day  that  the  Archduke  Ferdinand  was  assassinated. 

Hicke:     Oh  dear.   That  was  1914? 

Heilbron:   That  was  1914,  and  there  were  tense  moments  after  that  event.   I 
can  still  recall  going  through  the  Turkish  quarter,  because  all 
of  the  produce- -the  vegetables  and  fruits- -were  thrown  out  into 
the  street.   There  were  strong  feelings  between  Austrians, 
Turks ,  and  the  Serbs . 

Hicke:     Some  rioting  and  so  forth? 

Heilbron:   Some  rioting.   My  mother's  brother-in-law- -he  was  postmaster 
general  of  the  city- -tried  to  assure  her  that  the  event  would 
pass,  just  like  the  Moroccan  event  involving  the  Great  Powers  in 
1911.   But  she  decided  that  we  had  better  shorten  the  stay  that 
was  supposed  to  be  ten  days  or  so,  and  we  left  after  the  fourth 
day.   This  was  fortunate,  because  after  our  train  crossed  a 
river  outside  of  Sarajevo  on  its  way  to  Vienna  and  Berlin  and 
Hamburg,  the  bridge  was  blown  up  by  the  Serbians.   Even  as  we 
rolled  through  Austria,  there  were  efforts  by  the  mobilizing 
Austrian  troops  to  board  the  train  and  somehow  turn  it  around, 
because  bullets  were  fired  through  some  of  the  train  windows , 
and  it  was  something  of  an  exciting  ride. 

We  arrived  in  Hamburg  a  little  early  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  the  return  trip  home,  because  we  had  shortened  our  trip 
in  Austria  with  one  of  my  mother's  sisters,  and  we  stayed  at  a 
hotel  called  the  Hamburger  Hof.   After  a  few  days,  of  course, 
Austria  and  Germany  had  declared  war  and  we  were  in  a  wartime 
situation.   Nevertheless,  we  had  reservations  to  go  back  to  the 
United  States  on  the  great,  big,  German  ship  the  Vaterland,  but 
on  the  early  morning  when  we  were  to  sail ,  the  voyage  was 
canceled. 

Hicke:     The  ship  was  commandeered  for  other  uses,  or  something  probably? 

Heilbron:   Well,  I  don't  know.   The  voyage  was  simply  canceled.   The  result 
was  that  we  were  compelled  to  stay  in  Hamburg  six  weeks  before 


getting  out  of  Germany.   During  this  period,  my  mother  made 
arrangements  for  five  different  ships,  and  none  of  them  sailed. 
Well,  the  Vaterland  ultimately  became  the  Leviathan.   The 
Imperator,  which  was  a  second  ship  for  our  reservations,  was 
held  in  the  United  States,  and  many  years  later  became  the 
Berengeria . 

We  whiled  away  the  time  in  Hamburg,  visiting  the  American 
Consulate  from  time  to  time  to  see  what  could  be  done.   One  good 
thing  happened,  and  that  is  that  the  battleship  Tennessee 
crossed  the  Atlantic  laden  with  gold  for  the  benefit  of  American 
citizens  caught  abroad,  and  my  father  had  purchased  an 
allocation,  and  this  solved  financial  problems. 

A  child  of  seven  did  not  have  much  to  do  in  the  hotel  to 
amuse  himself,  but  he  did—I'm  referring  to  myself --look  out  the 
window  across  the  artificial  lake  to  the  bridge  where  the 
railroads  crossed- -this  lake  was  called  the  Alster- -and  it  was 
an  interesting  view,  but  what  attracted  me  was  the  huge  number 
of  trains  that  crossed  the  bridge.   To  occupy  my  time,  I  would 
count  the  cars  on  the  trains ,  and  I  knew  that  these  trains  were 
filled  with  soldiers  going  to  the  front.   As  I  said,  we  visited 
the  Consulate  on  a  number  of  occasions,  and  on  one,  the  Consul 
said  to  me:  "And  now  my  little  man,  what  do  you  do  to  amuse 
yourself?"   I  said  I  counted  trains.   "How  do  you  do  that?" 
"Well,  we  are  staying  at  the  Hamburg  Hof  that  faces  the  Alster 
and  there  is  that  bridge  across  the  Alster  (it  was  an  artificial 
lake),  and  the  trains  cross  the  bridge.   And  there  are  lots  of 
cars  and  soldiers."   "What  do  you  mean  by  lots  of  cars?"   "Well, 
there  are  about  twenty  to  thirty  cars.   They  are  filled  with 
soldiers  and  cross  about  every  fifteen  minutes,  and  I  just  count 
to  see  if  there  are  more  one  day  than  another."   "Hah,"  said  the 
consul,  "you  must  come  in  to  my  room  and  talk."   So  for  well 
over  an  hour,  he  quizzed  me.   I  always  regarded  the  experience 
as  the  unofficial  beginning  of  the  CIA.   [laughter] 

So,  coming  back  to  California,  I  soon  began  my  schooling  at 
Pacific  Heights.   There  were  good  teachers  there.   I  can  recall 
some  of  their  names:  Ella  Stinson,  Miss  Bliven--she  taught 
English  and  I  think  stimulated  a  reader's  curiosity  in  her 
students  which  may  have  had  a  lasting  effect  on  me.   There  was  a 
woman  called  Old  Lady  Robinson- - 

Hicke:     By  you,  not  by  herself,  I  assume.   [laughter] 

Heilbron:  No,  by  the  students.  She  was  certainly  quite  advanced  in  years, 
but  she  was  the  strict  disciplinarian  in  the  school.  Toward  the 
end  of  my  grammar  school  days,  I  became  interested  in  tennis- -of 
course  it  was  boys'  tennis- -but  I  had  a  good  deal  of  opportunity 


to  play  at  a  park  close  to  our  house,  the  Alta  Plaza  Park. 
Incidentally,  Pacific  Heights  was,  as  the  other  schools  in  the 
city  were  at  the  time,  a  neighborhood  school.   There  were  no 
cafeteria  facilities,  and  most  of  the  students  went  hone  for 
lunch  and  caae  back  to  school,  and  all  of  this  could  be  done 
within  the  hour  allowed,  which  would  show  how  much  of  a 
neighborhood  school  it  was. 

Hicke:     Where  did  you  live? 

Heilbron:  On  Steiner  Street  near  Clay.   I  went  to  Lowell  High  School,  and 
the  interest  in  tennis  continued. 

Hicke:     Did  you  have  a  choice  in  high  schools? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  we  had  a  choice  in  high  schools,  but  my  friends  went  to 
Lowell  and  I  went  to  Lowell,  which  even  at  that  time  had  the 
reputation  of  being  the  best  comprehensive  high  school  in  the 
city.   I  was  serious  about  my  studies  but  also  very  serious 
about  my  tennis  at  the  time.   This  interest  brought  some  good 
results:  I  won  the  Pacific  Coast  boys'  title  and  the  State  boys' 
title,  I  think  in  my  freshman  year  at  Lowell. 

Hicke:     Is  Pacific  Coast  a  league  for  high  schools? 

Heilbron:   Oh  no,  no.   This  was  available  to  participants  throughout  the 
Western  coastal  states.   The  boys'  event  was  simply  one  of  a 
number  of  events:  there  were  the  men's  events,  the  women's 
events,  mixed  doubles,  and  junior  (over  sixteen)  competitions. 

Hicke:     It  was  a  tournament? 

Heilbron:   Oh  yes,  it  was  definitely  a  tournament.   And  one  of  the 

classifications  was  the  boys,  which  went  up  to  the  age  of 
fifteen.   I  was  thirteen  at  the  time  when  I  won  these  events. 
That  was  my  major  extracurricular  interest  for  two  years,  but  it 
took  a  great  deal  of  practice,  and  I  developed  other  interests. 
I  also  felt,  with  good  reason,  that  I  would  never  be  a  great 
men's  tennis  player.   I  had  a  good  drive- -forehand  drive- -but 
the  rest  of  my  strokes  were  not  strong;  my  backhand  was 
mediocre.   And  I  had  some  good  advice  on  this  subject.   Bill 
Tilden  was  aware  that  Western  players  during  that  period- -during 
the  period  of  the  twenties --seemed  to  be  close  to  the  top  of 
tennis,  and  that  the  younger  players  represented  the  future.   He 
came  out  West  and  reviewed  the  various  players ,  and  he  commented 
in  an  article  or  a  book  that  I  had  a  most  formidable  forehand 
drive,  but  that  unless  I  improved  my  other  strokes,  my  future  as 
a  top  player  was  not  likely. 


** 

Heilbron:   This  observation  did  not  disturb  ae,  because  I  was  quite  aware 
of  it  myself  and  aware  of  ny  other  interests.   In  particular,  I 
became  interested  in  the  student  newspaper,  which  I  edited,  and 
in  student  government,  in  which  I  participated.   One  of  the 
events  in  high  school  that  I  remember,  outside  of  the  studies, 
was  Boys'  Day  in  my  senior  year.   I  guess  it  was  a  reflection  of 
the  times  that  we  had  a  Boys'  Day  and  not  a  Girls'  Day.   For 
•OM  reason  the  boys  were  honored  with  a  parade  down  Market 
Street,  and  participation  was  a  good  deal  of  fun. 

But  Lowell  was  facing  trouble.  The  board  of  education  felt 
that  it  was  wrong  to  have  one  school  open  to  everybody  in  town; 
that  schools  should  be  neighborhood  schools,  high  schools  as 
well  as  elementary  schools,  and  that  it  was  favoritism  to 
concentrate  too  much  on  Lowell  and  its  faculty.   They  wanted  to 
move  Lowell  to  the  site  of  what  is  now  George  Washington  High 
School.   At  this  time,  the  site  was  close  to  the  sand  dunes  in 
the  western  part  of  the  city. 

Hicke:     This  was  1924? 

Heilbron:   About  that,  yes.   The  students  as  well  as  the  faculty  and  the 
alumni  of  the  school  were  quite  opposed  to  the  board  of 
education.   At  the  Boys'  Day  parade,  we  carried  a  great  banner 
which  was  ant i- school  board  and  pro -Lowell.   Before  we  started 
our  march,  the  police  tore  the  banner  down,  and  it  was  our  first 
experience  of  the  perils  of  political  protest.   I  wrote  an 
editorial  in  our  newspaper  concerning  the  idea  that  Lowell  was 
going  bye-bye  to  a  place  surrounded  by  sand  dunes  and  near  the 
Alexandria  Theater,  where  all  of  the  students  would  play  hookey. 

Hicke:     Was  that  a  movie  theater? 

Heilbron:   Yes.   [chuckles]   And  it  would  be  a  complete  disaster.   The 
editorial  was  not  badly  written,  and  the  poor  old  principal 
Clarke  got  blamed  for  writing  it.   [laughter]   It  was  a  little 
embarrassing  for  me,  too,  because  one  of  the  forces  behind  the 
board  of  education  was  Mary  Prague,  the  mother  of  Florence  Kahn, 
who  becaae  our  principal  congresswoman  after  her  husband  Julius 
Kahn  died.   She  was  a  friend  of  the  family  and  wondered  just 
what  Louis  was  about. 

Hicke:     You  didn't  protest  the  abridgement  of  your  first  amendment 
rights  -  -  free  speech? 

Heilbron:   There  was  no  reason  to,  because  the  school  was  totally  behind 
the  newspaper  and,  after  all,  it  was  Just  a  student  newspaper. 


Hicke:     I  was  thinking  about  the  police  tearing  down  your  banner. 

Heilbron:  No,  we  had  no  repercussions  like  that.   On  our  side,  however,  we 
had  Provost  Monroe  Deutsch  of  the  University  of  California,  who 
was  an  alumnus,  and  who  supported  the  principle  of  the  central 
school  with  a  fine  academic  tradition.   Several  times  during  its 
history,  this  challenge  has  had  to  be  faced  by  Lowell,  the  last 
one  not  too  many  years  ago,  but  having  been  ranked  by  some 
expert  educators  as  one  of  the  twelve  best  general  academic 
schools  in  the  country,  I  think  it's  rather  safe  at  the  moment. 

Hicke:     You  got  an  early  start  in  defending  educational  institutions, 
didn't  you? 

Heilbron:   Evidently.   Students  from  many  ethnic  backgrounds  are  carrying 
on  much  of  the  reputation  of  the  school  at  present. 

Hicke:     We  can  assume  that  Lowell  came  out  of  that  in  the  same  position 
it  was  before? 

Heilbron:   Oh  yes,  yes. 
Hicke:     And  still  is. 

Heilbron:   And  still  is,  yes.   Interestingly,  in  1974  my  son,  David,  argued 
successfully  in  the  U.S.  9th  Circuit  Court1  that  Lowell,  as  a 
central  high  school  for  the  school  district,  constitutionally 
could  limit  admissions  to  the  top  15  percent  of  junior  high 
school  graduates  (recognizing  past  achievement) ,  thereby 
preserving  its  academic  tradition  and  furthering  public 
education. 

Hicke:     So  you  graduated  in  about  1924? 
Heilbron:   I  graduated  in  1924. 


University  of  California.  Berkeley 


Hicke : 


What  were  you  doing  summers? 


Heilbron:   Well,  during  the  suaaers  I  was  playing  in  tennis  tournaments.   I 
did  keep  up  playing  and,  actually,  1  loved  the  game.   I 
continued  playing  when  I  was  at  the  University  of  California  and 


lBerkelman  v.  San  Francisco  Unified  School  District,  501  F.  2d  1264. 


was  both  on  the  freshman  and  then  varsity  teams, 
a  sole  interest. 


But  it  was  not 


I  went  to  Berkeley  at  an  interesting  time.   I  enjoyed  my 
classes  in  various  departments  in  the  Letters  and  Science 
school.   I  joined  a  fraternity,  Zeta  Beta  Tau,  at  a  time  when 
fraternities  determined  most  of  the  student  life. 

Hicke:     Did  you  commute  from  home? 

Heilbron:   No,  I  lived  in  the  fraternity  and  had  my  share  of  burdens  and 

pleasures.  All  of  the  pledges  had  chores,  to  do  and  one  of  the 
most  interesting  was  to  walk  at  midnight  down  through  Berkeley 
far  into  Oakland,  counting  the  different  kinds  of  stores- -making 
an  inventory  of  them- -and  reporting  the  inventory  to  the  Junior 
in  charge  of  the  pledges . 

Hicke:      [laughter]   Another  branch  of  the  CIA  at  work? 
Heilbron:   No,  this  was  simply  one  of  the  duties  of  the  pledges. 

Hicke:     Actually,  there  was  a  fair  amount  of  hazing  going  in  at  that 
time. 

Heilbron:   Mild,  compared  to  other  kinds  of  hazing.   I  was  quite  diligent 

in  this  project  and  thought  that  I  had  reported  every  store  with 
accuracy.   But  the  junior  in  charge  refused  to  accept  a  perfect 
score  and  told  me  that  I  had  missed  several  retail  outlets,  all 
of  them  fictional  [laughter],  but  I  passed,  and  was  admitted 
into  the  brotherhood.   I  recall,  now  that  you  mention  hazing,  we 
had  a  medical  student  living  in  the  house- -a  fraternity  brother 
--by  the  name  of  Harry  Blackfield,  who  became  quite  a  well- 
known  -  - 

[tape  interruption] 

Heilbron:   --plastic  surgeon.  He  conspired  with  a  classmate  of  mine, 

George  Lavinson,  to  teach  the  brotherhood  a  lesson.  Ue  still 
had  tubbings  in  our  house,  for  what  were  deemed  to  be  major 
infractions  of  behavior.   Tubbing  meant  that  you  submerged  a 
brother- -a  pledge- -in  a  bathtub  of  water  for  some  little  period 
of  time  and  brought  him  up  lively,  but  shaken.   Blackfield  did 
not  believe  that  this  was  such  a  constructive  idea.  Veil,  he 
put  a  little  red  dye  up  Lavinson' s  nose  and  told  him  how  to  hold 
it,  and  Lavinson  was  being  tubbed  for  an  infraction.   So  he  was 
under  the  water  a  bit  when  the  red  dye  began  coming  out  into  the 
water,  and  the  tubbers  were  frightened  beyond  belief,  lifted  him 
up,  yelled  for  Harry,  carried  him  into  Harry's  room.   Harry 
responded,  "You  fools  get  out  and  let  me  take  care  of  this!" 


10 


[laughter]   And,  of  course,  he  did,  with  a  great  deal  of 
laughter  with  George.   But  the  lesson  was  learned  and  tubbing 
was  abolished.   A  nunber  of  years  later,  tubbing  was  also 
abolished  in  all  fraternities  by  university  orders. 

Hicke:     Probably  not  until  after  some  accidents  or  something. 

Heilbron:  Veil,  I  don't  know,  but  in  cases  of  what  amounted  to  physical 
punishment,  it  was  obviously  beyond  reasonable  behavior,  and  1 
think  everybody  grew  up.   I  may  have  more  to  say  about  that, 
because  I  became  assistant  to  the  dean  of  men  in  charge  of 
fraternities,  and  so  these  events  had  their  effect. 

On  the  academic  side,  I  was  interested  in  many  professors 
and  in  a  number  of  subjects.   My  major  was  political  science, 
but  1  had  a  strong  minor  in  English. 

[tape  interruption] 

Hicke:     Well,  it's  pretty  clear  that  you  were  already  interested  in 

political  science,  even  from  your  high  school  days,  and  so  you 
probably  carried  that  forward,  and  I  wonder  if  you  could  tell  me 
a  little  bit  about  some  of  the  people  who  taught  you  and  some  of 
your  recollections  of  them? 

Heilbron:   I'll  be  glad  to  do  this,  not  to  try  to  repeat  the  subject  matter 
of  what  these  professors  taught,  but  to  give  you  perhaps  some 
idea  of  their  personalities  and  their  diversity. 

Hicke:     That  would  be  good. 

Heilbron:   Well,  let's  begin  with  David  Barrows,  who  was  the  president  of 

the  university  prior  to  the  time  that  I  entered  it.   Barrows  was 
the  chairman  of  the  Department  of  Political  Science,  and  he  gave 
the  introductory  course.   He  was  one  professor,  probably  the 
only  one  in  the  university,  who,  as  he  came  onto  the  stage  to 
give  his  lectures,  was  applauded  enthusiastically.   And  this  was 
done  at  the  end  of  every  lecture. 

Hicke:     Before  and  after  both? 

Heilbron:   Before  and  after.  His  effectiveness  might  be  indicated  by  the 

fact  that  he  addressed  the  Commonwealth  Club  of  San  Francisco  on 
numerous  occasions  and  was  one  of  their  favorite  lecturers.   He 
had  been  a  general  who  served  with  the  American  forces  in  World 
War  1,  or  perhaps  post-World  War  1.   His  area  of  service  was  in 
Siberia.   He  was  a  very  handsome,  fine-looking,  attractive  man. 
I  don't  know  what  the  story  was  with  reference  to  his 
presidency,  but  I  believe  that  the  faculty  felt  that  it  smacked 


11 


a  bit  too  much  of  military  procedure  or  discipline, 
know  that. 


I  don't 


Hicke : 


He  was  not  only  eloquent  with  respect  to  the  subject,  but 
even  more  interesting  in  his  diversions.   And  they  were  many.   I 
remenber  when  he  announced  the  subject  of  his  lecture  was  the 
government  of  Mexico  and  how  it  adopted  some  of  the  structure  of 
the  American  system  of  government,  but  he  pointed  out  that  that 
wasn't  the  only  country  that  did  this  kind  of  thing,  and  he 
referred  to  Czechoslovakia.   And  then  he  talked  about 
Czechoslovakia  having  its  own  independent  government  after  World 
War  I.   That  reminded  him  of  the  brave  Czechoslovakian  soldiers 
who  had  escaped  capture  in  the  war- -I  assume  that  they  were  part 
of  the  Austrian  army,  because  Austria  had  been  composed  of  what 
was  Bohemia,  Hungary,  Serbia,  and  so  on- -but  this  division,  or 
group  of  the  army,  escaped  being  captured,  and  crossed  all  the 
way  to  Vladivostok  in  a  very  heroic  and  dramatic  crossing  while 
Russia  itself  was  in  turmoil. 

So  this  was  the  story  that  we  heard  on  the  subject  of  the 
government  of  Mexico.   [laughter] 

He  had  what  you'd  call  a  far-ranging  mind,  1  guess. 


Heilbron:   Certainly,  it  was  enlightening,  because  it  told  something  of  the 
character  of  the  people  who  were  then  building  the  new 
government  and  the  society  of  Czechoslovakia.   Another  memory  is 
his  discussion  of  the  Spanish-American  War,  which  I  don't  think 
had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  political  science  subject  of  the 
moment.   But  it  had  to  do  with  the  capture  of  Guam.   Close  to 
the  end  of  the  war,  an  American  cruiser  sailed  into  the  bay  of 
Guam  and  shot  a  couple  of  rounds  in  warning  but  did  not  receive 
any  reply.  After  a  while,  the  Spanish  governor  of  Guam  came  out 
in  a  boat,  and  he  apologized  to  our  navy  saying  that  he  didn't 
have  any  ammunition,  and  that  that  was  why  he  didn't  return  the 
salute!   And  he  didn't  know  that  there  had  been  a  war  between 
Spain  and  the  United  States.  The  unforgettable  fact  was  the 
absence  of  communication  to  the  extent  that  the  Spanish 
government  of  Guam  did  not  know  there  was  a  war  on.   What  better 
evidence  could  there  be  of  the  one-sided  nature  of  these 
hostilities? 

These  are  incidents  I  remember,  while  the  textb'ook  analyses 
of  the  governments  studied  I  have  forgotten. 

Hicke:     Good  point. 

Heilbron:   In  due  course,  Barrows  did  cover  the  political  theory  and  did 

outline  the  three  segments  of  the  United  States 's  structure,  but 


12 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


I  guess  he  was  such  an  effective  lecturer  because  of  his 
diversions. 

Then  there  was  a  professor  by  the  name  of  [Frederick] 
Teggart.  He  had  a  son  who  also  became  a  professor,  but  Teggart 
had  been  In  the  Department  of  History,  and  became  a  renegade 
historian.   They  didn't  like  the  way  he  taught.   They  gave  him  a 
department,  that  Is,  the  university  did;  it  became  the 
Department  of  Social  Institutions. 

They  gave  him  this  department? 

Yes.   It  was  a  separate  department-  -newly  created.  And  he  was 
pretty  much  the  department.   He  had  a  little  different  view  of 
history  than  many  historians.   He  said,  simply,  that  for  the 
most  part  of  the  Middle  Ages,  there  was  no  history:  there's  no 
history  unless  there's  change,  was  his  point.   It's  all  right  to 
go  into  the  social  structure  of  the  people.   It's  Interesting, 
extremely  Important-- 


Heilbron:   But  the  repetition  of  generations  In  a  cycle  of  similar  lives 
didn't  represent  to  him  a  great  deal  of  history. 

He  also  had  special  views  which  respected  the  dynamics  of 
history.  He  believed  history  very  often  began  In  East  Asia.   He 
pointed  out  the  Mongols  crossing  the  Asian  plains,  and  Genghis 
Khan,  who  had  profound  and  lasting  effects  all  through  Europe. 
In  our  time,  China  was  quiescent  and  weak,  divided  up  among 
warlords,  but  Teggart  said,  "Let  that  country  awake.   Let  those 
millions  and  millions  of  people  come  together  again,  and  the 
dynamics  of  that  pressure  will  again  affect  world  history." 

Hicke:     He  was  right  on  the  mark  there,  wasn't  he? 

Heilbron:  Yes.  Well,  I  didn't  anticipate  this,  but  let  me  think  about 
others  for  a  moment. 

Samuel  May  was  the  professor  of  Public  Administration.   And 
he  gave  a  completely  different  picture  than  the  other  academic 
professors.  He  was  interested  in  how  government  works  and  how 
to  set  up  departments  in  Sacramento  and  how  to  make  them  more 
efficient:  how  you  got  the  best  personnel.   His  course  was 
unquestionably  the  most  boring  in  the  political  science 
department  and  undoubtedly  the  most  practical.   For  a  person  who 
was  truly  interested  in  administration,  it  was  a  very  valuable 
experience.   He  would  come  to  class  with  bundles  of  bulletins 
and  administrative  mimeographed  materials,  and  in  his  lectures 


13 


he  would  pick  up  one  and  then  pick  up  another.   I  never  could 
understand  how  he  could,  out  of  all  the  load  that  he  carried, 
pick  up  the  things  that  he  wanted  to  stress.   But  he  was  a  very 
helpful  man,  although  I  can't  say,  to  me,  interesting. 
Certainly  people  who  were  directly  interested  in  going  into 
government  knew  that  if  they  wanted  to  get  into  civil  service  in 
the  state,  they'd  better  take  Professor  May's  course. 

Then  there  was  Ira  Cross. 
Hicke:     That's  a  familiar  name. 

Heilbron:   He  gave  the  classic  introductory  course  in  economics.   And  he 
demanded  absolute  attention  and  silence.   His  course  was  given 
in  Wheeler  Hall,  was  always  filled,  but  he  had  an  eagle  eye  and 
saw  every  movement.   If  a  girl  used  her  lipstick,  or  powdered 
her  nose,  he  would  stop  his  lecture  and  he  would  say,  "Now,  when 
that  young  lady  in  the  seventh  row  gets  through  powdering  her 
nose  and  otherwise  making  herself  as  attractive  as  she  can  be  to 
the  people  on  all  sides  of  her,  I'll  continue  the  lecture." 
[laughter]   On  another  occasion,  he  told  some  girls  who  were 
chatting  that  unquestionably  what  they  were  talking  about  "is 
more  important  than  what  I'm  talking  about,  but  if  you  will 
please  do  me  the  courtesy  to  let  me  finish  my  lecture,"  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  he  said,  "I  don't  see  why  I  should  give  young 
ladies  any  particular  benefit.   I  will  give  an  A  on  the  midterm 
to  any  man  who  comes  into  this  class  and  shaves."   [laughter] 
So  the  very  next  lecture,  two  young  men  came  in  and  set  up  shop 
with  their  mirrors  and  shaved,  and  he  gave  them  A's  for  that 
midterm. 

Hicke:     Sounds  like  economics  wasn't  as  dull  as  it  often  can  be. 


Heilbron:   He  made  the  course  interesting  and  rather  exciting.   By 
insisting  on  the  attention  he  got,  he  also  stimulated 
concentration  on  the  textbooks  that  we  were  assigned  to  read. 
We  used  Ely's  textbook  on  economics,  which  I'm  certain  today  is 
entirely  outdated. 

And  there  were  professors  in  my  minor,  English.   Professor 
Willard  Higley  Durham  was  one.   He  had  been  one  of  the  editors 
of  the  Yale  Shakespeare  and  taught  the  general  course  on 
Shakespeare.   He  also  taught  the  ad  variorum  course,  the 
detailed,  textual  interpretation  of  the  plays.   He  would  discuss 
the  Shakespeare  plays--we  read  one  a  week—then,  occasionally, 
he  would  act  part  of  the  play.   I  remember  his  acting  of  Bottom 
in  A  Midsummer  Wight's  Dream  that  made  everybody  very  happy. 


14 


Another  professor  of  English,  who  taught  a  limited  course 
in  Shakespeare,  was  Ben  Kurtz.   I  remember  a  rather  quiet  time 
in  his  class;  the  discussion  of  a  play  was  not  particularly 
lively.  He  frowned,  and  suddenly  picked  up  a  copy  of  the  play 
that  we  were  discussing.   1  can't  recall  the  play,  though  I 
believe  it  was  one  of  the  comedies .   And  he  said,  "You  know, 
when  you  people  go  out  of  this  classroom  and  you  carry  this  book 
with  you,  do  you  know  that  you  are  holding  a  masterpiece  that 
has  come  down  hundreds  of  years?  You  should  be  so  thrilled  that 
you  are  carrying  this  book,  that  you  are  fortunate  enough  to 
have  inherited  it,  why  you  should  go  running  and  jumping  down 
the  street!*   Suddenly  the  class  sprang  to  life.   It  was  quite  a 
thrilling  moment,  and  one  that  I'll  never  forget.   It  was  the 
enthusiasm  of  a  truly  dedicated  teacher. 

Hicke :     So  that  was  infectious . 

Heilbron:   Yes.   Getting  back  to  political  science,  I  recall  a  professor  of 
government  who  was  not  an  interesting  teacher.   I  think  that  the 
course  covered  the  relationship  between  the  three  branches  of 
the  federal  government,  with  emphasis  on  the  executive  branch. 
The  only  amusing  thing  he  ever  said  was  when  we  went  into  a 
church  where  we  had  to  take  our  final  examination,  and  he  came 
in  and  said,  "Well,  let  us  bow  our  heads  and  pray,"  before  the 
examination  began.  And  that's  a  terrible  thing,  really,  to 
remember  that  one  thing  after  a  serious  semester's  course. 

Hicke:     But  it  says  something  about  his  course,  though. 

Heilbron:   I  suppose  the  clearest  textbook  I  ever  read  was  Raymond 

Gettell's  History  of  American  Political  Thought.   It  was  a  very 
well -written  text,  and,  of  course,  he  used  it  in  connection  with 
his  lectures.   I  got  to  know  him  pretty  well  because  I  played 
tennis  with  him.   It  was  a  chance  I  had  to  run  him  around  while 
he  ran  me  around  in  class.   He  could  get  every  ball.   He  must 
have  covered  a  marathon  in  court  play.   But  he  was  a  very 
pleasant  man. 

There  was  a  professor  [Samuel]  Holmes,  who  was  quite  a 
well-known  person  in  zoology,  which  is  where  we  got  into  a 
discussion  of  heredity. 

Hicke:     You  took  his  zoology  course? 

Heilbron:  Yes.   He  said,  "Now,  you  know,  I'll  wager  that  there  are  people 
in  this  class  who  are  descendants  of  Napoleon."   Everybody  of 
French  descent  perked  up  quite  a  bit.   "Yes,"  he  said,  "I  would 
say  that  among  the  liaisons  he  had,  he  had  a  tremendous  number 
of  children."  He  did  get  to  heredity. 


15 


Hicke: 


Hellbron: 


I  remember  a  professor  of  Greek  history  that  I  had,  by  the 
name  of  [Ivan]  Linforth.   I'm  not  sure  why  I  got  into  this 
class.   I  think  I  needed  two  units,  and  it  just  fit  in.   It 
dealt  largely  with  democratic  government  and,  after  a  while, 
with  Plato  and  Aristotle.  You  couldn't  want  better 
theoreticians.   He  made  ancient  social  life  extremely 
interesting.   You  realized  that  the  roots  of  your  culture  went 
all  the  way  back,  and  it  was  not  then  a  study  of  an  ancient 
regime,  it  was  a  study  of  something  that  was  currently  very 
important;  when  I  say  currently,  I  mean  the  mid- twenties,  but 
the  characterization  still  applies.  He  discussed  the  city- 
states  of  Greece:  their  rivalries,  their  attempts  to  compromise, 
when  their  compromises  failed,  and  the  wars  they  had,  and  all 
you  did  was  to  translate  those  city-states  into  nations  and  you 
had  World  War  I  with  many  of  the  same  issues,  apparently  the 
same  mistakes,  the  same  misunderstandings,  the  same  challenges. 
So  that  was  a  worthwhile  course. 

Let  me  mention  another  introductory  course,  given  by 
Professor  [Jacob]  Loewenberg--a  professor  of  philosophy.   He  had 
the  most  analytical  way  of  presenting  alternatives.   He  spoke 
with  a  German  accent,  and  he  spoke  about  the  problem  of  evil  and 
how  it  might  be  solved  in  a  positive  and  a  negative  and  a 
neutral  way.   He  was  every  inch  an  academic.   He  did  not  like 
singing  by  the  class  before  the  class  began.   I  don't  know 
whether  it  is  still  done,  but  during  the  days  before  the 
Stanford-Cal  [Big]  game,  everyone  broke  out  into  song  for  about 
five  minutes  before  class  began. 

Before  every  class? 

Before  almost  every  large  class  began.  A  person  like  Barrows 
loved  it.   In  the  first  place,  it's  quite  true  that  you  get  a 
unified  feeling  among  your  audience  when  they  have  enjoyed 
singing  their  song.   But  Loewenberg  didn't  like  it  at  all.  He 
said,  "If  I  started  to  lecture  on  philosophy  while  you  were 
looking  at  the  start  of  a  football  game  in  the  stadium,  you 
would  not  allow  me  to  do  that,  would  you?  Well,  I  don't  think 
it's  right  for  you  to  sing  university  hymns  or  whatnot  before  I 
give  a  serious  class  in  philosophy."  And  then  I  think  he  tried 
to  say  that  that  was  an  evil  and  that  you  could  solve  it  in 
three  different  ways.   Say  there's  a  noise.   You  could  say  that 
the  noise  is  good,  you  could  say  the  singing  is  good.   That's 
the  positive  solution.   You  could  say  that  it  interferes  with 
the  class,  but  you  somehow  feel  that  the  words  of  the  professor 
can  be  absorbed:  you  can  hear  them  at  the  same  time  as  the  noise 
and  reconcile  yourself  to  it  so  that  you  can  absorb  it  even 
though  it's  negative.   Or  you  can  be  totally  indifferent  to  it 
and  it  doesn't  matter  whether  you're  singing  or  not  singing,  it 


16 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


doesn't  interfere  with  the  philosophical  enterprise.   I  probably 
don't  have  these  solutions  in  the  exact  order  or  in  the  way  he 
gave  then,  but  you  can  ask  almost  anybody  who  ever  had  his 
course,  and  they  will  start  out  with,  "Now,  there  are  three 
solutions  to  the  problem." 

Indeed,  after  I  graduated,  ay  wife  and  I  gave  a  party,  and 
we  always  tried  to  have  something  new  and  stimulating  at  our 
parties.   So  we  asked  [Bernard]  Bernie  Uitkin  if  he  would  give  a 
lecture  in  the  Loewenberg  manner,  and  he  did.   Loewenberg  had 
died,  and  Vitkin  said  that  he  was  the  ghost  of  Loewenberg  and 
that  it  was  reported  that  he  was  dead,  but  there  were  three 
solutions  to  the  problem.   [laughter] 

Veil,  finally,  I'll  mention  another  professor,  although  I 
could  add  a  few  more,  but  this  was  a  man  who  had  considerable 
influence  with  me:  Arnold  Perstein,  a  professor  of  public 
speaking.   He  became  a  very  good  personal  friend,  both  while  I 
was  an  undergraduate  and  after  we  were  married.   He  was  an 
extremely  articulate  man,  but  he  couldn't  bring  himself  to 
discipline  himself  and  dig  in  and  write  a  thesis  and  get  his 
Ph.D.   I  believe  finally  they  made  an  exception  and  granted  him 
a  full  professorship,  years  and  years  after  he  should  have 
achieved  that  status. 

Still  without  writing  his  Ph.D.? 

Without  writing  his  Ph.D.   He  won  that  battle.   He  rarely 
prepared  for  his  classes,  but  he  would  bring  a  magazine, 
Harper's,  or  Atlantic  Monthly  or  The  Nation,  and  read  some 
excerpt  from  the  article,  and  get  the  class  to  discuss  it.   He'd 
call  a  person  to  come  up  front  and  speak.   Then  he  had  the  class 
criticize  the  presentation;  then  he  added  his  own  comments  and 
analysis.   He  didn't  make  fun  of  people.   He  was  constructive 
and  very  amusing.   He  was  not  a  scholar,  he  was  a  teacher,  and 
simply  used  current  materials  to  stimulate  and  provoke  students. 
He  was  the  coach  of  the  debating  team,  or  one  of  them;  the  other 
was  Ewald  Grether,  who  succeeded  him. 

Were  you  on  the  debating  team? 

Yes,  I  was  on  the  debating  team.   I  had  some  interesting  times. 
I  recall  debating  Cambridge  University.   They  came  to  Berkeley 
with  a  sophisticated  team  of  two  graduates;  one  of  them  had 
written  a  brilliant  book  called  Plato's  American  Republic.  We 
were  juniors  on  our  debating  team,  Garff  Wilson  and  myself.   We 
debated  the  subject  of:  "Resolved:  That  we  deplore  modern 
women."  We  defending  modern  women,  whom  we  hardly  knew.   They 


17 


had  the  greatest  time  playing  with  the  subject.   At  that  time, 
making  fun  of  the  feminist  movement  was  very  easy-- 

a 

Hicke:     Much  easier  than  it  would  be  now. 

Heilbron:  And  caricaturing  the  flapper  was  no  problem.   Our  rather  feeble 
defenses  were  not  very  effective.   It  wasn't  a  case  of  winning 
or  losing  the  debate.  Ve  followed  the  British  practice  of  the 
day  and  did  not  have  a  declared  winner.   The  whole  idea  was  to 
have  a  good  time  through  use  of  your  cultural  resources  and  your 
wit.   This  procedure  influenced  California  debating  for  several 
years . 

Hicke:     Just  this  one  debate  with  this  team,  or  the  whole  idea? 

Heilbron:   No,  no,  previously  Oxford  [University]  had  come  to  California, 

and  another  team  had  debated  them  on  the  same  basis  that  we  were 
debating  them,  but  much  older  debaters  before  us,  and  I  guess 
those  who  later  succeeded  us  felt  that  following  this  English 
procedure  was  a  mistake:  that  if  you  have  an  issue,  one  side  or 
the  other  deserves  to  win,  as  happens  in  real  life.  Maybe  one 
had  the  wrong  side  of  the  issue,  but  if  you  were  able  to 
articulate  it  better,  if  you  could  prove  your  position  better, 
you  deserved  to  win.   Actually,  we  were  competitive  in  most  of 
our  debates  against  American  university  teams.   We  had  gone  on 
extended  tour  and  had  done  quite  well  in  Eastern  universities, 
in  fact,  won  most  of  our  debates.   So  we  were  absolutely 
unprepared  for  this  type  of  debating.   That  was  in  our  junior 
year. 

In  our  senior  year,  we  tried  to  imitate  the  British  method, 
or  lack  of  it.   Interestingly,  campus  interest  in  debate 
increased  during  that  period,  because  the  lighter  approach 
provided  more  entertainment.   When  I  say  we  were  unprepared,  it 
wasn't  because  we  were  ignorant  of  the  prior  Oxford  experience, 
it  was  because  we  did  not  have  the  personal  experience  with  the 
English  style.   What  it  did  was  to  improve  style  by  sacrificing 
substance.   It  made  it  more  interesting  for  the  audience,  but 
there  is  no  reason  why  the  same  interest  can't  be  evoked  by 
being  as  amusing  as  you  wish  while  concentrating  on  substance. 


18 


Boalt  Hall  School  of  Law  1928-1931 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 
Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


While  you  were  in  political  science,  did  you  have  it  in  mind  to 
go  to  law  school,  or  were  you  thinking  of  going  to  government 
service? 

Perstein  would  say,  "When  you  get  into  law  school,  you'll  find  a 
tighter  discipline."  My  family  would  say,  "With  your  political 
science  and  debating,  1  guess  you're  going  into  law."  1  don't 
know  whether  I  chose  law  or  whether  I  drifted  into  it,  but  just 
like  it  was  assumed  that  1  was  going  to  the  University  of 
California,  it  was  pretty  much  assumed  that  I  was  going  into  law 
school . 


How  far  back  had  this  started? 
anyway.   High  school? 


On  the  part  of  your  family, 


No.   I  don't  think  the  family  gave  special  thought  to  it.   They 
felt  that  I  was  going  to  the  university  and,  one  way  or  another, 
I  would  find  a  career  that  I  wanted  to  follow.   But  no  one 
assumed  that  I  should  go  to  law  school  as  the  family  assumed 
that  my  father  should  study  music  in  Europe. 

He  didn't  really  have  any  choice,  did  he? 
No. 

Law  school  was  a  different  and  interesting  experience.   It 
wasn't  as  much  fun  as  undergraduate  life,  but,  of  course,  it  was 
focused.   I  went  into  Boalt  Hall  at  a  propitious  period  of  its 
history.   Six  of  its  principal  professors  had  been  deans  of  law 
schools  in  various  parts  of  the  country.  And  Harvard  had  tried 
to  lure  the  entire  group  as  a  package  because  of  their 
distinction.   And  they  all  elected  to  stay  in  California  at 
Boalt. 

This  was  1928? 

This  was  1928  to  1931.   I  can  tell  you  about  some  of  them. 

Yes,  please. 

Professor  [George]  Costigan  taught  a  course  on  contracts.   He 
developed  his  own  case  book,  which,  on  many  pages,  showed  four 
or  five  lines  of  the  case  itself,  and  the  balance  of  the  page 
contained  footnotes.   Professor  [Henry]  Ballantine  taught  Torts. 
He  used  to  engage  Costigan  in  playful  conversation  and  ask  him 
why  didn't  he  just  put  all  the  footnotes  in  large  type,  and 


19 


subsume  the  case  In  small  type,  and  why  did  he  bother  with  the 
case  at  all?  Costigan  used  his  footnotes,  drawn  from  any  number 
of  citations,  to  indicate  the  various  alternatives  that  could 
apply  as  a  matter  of  principle  to  the  case  itself. 

He  would  keep  a  class  in  suspense  by  asking  questions  of 
various  members  of  the  class,  who  gave  their  view  of  the  case, 
and  he  would  tear  it  down  as  lacking  one  element  or  another,  or 
being  simply  wrong.  Now  we  used  textbooks  that  we  purchased 
from  prior  classes ,  and  a  few  of  them  had  what  they  said  was 
Costigan' a  view  in  the  margins.   So  one  person  gave  this  view, 
believing  that  he  would  be  the  hero  and  get  the  commendation  of 
the  guru.   Then  Costigan  said  he  never  heard  of  anything  so 
absurd!   [laughter]   And  that's  the  way  he  conducted  his  class. 
His  theory  was  this:  if  you  can  see  the  problem,  you'll  find  the 
answer.   The  library  is  full  of  the  cases  to  investigate,  but 
there's  no  use  trying  to  get  an  answer  if  you  don't  see  the 
problem.   The  various  approaches  he  indicated  in  his  footnotes 
were  all  indicators  of  where  the  problem  rested. 

Hicke:     So,  no  matter  which  approach  you  took,  he  would  take  some  other 
tack. 

Heilbron:   That's  right.   He  stretched  the  mind.   Ballantine,  as  I 
indicated,  was  completely  the  other  way. 

Hicke:     All  text  and  no  footnotes? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  the  case  itself,  of  course,  was  printed,  and  then  any  of 
his  comments  were  printed  in  large  type;  they  were  his  view, 
quite  clearly,  and  he  believed  it  was  the  right  view.   There 
weren't  too  many  competitive  views.   He  might  indicate  an 
alternative,  but  if  he  did,  it  was  consciously  done,  and  the 
preferred  alternative  was  the  one  he  indicated.   And  as  I  say, 
he  was  very  precise  in  the  use  of  language.   One  of  our 
classmates,  who  became  quite  a  well-known  trial  lawyer  after 
graduating  from  Boalt,  was  curious  about  one  matter  that  came  up 
in  discussion,  and  he  asked,  "Now,  Professor  Ballantine,  take 
this  suppository  case..."   and  Ballantine  looked  at  him  rather 
sternly  and  said,  "At  the  outset  of  your  legal  career,  you 
should  distinguish  between  your  legal  and  medical  terminology." 
[laughter] 

Then,  of  course,  there  was  "Captain"  [Alexander]  Kidd.   He 
was  a  loveable,  irascible  man,  who  always  wore  a  green  eyeshade. 
He  had  his  own  style  of  teaching.   I  had  two  classes  from  him: 
criminal  law  and  a  class  on  sales.   One  class  1  remember 
vividly,  in  criminal  law,  was  during  a  relatively  calm  question - 
and-answer  period.   Suddenly  the  door  burst  open,  and  an  older 


20 


student  came  in  with  a  pistol  and  fired  a  shot  at  someone  in  the 
front  of  the  room  who  fell  over  from  his  chair,  and  the  gunman 
immediately  turned  tail  and  ran  out  of  the  room,  leaving  a 
gasping,  horrified,  class.   In  a  moment,  Kidd  said,  "Veil,  now 
you've  seen  a  murder."   [laughter]   "Now,  I  want  you  people  to 
write  and  tell  me  what  you  saw."  He  got  any  number  of  versions 
of  what  occurred.  And  after  he  read  some  of  these  versions,  he 
said,  "Now,  lady  and  gentlemen,"  because  there  was  only  one 
woman  in  the  class,  "you  can  see  how  important  circumstantial 
evidence  is  and  how  variable  witness  evidence  is." 

[Interview  3:  December  3,  1991]  ## 

Hicke:     We  had  Just  said  a  little  bit  about  Captain  Kidd,  and  I  thought 
I'd  start  today  by  asking  you  if  there  is  more  to  relate  about 
him. 

Heilbron:   I  recall  that  he  taught  a  class  on  sales,  and  it  was  very 

ingeniously  and  imaginatively  constructed.   He  took  a  sale  of 
some  significant  piece  of  personal  property,  I  think,  perhaps, 
an  automobile,  and  developed  an  entire  course  from  this  single 
transaction.   It  meant  that  he  had  to  change  the  nature  of  the 
transaction  from  a  straight  out  sale  to  an  installment  sale  to  a 
lease  with  an  option  to  purchase,  but  he  developed  every 
possible  angle  with  respect  to  this  transaction.   It  was  an 
interesting  academic  procedure. 

Hicke:     And  then  he  would  give  you  questions  on  how  to  go  about  dealing 
with  each  one  of  these  possibilities? 

Heilbron:   Well,  he  would  inquire  with  respect  to  the  legal  obligations  of 
the  parties  as  a  result  of  each  change  in  the  factual 
arrangement  of  the  transaction. 

Hicke:     Would  you  have  to  look  that  up  yourself,  or  would  he  talk  about 
it  first  and  then  give  you  certain  things  to  look  up? 

Heilbron:   We  would  have  to  do  much  of  the  looking  up  ourselves;  that  was 
the  point  of  his  attack. 

Hicke:     You  told  me,  also,  that  you  were  in  Roger  Traynor's  first  class 
that  he  taught. 

Heilbron:  Yes,  Traynor  had  just  received  a  doctorate  in  political  science, 
I  believe,  and  his  J.D.  in  the  same  year,  and  he  was  ready  to 
start  teaching.   He  taught  equity  as  the  first  of  his  courses, 
although  he  was  a  specialist  in  taxation.  He  was  very 
considerate  of  his  students,  very  modest  in  his  approach, 


21 


indicating  that  he  was  just  as  new  with  the  subject  as  we  were, 
but  he  was  easily  to  be  identified  as  a  scholar  from  the  start. 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


How  did  they  happen  to  have  him  teaching  equity? 
they  needed? 


Is  that  what 


Hicke : 


I  don't  know.   Well,  I  think  it  developed  in  this  way:  it  was  a 
course  taught  in  the  summer,  and  I  took  some  extra  work  that 
summer,  and  1  suppose  that  that  was  the  course  that  was  designed 
for  the  summer. 

And  then  you  said  you  had  Max  Radin? 

Yes,  Max  Radin  was  an  extremely  interesting  professor.   He  spoke 
a  number  of  languages,  he  was  very  colorful  in  his  conversation 
and  his  lectures,  he  was  very  amusing.   He  taught  a  class  in 
bankruptcy  and  pointed  out  at  the  very  start  that  he  might  be 
suspect  because  he  never  could  balance  his  checkbook.   When  the 
D'Oyly  Carte  Opera  was  in  town,  that  is,  in  San  Francisco,  he 
told  his  class  that  whatever  classes  in  law  they  might  have  to 
miss,  they  should  be  certain  to  go  to  San  Francisco  to  see  these 
imaginative  operas  and  Mr.  Gilbert's  imaginative  use  of  the 
technicalities  of  the  law  to  resolve  his  opera  problems. 

That's  true.   I  never  thought  about  that,  but  Gilbert  and 
Sullivan  did  write  about  the  law. 

Oh,  a  great  deal,  a  great  deal.   Radin  was  appointed  by  the 
governor  to  be  on  the  California  Supreme  Court,  but  the 
appointment  was  not  approved.   It  was  quite  unfortunate  with 
respect  to  Max  Radin,  who  certainly  deserved  the  appointment, 
but  he  did  make  a  mistake.   There  was  some  case  in  the  San 
Joaquin  Valley,  and  he  wrote  the  judge  his  view  with  respect  to 
the  case ,  and  the  San  Joaquin  Bar  was  very  much  upset  by  what 
they  claimed  to  be  an  effort  to  influence  the  outcome  of  a 
pending  case  and  that  it  was  unethical  for  him  to  have  written 
this  letter.   1  believe  that  there  were  political  questions 
involved- -Radin  was  known  as  a  liberal,  I  think  his  opponents  in 
the  valley  were  conservative  and  didn't  want  his  appointment  to 
be  confirmed.   It  was  an  unfortunate  incident;  however,  it 
resulted  in  the  appointment  of  an  extraordinarily  fine  judge 
also  from  Boalt,  and  that  is  Roger  Traynor,  who  became  one  of 
the  most  important  chief  justices  in  California  history. 

It's  not  unusual,  is  it,  for  some  professor  in  an  academic 
position  to  write  a  letter  like  that?  Or  is  it? 


22 


Heilbron:  Well,  I  think  that  it  was  not  the  wisest  thing  to  do.   I  never 
saw  the  letter  and  I  don't  recall  its  production  in  print- -it 
was  a  newspaper  item,  of  course.   But  that's  what  happened. 

Hicke:     Did  you  also  have  a  course  from  Professor  [Dudley]  McGovney? 

Heilbron:  Yes..  He  taught  the  course  in  constitutional  law.   I  remember 
one  of  his  colleagues  coming  in  after  class  and  saying  to  him, 
"What  do  you  mean  by  constitutional  law?"  he  says,  "There's 
nothing  but  constitutional  politics!"  and  McGovney,  of  course, 
seriously  defended  his  subject.   McGovney  dealt  with  all  of  the 
basic  constitutional  principles.   We  used  his  case  book.   I 
recall  that  the  case  book  started  with  several  early  colonial 
cases  involving  the  question  of  the  application  of  natural  law. 

When  we  began  reading,  analyzing  constitutional  law  cases, 
McGovney  would  always  ask,  "Where  do  you  find  that  principle 
enunciated  by  the  Court  in  the  Constitution?"  and  he  would  not 
accept  the  idea  that  natural  law  was  recognized  in  the 
Constitution  in  any  way.   He  might  say,  "Well,  what  you're 
saying  is  you  want  justice  and  therefore  natural  law  must 
apply."   But  it's  rather  interesting  that  he  was  very  careful  in 
analyzing  cases  always  to  inquire,  "Where  do  you  find  it  in  the 
Constitution,  expressly  or  impliedly,  conservatively  or 
liberally  construed?"  And,  considering  what  the  basic  issues 
still  are,  it  was  pretty  good  training. 

There's  one  more  person  I  should  talk  about,  in  connection 
with  law  school,  and  that  was  Dean  [Orrin  Kip]  McMurray.   Very 
affable  gentleman.   I  had  only  one  course  from  him,  on 
jurisprudence,  which,  at  the  time,  meant  a  history,  pretty  much 
of  the  common  law  as  applied  in  England  and  the  United  States  as 
it  evolved  in  both  countries . 

One  matter  that  I  remember  is,  I  suppose,  generally  known, 
but  came  as  a  surprise  to  students  at  the  time,  which  is  the 
strange  development  of  the  jury  system  in  the  medieval  period 
and  shortly  after.  At  that  time,  a  man  accused  was  Judged  by 
his  peers,  and  his  peers  were  the  people  who  knew  him.   So  if  he 
were  accused  of  a  crime,  the  people  that  knew  him  best  would  be 
trying  him,  and  would  be,  they  thought  at  the  time,  the  best 
judges  of  credibility  as  well  as  of  character.   Now,  of  course, 
the  jury  is  selected  on  the  basis  that  it  knows  nothing  about 
the  case ,  could  know  nothing  about  the  case ,  never  read  about 
the  case,  never  heard  about  the  case,  and  the  question  may  be, 
was  it  better  during  the  period  of  the  origin  of  the  system,  or 
is  it  better  now? 

Hicke:     Or  might  there  be  something  in  between? 


23 


Hellbron:   I  would  say  that  probably  the  answer  is  that  there  is  something 
in  between,  because  if  you  are  tried  by  your  friends,  you  have  a 
pretty  big  edge  toward  acquittal.   If  you're  tried  by  people  who 
have  not  had  the  curiosity  to  read  the  newspapers  or  know  too 
much  about  the  environment  around  them,  it  is  questionable  how 
good  a  jury  you  are  obtaining  and  what  the  risks  are;  it  is  more 
of  a  gamble. 

I  might  add  another  matter  relating  to  the  change  of  a 
legal  concept.   I  participated  in  the  Moot  Court  competitions, 
and,  along  with  George  Moncharsh,  we  were  able  to  prevail  and 
win  the  Moot  Court  competition  in  our  senior  year.  Ve  received 
a  complete  set  of  Corpus  Juris  [Secundum] ,  the  principal 
American  legal  encyclopedia  of  the  day. 

But  returning  to  constitutional  law,  it  was  interesting  that, 
within  three  or  four  years  after  the  receipt  of  this  prize,  most  of 
the  principles  stated  with  respect  to  the  commerce  clause  of  the 
constitution- -the  regulation  of  interstate  commerce- -that  had  been 
stated  in  the  negative  in  the  encyclopedia,  now  had  to  be  stated  in 
the  positive.   In  other  words,  the  commerce  clause  suddenly  covered 
the  regulation  of  transactions  and  the  work  of  people  (for  example, 
child  employment)  that  had  been  barred  before.  Which  reminds  me  of 
the  brilliant  Professor  Barbara  Armstrong,  but  I  will  talk  about 
her  later. 

The  annual  moot  court  competition  is  now  known  as  the 
McBaine  competition.   James  P.  McBaine  taught  us  common  law 
pleading  with  dry  humor  and  with  the  message  that  precision  in 
procedure  is  still  a  virtue. 

During  the  period  that  I  was  in  law  school,  I  was  assistant 
to  the  dean  of  men. 

Hicke:     What  did  that  involve? 

Heilbron:   That  involved  mostly  the  relationship  of  the  university  to  the 
fraternities  on  campus.   That  was  a  rather  interesting 
experience.   The  fraternities  tended  to  be  quite  independent  and 
autonomous  and  did  not  cooperate  with  one  another  on  what  should 
have  been  mutual  questions.   But  one  of  the  projects  of  the 
office  was  to  change  that  program. 

Hicke:     That  is,  to  organize  the  Greeks? 

Heilbron:   To  encourage  their  organization  among  themselves,  because  there 
was  an  element  that  believed  in  a  kind  of  United  Nations  of 
Fraternities,  that  is,  on  the  campus  level.   So  we  finally  got 
the  Interfraternity  Council  organized,  and  the  next  problem  was 


24 


to  be  sure  that  the  first  project  that  they  engaged  In  would  be 
successful.   And  it  was.   It  turned  out  that  two  fraternities 
that  had  exchanged  social  affairs  had,  from  tine  to  tine,  taken 
each  other's  silver,  and  we  brought  about  —  the  Interfraternity 
Council,  that  is- -brought  about  a  peaceful  settlement  [Hicke 
laughs]  of  this  issue.   [laughter] 

Hicke:     International  questions. 

Heilbron:  What  happened  on  the  day  that  the  fraternities  gave  back  to  each 
other  the  silver  that  they  had  taken  was  that  about  122  pieces 
of  Southern  Pacific  silverware  got  exchanged  for  about  137 
pieces  of  the  Hotel  St.  Francis  [laughter].   But  seriously,  we 
faced  the  problem  of  fraternities  having  financial  troubles.   A 
good  many  new  houses  were  built  in  the  twenties,  and  the 
mortgage  payments  became  due,  and  some  of  the  fraternities  were 
in  danger  of  losing  their  homes.   We  gave  them  guidelines  on 
what  action  they  should  take,  and  that  was  principally  to 
involve  their  alumni  in  their  financial  situation  and  in  the 
remedies  that  were  available.   I  believe  that  we  saved  all  but 
one  of  the  fraternities.   Somehow  they  managed  to  get  through 
the  Depression  period,  at  least  during  the  period  that  I  was 
there,  in  the  two  years  of  1930  and  '31. 

Hicke:     They  were  able  to  solicit  enough  help  from  their  alumni? 

Heilbron:  Alumni,  yes.  And  our  office  and  the  council  did  help  a  few  of 

them  improve  their  academic  ratings,  also  with  help  and  pressure 
from  their  alumni.  Well,  after  all,  I  did  get  out  of  Boalt  Hall 
and  did  have  the  problem  of  a  first  job. 

Hicke:     And  that  was  in  '31  you  graduated? 

Heilbron:   I  graduated  in  '31,  but  I  took  Mr.  [Bernard]  Witkin's  course  on 
the  bar  review. 

Hicke:     He  must  have  been  a  pretty  young  man  at  that  time. 

Heilbron:   Yes.   There  are  all  kinds  of  stories  about  how  the  great  Witkin 
enterprise  got  started- -his  Summary  of  California  Law,  which  has 
been  revised  so  many  times  and  which  is  now  the  absolutely 
indispensable  research  resource  of  judges,  lawyers,  and  law 
clerks  in  California,  and  is  used  throughout  the  United  States. 

Hicke:     He  doesn't  want  to  be  interviewed  for  an  oral  history,  so  if  you 
have  anything  to  include  about  him,  we'd  appreciate  it. 

Heilbron:   Bernie  Witkin  was  in  the  class  of  '27  at  Boalt,  but  he  told 

Professor  Barbara  Armstrong  that  he  had  skipped  all  the  classes, 


25 


Hicke: 


and  one  could  pass  the  examination  without  attending  class.   She 
refused  to  give  him  the  credits  he  needed  to  graduate,  and  he 
was  not  graduated  in  1927. 

He  decided  to  take  the  bar  examination  anyway,  and  he  went 
to  a  preparatory  course  during  the  summer  given  by  a  man  by  the 
naae  of  Dahlquist.  He  passed  the  bar. 

But  he  felt  that  to  become  an  accepted  lawyer  one  had  to  be 
a  graduate  of  an  accepted  law  school;  so  he  returned  to  Boalt. 
During  his  summer  of  preparation  for  the  bar,  he  took  prodigious 
notes  and  checked  them  against  citations.   His  notes  were 
valuable  enough  so  that  he  sold  them  for  fifteen  dollars  to 
eight  of  his  contemporary  students.   Since  he  had  a  great  deal 
of  time  when  he  went  back  to  the  law  school  for  a  minimum 
curriculum  and  for  final  examinations  to  graduate  in  1928,  he 
further  refined  and  extended  the  notes,  so  that  by  the  time  of 
his  graduation,  he  had  a  substantial  summary  of  California  law, 
which  he  decided  to  publish.   It  was  sufficient  material  for  two 
volumes.   He  had  done  his  work  alone  but  felt  the  need  of 
company  to  index  it,  and  he  had  an  index  party  at  his  home, 
which  took  most  of  the  night. 

A  small  number  of  friends  were  invited,  including  me  and 
Delphine,  who  was  to  be  my  wife  a  year  later.  We  cannot  recall 
the  actual  process  of  the  indexing,  but  we  remember  that  Bernie 
went  page  by  page,  distributing  the  words  and  phrases  he  wanted 
indexed  on  a  topical  basis  to  those  of  us  present.   Ve  wound  up 
with  a  vast  number  of  slips  of  paper  that  Vitkin  was  then  able 
to  alphabetize,  and  the  index  was  completed  in  that  one  night. 
We  had  the  benefit  of  substantial  amounts  of  Italian  wine  of  a 
quality  calculated  to  keep  us  more  awake  than  asleep. 

After  completion  of  the  index,  Bernie  and  his  family  assembled 
the  pages  but  gave  the  material  to  a  local  binder,  who  put  two 
books  together  in  dark  red  covers,  and  they  constituted  the  first 
edition  of  the  Witkin's  Summary  of  California  Lav,  which  now 
consists  of  thirty- six  volumes  and  at  least  twelve  supplements. 

Vitkin  sold  the  books  for  fifteen  dollars  each  and  gave  his 
own  course  preparing  students  to  take  the  bar,  beginning  in  1930 
and  continuing  for  twenty-five  years.   During  the  entire  period, 
he  gave  substantive  lectures,  but  he  asked  me  to  give  two 
supplementary  lectures:  one  on  legal  history  and  the  other  on 
how  to  analyze  and  answer  examination  questions,  which  I  was 
glad  to  do  in  the  early  thirties. 

But  by  the  time  you  were  ready  to  take  the  bar,  he  was  offering 
the  course? 


Heilbron:   He  was  offering  his  course,  and  it  became  a  staple  for  many  years. 


26 


II  RELIEF  IN  CALIFORNIA  IN  1930s 


Appointment 


Hellbron:   After  passing  the  bar,  I  then,  unlike  the  students  now,  who  have 
summer  jobs  with  law  firms  and  who  develop  contacts  and 
relationships  one  and  two  years  before  they  graduate  so  that  by 
the  time  they  graduate  they  know  just  where  they're  going,  we 
didn't  have  this  procedure  available,  nor  were  firms  taking  on 
summer  clerks,  so  I  had  no  background  in  that  kind  of  procedure. 

I  went  to  several  law  firms.   I  was  introduced  to  Mr. 
[Sidney]  Ehrman  by  Monroe  Deutsch,  whom  I  got  to  know  when  I  was 
a  student  and  who  was  very  friendly  and  supportive.   Mr.  Ehrman 
told  me  that  in  the  last  two  years  they  had  taken  several  new 
associates  and  there  was  no  position  available,  but  when  the 
first  vacancy  came  up  they  would  communicate  with  me  and,  if  I 
was  still  interested,  he  thought  that  arrangements  could  be 
made.   One  of  the  other  firms  that  attracted  me  because  of  its 
name,  was,  I  think,  Derby,  Sharp,  Quinby,  and  Tweedt,  because  of 
its  Dickensian  name.   They  were  involved  in  admiralty-  - 


Heilbron:   --and  I  had  an  idea  that,  perhaps,  admiralty  law  was  invested 

with  some  kind  of  the  romance  of  the  sea.   But  when  they  showed 
me  the  kind  of  admiralty  contracts,  the  invoices,  inventories, 
credit  forms  printed  in  the  smallest  italics  and  difficult  to 
read,  I  realized  that  admiralty  law  was  not  as  romantic  and 
interesting  as  I  had  hoped. 

Hicke:     Was  this  a  San  Francisco  firm? 

Heilbron:   This  was  a  San  Francisco  firm.   While  I  appreciate  that 

admiralty  cases  can  be  extremely  important  and  interesting, 


Hicke : 


27 


relating  to  traders,  ocean  freight,  accidents  at  sea,  fishing 
rights,  and  so  on,  I  dropped  my  interest  in  the  specialty. 

Albert  Rosenshime,  who  had  been  speaker  of  the  [California 
State]  Assembly  and  was  then,  1  believe,  counsel  to  the 
Superintendent  of  Banks- - 

For  the  state? 


Heilbron:   --for  the  state,  took  an  interest  in  me  and  recommended  that  I 
make  a  start  in  state  service  rather  than  in  private  practice. 
He  had  just  completed  a  term  as  a  commissioner  on  the 
[California]  State  Department  of  Social  Welfare  Commission.   He 
knew  that  they  desired  to  bring  the  welfare  laws  of  the  state 
into  cohesive  form- -the  laws  were  scattered  throughout  the 
statutes  for  the  most  part- -and  thought  that  I  would  be 
interested  in  doing  some  of  the  work  of  coordination  and 
revision.   The  result  was  that  I  was  employed  by  the 
[California]  State  Department  of  Social  Welfare  to  do  a  survey 
of  the  indigent  law  and  related  provisions. 

It  was  a  little  difficult  politically,  I  suppose,  because 
everyone  in  the  department  was  a  Republican,  and  I  was  the  only 
Democrat.   Somehow  he  sold  me  to  the  director,  a  woman  by  the 
name  of  Rheba  Crawford  Splivalo.   She  had  and  was  having  an 
interesting  career.   She  was  the  daughter  of  a  Salvation  Army 
captain  and  had  been  doing  charitable  solicitation  on  the  New 
York  streets  where  she  was  known  as  the  "Angel  of  Broadway." 
The  trained  professional  social  workers  of  the  state  were  not  so 
sure  of  her  status  as  an  angel,  but  suspected  her  as  a  political 
figure.   However,  I  was  promised  a  free  hand  in  the  way  1 
conducted  the  study  and  the  results. 

Hicke:     Did  you  interview  with  her  before  you  started? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  I  had  a  brief  interview,  but  I  believe  the  matter  was 

fairly  settled- -the  work  seemed  harmless  enough  to  the  political 
administration- -and  so  I  came  aboard,  was  given  a  pleasant 
office  in  the  state  building,  and  went  to  work. 

Hicke:     Here  in  San  Francisco? 


Reviiion  of  the  State  Indigent  Laws 


Heilbron:   Here  in  San  Francisco.   The  principal  indigent  law  of  the  state 
went  back  to  1901,  and  reflected  some  Elizabethan  standards  for 


28 


indigent  aid- -a  rather  substantial  period  before  a  person  could 
apply  for  aid,  that  is,  a  substantial  period  of  residence,  both 
in  the  state  and  the  county,  derived  from  the  old  English  idea 
that  people  should  stay  in  the  county  where  they're  born  and 
shouldn't  drift  to  another  county  that  might  have  to  support 
them,  and  also,  perhaps,  there  would  be  one  less  tenant  farmer 
for  the  employer  in  the  county  that  the  worker  left.  The  old 
English  idea,  during  Elizabethan  times,  was  that  the  population 
mainly  should  stay  put.  There  were,  of  course,  modifications  to 
that  historic  principle.  The  law  did  stress  the  idea  that 
family  members  should  help  each  other  so  that  the  applicant  need 
not  apply  for  any  charitable  assistance  anywhere. 

Hicke:     So  in  order  to  qualify  you  needed  to  show  that  you  had  tried, 
already,  members  of  your  family  and  members  could  not  help. 

Heilbron:   Yes,  your  spouse,  your  parent,  and  your  adult  child,  but  the 

procedures  for  enforcing  responsibility  were  not  very  clear,  and 
this  was  one  of  the  matters  to  be  corrected.  Well,  finally  I 
developed  a  statute  which  was  passed  through  the  legislative 
counsel,  pretty  much  intact,  and  was  acted  upon  by  the 
legislature  in  June  of  1933,  and  signed  by  the  governor  shortly 
afterward. 

The  pressure  to  maintain  a  long  period  of  residence  in  the 
state  and  county,  or  a  relatively  long  period,  was  still  present 
so  that  in  order  to  qualify,  an  indigent  had  to  be  a  resident  of 
the  state  for  three  years  and  of  the  county  for  one  year.   It 
was  a  county  responsibility  to  take  care  of  it.  We  spelled  out 
carefully  the  procedure  by  which  the  family  support  was  to  be 
obtained,  if  possible.   The  person  might  get  emergency  aid 
pending  resort  to  family.   A  person  also  had  to  use  his  own 
property  to  the  maximum  before  he  became  eligible,  and  even  if 
he  got  aid,  if  he  inherited  some  property  after  the  receipt  of 
the  aid,  the  county  had  a  claim  for  reimbursement  against  his 
property.   The  official  charged  with  the  enforcement  of  claims 
for  support  was  the  district  attorney,  and  if  the  district 
attorney  obtained  an  order  establishing  the  financial 
responsibility  and  ability  to  pay  of  family  members,  and  they 
disregarded  the  order,  they  were  committing  a  misdemeanor  and  he 
could  take  criminal  action. 

Veil,  this  was  all  pretty  harsh  and  technical,  but  we  were 
well  into  the  beginnings  of  a  depression,  and  we  tucked  a  little 
clause  in  the  statute  saying  that  the  county  may  give  such 
emergency  relief  as  may  be  necessary  to  nonresidents.   This  gave 
the  authority  to  meet  the  emergencies  of  the  depression. 

Hicke:     That's  not  such  a  little  clause.   If  somebody  had  looked  at  it-- 


29 


Heilbron:   It  was  a  little  clause  In  length  and  width,  but  It  was  an 

Important  clause  for  administration.   But  the  financial  problems 
of  the  county  still  remained.   It  was  made  clear  In  the  statute, 
as  it  always  had  been,  that  you  couldn't  apply  for  indigent  aid 
if  you  could  obtain  aid  from  your  family,  as  I  noted,  aid  from 
friends,  aid  from  private  charities.  Most  assistance  in  the 
state  of  California,  as,  I  suppose,  throughout  the  United 
States,  to  the  indigent  population  was  given  by  private 
charities.   If  you  were  able-bodied,  you  were  expected  to  work, 
you  were  expected  to  have  a  job.   Why  should  you  be  an  indigent? 
That  was  more  or  less  the  American  ethic,  and,  at  least  during 
prosperous  times,  it  was  quite  generally  assumed,  and  the 
twenties  were  fairly  prosperous  times.   Prior  to  the  twenties, 
there  had  been  the  war- -World  War  I --where  everybody  had  a  job, 
and  before  then  it  was  a  time  of  expansion,  so  that  since  the 
early  1900s  it  was  quite  expected  that  there  would  be  no  serious 
problem  of  indigents- -people  who  were  destitute- -that  couldn't 
be  taken  care  of  by  private  charities. 

Hicke:     So  it  was  not  within  the  experience  of  people  then  to  have  all 
of  these  people  out  of  work? 

Heilbron:   That  is  correct.   Now  that  didn't  mean  that  the  counties  did  not 
have  some  people  on  their  indigent  rolls,  because  everybody,  by 
the  time  of  the  early  thirties,  did  not  have  work,  but  as  I  say, 
It  was  the  beginning  of  the  Depression.   As  I  went  to  the 
various  counties  to  find  out  their  problems  as  to  whether  there 
should  be  changes  in  the  statute,  they  were  most  concerned  that 
the  private  charities  were  losing  their  ability  to  take  care  of 
the  new  indigent  unemployed.   They  tried  to  make  a  distinction 
between  an  indigent,  who  was  regarded  as  somewhat  disabled,  ill, 
or  perhaps  unable  to  work  because  of  old  age,  and  the  so-called 
able-bodied.   They  preferred  to  avoid  the  term  indigent  as 
applied  to  the  able-bodied.   There  was  a  provision  in  our 
statute  that  the  county  could  require  work- relief1,  a  somewhat 
new  concept  in  the  administration  of  relief.   So  at  the  very 
time  that  the  new  indigent  act  was  being  passed,  there  was  a 
grave  concern  on  the  part  of  a  number  of  counties  that  they 
wouldn't  be  able  to  discharge  all  of  their  obligations.   More 
people  were  applying,  the  private  charities  were  having 
difficulty  In  meeting  their  needs,  I  think  that  San  Francisco 
was  the  last  city  of  its  size  to  apply  for  public  assistance 
from  the  federal  and  state  governments  because  their  Associated 
Charities  were  able  to  carry  on  for  a  longer  period  than  most  of 
the  charities  of  the  other  communities  in  the  state. 


Hfork  relief  was  defined  as  assistance  to  destitute  persons  by 
requiring  labor  as  a  condition  for  relief. 


30 


Hicke:     Were  there  funding  provisions  that  went  along  with  that? 

Heilbron:  Well,  there  were  no  funding  provisions  outside  of  the  county. 
The  counties  had  the  burden  of  trying  to  meet  the  needs  of  the 
new  and  able-bodied  unemployed,  and  people  who  were  coming  to 
California  in  search  of  work,  leaving  other  areas  of  economic 
difficulty  and  becoming  transients.   The  counties  were  most 
concerned. 


Emergency  Relief 


>loYed  Resident* 


Heilbron:   I  think  it  was  in  September  of  1932,  Congress  authorized  one 

section  of  the  Reconstruction  Finance  Corporation  to  give  relief 
aid  to  states,  counties,  and  municipalities  on  application  by 
the  state,  and  the  governor  of  California  and  the  attorney 
general  were  looking  into  this  matter  as  I  was  completing  my 
work  with  reference  to  the  study  I've  described.   It  was  quite 
obvious  that  certain  counties  were  hoping  that  the  emergency 
relief  authority  that  they  wanted  would  be  financed  by  state  or 
federal  funding,  and  this  new  RFC  authority...   I  think  there 
was  $300  million  authorized  for  loans  throughout  the  country. 
An  RFC  representative  by  the  name  of  A.  W.  HacMillen  made  a 
quick  survey  in  late  December  of  1932  and  indicated  to  the 
governor  that  the  state  might  be  eligible  to  apply  for  a  loan  on 
behalf  of  certain  of  its  counties.   The  Department  of  Social 
Welfare  had  some  general  information  about  the  expenditures  for 
the  various  aid  programs  of  the  state:  aged  aid,  blind  aid, 
children's  aid,  probationary  matters,  and  county  welfare 
assistance,  so  we  had  the  beginnings  of  information  with 
reference  to  the  various  counties. 

Suddenly,  in  December,  I  was  asked  to  receive  affidavits 
from  the  counties  that  were  hard  pressed  in  order  to  determine 
if  the  governor  should  apply  to  the  RFC  for  assistance.   The 
governor  issued  a- -it  was  Governor  Rolph,  James  Rolph--sent  a 
letter  to  all  of  the  counties  of  the  state  advising  that  the  RFC 
had  a  fund  available,  that  he  did  not  want  to  apply  for  an  RFC 
loan  for  these  purposes  unless  it  was  absolutely,  demonstrably 
necessary  for  a  county,  but  that  he  would  consider  application 
for  the  benefit  of  a  county  if  it  could  demonstrate  need. 

In  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare,  I  soon  became  kind  of 
a  target  for  district  attorneys  on  behalf  of  their  boards  of 
supervisors  bringing  in  information  or  asking  their  social 
welfare  departments  for  information  showing  this  need.   I  recall 
that  Los  Angeles  and  Imperial  counties  were  most  active.   By 


31 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


January  of  1933,  it  appeared  that  there  were  seven  counties  that 
might  qualify  for  assistance,  most  of  them  in  the  southern  part 
of  California.   The  governor  had  indicated  that  the  Department 
of  Social  Welfare  would  be  the  agency  to  allocate  and  supervise 
expenditures  if  it  was  granted. 

The  RFC  had  a  peculiar  kind  of  lending  system:  that  is,  the 
state  was  obligated  to  repay  the  monies  loaned  only  by  a  future 
withholding  by  the  federal  government  of  highway  funds  that 
otherwise  might  be  granted  to  the  state- -federal  highway  funds 
that  might  otherwise  be  granted  to  the  state  for  construction. 
Obviously,  all  you  had  to  do  was  increase  the  amount  that  would 
be  given  to  the  state  and  then  make  a  deduction.   It's  much  like 
some  sales  that  occur  where  you  raise  the  price  and  then  reduce 
the  price  to  a  lower  level  so  you  really  haven't  lost  very  much. 

Was  it  up  to  the  state  to  apply  for  this  amount? 

They  would  apply  for  this  amount  and,  theoretically,  a  tough 
future  administration  would  actually  penalize  the  borrower  state 
by  making  a  realistic  deduction,  but  it  never  occurred- -to  my 
knowledge  it  never  occurred. 

A  representative  of  the  State  Department  of  Finance  by  the 
name  of  Jamison  and  I  were  selected  to  go  to  Washington  to-- 


Heilbron:   --discuss  the  needs  of  the  seven  counties  that,  thus  far,  had 

been  shown  to  be  the  most  needy.   The  department  felt  that  a  law 
researcher  was  not  an  impressive  enough  title  and  promoted  me  to 
Secretary  of  the  Social  Welfare  Commission,  and  that  meant  that 
I  was  going  to  get  the  grand  sum  of  $225  a  month. 

Hicke:     That  was  not  all  that  bad  at  that  time. 

Heilbron:   The  indigent  assistance  program  offered  an  opportunity  for  me 
that  was  unexpected. 

Hicke:     I've  heard  of  lawyers  in  that  day  and  age  who  worked  for  nothing 
just  to  get  experience. 

Heilbron:   Well,  this  was  to  negotiate  the  terms  of  the  loan  rather  than 
being  strictly  a  legal  matter.   We  went- -of  course,  this  is  by 
train—and  we  were  well  received  in  Washington. 

Hicke:     How  long  was  the  trip? 
Heilbron:   Five  days. 


32 


Hicke:     From  California  to  Washington? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  and  then  five  days  on  return.   A  man  by  the  name  of  Croxton 
was  in  charge  of  this  division  of  the  RFC,  and  the  Washington 
office  explained  that  we  would  have  to  obtain  detailed 
supporting  data  to  justify  any  particular  loan,  because  the 
loan,  while  it  was  made  to  the  state  and  would  be  under  the 
Department  of  Social  Welfare,  the  RFC  had  to  approve  the 
allocation  to  each  county.   So  we  returned  with  a  tentative 
agreement  for  the  benefit  of  these  counties,  but  it  had  to  be 
supported  before  any  monies  were  sent  out. 

Then  began  a  hectic  effort  to  obtain  compliance  by  the 
counties,  which  had  to  show,  for  the  year  passed,  what  local 
governmental  funds  had  been  expended  for  indigent  assistance, 
what  the  private  contributions  were,  whether  any  state 
governmental  funds  were  used,  whether  there  was  any  funding  from 
national  agencies  such  as  Red  Cross,  and  any  other  source.   The 
point  was  that  any  emergency  relief  monies  had  to  be  shown  to  be 
entirely  extra  to  ordinary  county  expenditures,  ordinary  county 
expectations,  and  if  there  was  a  fall-off  in  private  funds,  you 
had  to  show  what  the  fall-off  amounted  to. 

Hicke:     Oh  great.   So  for  each  of  these  counties  you  had  to  compile  this 
information? 

Heilbron:   Mr.  MacMillen  actually  drew  an  application  form  that  was  used 
for  a  number  of  years. 

Hicke:  Is  that  this  form  that  you  just  handed  me? 

Heilbron:  Yes. 

Hicke:  Can  1  make  a  copy  of  this? 

Heilbron:  I'll  give  you  a  copy  of  this. 

Hicke:     Oh  wonderful.   Thank  you.   So  this  was  sent  out  to  each  county 
in  the  state,  or  just  to  those  seven  that  you  wanted-- 

Heilbron:   Well,  to  those  counties  and  to  any  further  ones  that  would 

apply,  because  it  was  expected  that  other  counties  would  soon 
apply  as  well  as  the  first  seven. 

Hicke:     This  looks  like  it  had  to  be  filled  out  for  each  month.   Is  that 
right? 

Heilbron:   Yes.   The  estimates  for  each  month  of  need.   The  original  group 
of  applications  began  flowing  in  and  also  applications  from 


33 


Hicke: 


other  counties.   Within  another  month,  we  were  asked  by  the  RFC 
to  bring  the  applications  and  additional  data  for  review  in 
Washington,  and  I  was  asked  to  do  the  work  and  the  negotiation 
for  the  total  amount  of  the  loan. 

So  since  1  was  going  to  be  traveling,  and  it  was  close  to 
the -time  of  inauguration,  the  governor  gave  me  and  my  wife  the 
honor  of  representing  the  state  of  California  at  inauguration 
events,  in  addition  to  the  job  of  obtaining  RFC  funds.   We 
arrived  in  Washington  at  the  end  of  February,  and  I  was  on  the 
phone  with  Jamison  from  the  Department  of  Finance  and  with 
representatives  of  the  various  counties  to  clarify  figures  and 
to  obtain  additional  figures  that  were  required  by  the  RFC.   I 
must  have  been  on  the  phone  several  hours  a  day.   And  this 
proved  to  be  necessary,  because  of  the  number  of  additional 
counties  that  wanted  to  be  considered  for  further  loans.   The 
original  group  would  be  authorized  to  receive  monies  through 
January  and  February,  because  we  had  presented  their  general 
case  before,  and  the  new  group  was  destined  for  April  and  May, 
and  even  later,  so  we  applied  for  additional  months  of  the  year. 

I  finalized  the  loan  agreement  on  March  4  [1933]  in  the 
middle  of  the  morning  and  I  picked  up  my  wife  in  the  hope  of 
getting  to  the  inauguration,  but  the  traffic  was  so  heavy  that 
we  were  stuck,  and  we  had  to  listen  to  the  inauguration  over  the 
radio. 

This  was  President  [Franklin  D. ]  Roosevelt? 


Heilbron:   This  was  President  Roosevelt's  inauguration.   But  we  attended 
some  other  of  the  events,  and  so  it  was  a  rather  thrilling 
period  and  privilege. 

Hicke:     So  this  was  1933. 

Heilbron:   This  was  1933.   Some  question  of  adequate  supervision  by  the 

state  was  raised  by  the  RFC,  and  the  suggestion  was  made  that  1 
go  to  New  York  and  talk  to  Harry  Hopkins ,  who  was  the  chair  of 
the  New  York  Relief  Commission  and  who  many  expected  would  be 
part  of  the  new  administration,  particularly  in  the  social 
welfare  field.   1  did  this  and  was  somewhat  disturbed  by  Mr. 
Hopkins'  advice  that  an  existing  Department  of  Social  Welfare 
should  not  be  the  administrative  agency  for  the  emergency  relief 
program,  but  a  completely  new  and  separate  agency  be  created 
because  of  the  difference  in  the  emphasis  in  the  kind  of  aid 
that  should  be  given  to  able-bodied  unemployed. 


33a 


COUNTY  OF 


_,  CALIFORNIA 


TABLE  1.  Estimated  total  amount  needed  for  direct  relief  and 
work*relief  (including  cost  of  administration)  from 
all  sources  for  April,  1933: 


Month 

TOTAL  AliOUNT  N2EDED 
for  Direct  Relief  and  Work  Relief 

April 

TABLE  2.   Estimated  amounts  available  or  which  can  be  made 

available  for  direct  relief  and  work  relief  during 
April,  1933: 


AMOUNTS  THAT  CAN  BE  UADE  AVAILABLE 
FROM: 

APRIL 

1-  Local  Governmental  Funds 
2.  Private  Contributions 
3.  State  Governmental  Funds 

4.  National  Agencies  (Value  in 
dollars  of  Red  Cross  Flour, 
cotton  goods,  etc.) 

5.  Any  other  source  (specify) 

TOTAL 

*Work  relief  is  defined  to  mean  assistance  to  desti 
tute  persons  by  requiring  labor  of  a  worth-while 
character  aa  a  condition  for  relief. 

NOTE:    Table  1  sets  forth  total  need  for  the  period;  Table 
2  sets  forth  the  amounts  locally  available  to  meet 
this  need.   The  county's  application,  therefore,  is 
presumably  the  amount  of  the  difference  between  the 
totals  of  Table  1  and  Table  2. 


3/33  8  50 


33b 

TABLE  3.  Expenditures  for  direct  relief  and  work  relief  (including 

cost  of  administration)  during  each  calendar  month  of  1932, 
and  January  February  and  March  of  1933: 


HONTH 
1932 

From  local 
Govern 
mental 
Funds 
(1) 

From 
Private 
Contri 
butions 
(2) 

From  State 
Gov  ern- 
mental 
Funds 
(3) 

From 
National 
Agencies 

(4) 

From  any 
other 
source 

(5) 

TOTALS 
(6) 

j  January 

February 

Ita.rch 
1 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 
j 

October 

- 

'  1'ovember 

i 
December 

TOTALS 

1933 

January 

February 

March 

^  1 

-.  J*. 

?ABLE  4.  Number  of  families  and  number  of  non-family  persons 

relief,  during  each  calendar  month  of  the  period  from  JMIU,, -.. 
1932  to  March,  1933,  inclusive;  and  the  estimated  number  in 
need  erf  relief  during  April,  1933; 


MONTH 

::UL3cR  RECEIVING  RELI2.T 

Families 
(1) 

Non-family 
Persons  (2) 

Transients 
(3) 

January  ,  1932 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

January  1933 

February 

March 

Estimated  ITumber  for  April,  1933 

April,  1933 

TABLE  G.   Total  amount  expended  for  relief  (including  cost  of  adrdnis 
tration)  during  the  calendar  year  1931: 


SOURCE 

AUOUTT 

1. 
2. 
3. 

4. 
5. 

6. 

From  local  Governmental  Funds 
From  Private  Contributions 
From  State  Governmental  Funds 

From  National  agencies  (value  in  dollars 
Red  Cross  flour,  etc.) 
From  any  other  source  (specify) 

TOTAL 

34 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


[Interview  A:  January  3,  1992]  ## 

Well,  I  guess  we  just  want  to  start  this  time  with  coming  back 
from  New  York? 

Yes,  I  caae  back  to  Sacramento  and,  almost  immediately,  a  big 
conference  was  called  with  respect  to  the  relief  problem,  to  be 
held  in  the  governor's  office.   Through  his  secretary,  I  assume, 
he  had  called  all  of  the  cabinet  officers  and  state  officials 
who  would  be  interested  in  various  aspects  of  the  relief 
problem,  for  example,  the  state  controller,  the  director  of 
finance,  and,  I  believe,  the  director  of  agriculture,  and  he 
also  called  for  a  number  of  community  leaders. 

This  was  Rolph? 

This  was  Governor  Rolph.   I  was  there,  of  course,  and  later, 
Wayne  MacMillen  flew  in  from  Washington  and  participated  in  the 
discussions.   I  had  obtained  a  commitment  for  some  seven  million 
dollars,  but  it  was  understood  that  the  entire  state  would  be 
involved- -its  various  counties  and  cities- -before  very  long,  and 
that  a  much  larger  amount  of  money  would  be  applied  for  by  the 
state  for  the  benefit  of  its  political  subdivisions.   So  the 
importance  of  the  matter  was  quite  clear. 

This  was  for  some  specific  counties- -the  first  part? 

That's  right.   There  were  specific  counties- -seven  counties- -but 
there  are  fifty-eight  counties  in  California,  and  most  of  them 
had  given  an  indication  that  they  were  running  out  of  monies  for 
relief  and  that  they  wanted  to  participate  in  the  program. 

Governor  Rolph  had  been  mayor  of  San  Francisco  from  1912,  I 
believe. 

"Sunny  Jim. " 

"Sunny  Jim"  was  a  colorful  mayor,  and  he  was  good  for  San 
Francisco.   Particularly  at  the  time  of  the  1915  exposition,  he 
cut  quite  a  figure. 


But  he  also  was  responsible  for  at  least  improving  the 
transportation  system,  and  building  the  Opera  House,  and  a 
of  things  like  that. 


lot 


He  did  many  fine  things  and  was  supported  by  the  chief  citizenry 
of  San  Francisco,  but  he  did  not  have  much  of  an  idea  of  the 
governorship,  and  on  hearing  of  these  relief  funds,  he  got  on 
the  telephone  and  from  his  office,  while  the  discussion  was 


35 


going  on,  called  most  of  his  friends  from  San  Francisco  to  ask 
them  what  he  should  do  with  respect  to  these  monies  which  he 
anticipated  coming  in  from  the  federal  government. 

Hicke:     Are  these  friends  in  the  way  of  cronies,  would  you  say? 

Heilbron:  No,  they  were  substantial  citizens  who  had  helped  him  as  mayor, 
and  there  really  were  two  big  conversations  going  on- -one  by  him 
over  the  phone  and  the  other  by  the  rest  of  us  who  were  to 
determine  what  actually  was  to  be  achieved. 

Hicke:     Oh,  that's  a  great  picture. 

Heilbron:   Finally,  Judge  Isadora  Golden,  who  was  his  personal  attorney  and 
who  talked  to  me  about  the  recommendations  of  the  federal 
government,  got  the  governor's  attention,  and  said,  "Now, 
Governor,  would  you  just  pay  attention  for  a  few  moments? 
Because  your  representative  who  has  been  to  Washington  can 
outline  what  they  might  expect  of  the  state,"  and  the  governor 
said,  "Who?"   [laughter] 

Hicke :     There  you  were . 

Heilbron:   There  I  was,  and  the  matter  was  clarified  by  his  secretary- - 

"Don't  you  remember ..."- -that  kind  of  thing,  and  so  the  governor 
listened  to  the  fact  that  both  the  RFC  representing  the  carry 
over  agency,  and  the  new  group  that  was  expected  to  come  in  with 
Mr.  Hopkins  as  the  chief,  namely  through  the  creation  of  the 
Federal  Emergency  Relief  Administration,  believed  that 
unemployment  relief  was  a  special  category  of  aid  and  should 
have  its  own  specific  administration.   That  would  mean  that  the 
Department  of  Social  Welfare,  that  had  accumulated  the  data  and 
had  reviewed  the  original  application  requests,  would,  at  some 
point  in  the  near  future,  transfer  this  commitment  of 
administration  to  the  new  agency.   The  question  was  who  should 
run  such  an  operation? 

Hicke:     For  the  state? 

Heilbron:   For  the  state.   A  state  emergency  relief  administration  had  to 

be  created,  and  Judge  Golden  and  I  went  to  the  back  of  the  room, 
as  I  indicated,  and  I  drafted  a  sketch  of  a  statute  that  seemed 
to  comply  with  the  federal  requirements.   Nevertheless,  it  did 
boil  down  to  a  question  of  what  person  should  be  truly 
responsible  for  the  initiation  and  organization,  and  ultimately 
administration,  of  these  funds.   Temporarily,  the  Department  of 
Social  Welfare  would  continue,  and  1  might  say  that  the  women 
social  workers  of  the  department  did  a  tremendous  Job,  outside 
of  their  ordinary  work,  in  obtaining  the  data  necessary  for 


36 


Hicke: 


achieving  the  first  grants  made  to  the  state.   People  borrowed 
from  the  adoption  service,  from  the  aid  to  the  aged,  from  aid  to 
the  blind,  from  the  probation  department,  all  of  these  people 
pitched  in  on  an  emergency  basis  to  gather  the  data  and  enable 
the  state,  through  the  governor,  to  apply  for  the  necessary 
funds. 

Well,  about  the  new  man.   The  governor  turned  to  Mr. 
MacMillen,  who  was  the  field  representative  of  the  RFC,  and 
asked  if  he  were  interested  in  the  job,  and  MacMillen  politely 
said  that  he  wasn't,  that  he  would  probably  not  continue  with 
the  new  administration,  but  intended  to  return  to  his 
professorship  at  the  University  of  Chicago.   And  then  the  name 
of  R.  C.  Branion  was  brought  up.   Mr.  Branion  was  the  director 
of  emergency  relief  in  Santa  Barbara  County,  and  I  had  met  him 
in  the  course  of  gathering  the  initial  material  for  the  initial 
applications,  and  he  struck  me  as  being  an  excellent  candidate. 
Mr.  MacMillen  approved  him,  but  perhaps  most  in  his  favor  was 
the  fact  that  he  had  worked  with  Mr.  Hopkins  at  an  earlier  time 
--I  think  it  was  with  the  state  of  Louisiana,  I'm  not  positive 
about  that.   Branion  had  come  out  to  Santa  Barbara  to  retire -- 
his  health  was  not  the  best- -but  when  the  emergency  occurred  in 
the  relief  field,  he  was  called  upon  to  serve  and  had  been  doing 
quite  a  respectable  job. 


So,  Governor  Rolph  said, 
I'll  call  him!" 

Right  there  on  the  spot? 


"Well,  if  that's  the  best  man, 


Heilbron:   Right  on  the  spot.   So  he  called.   Put  in  a  call,  got  R.  C. 

Branion  on  the  phone  and  said,  "Hello?  This  is  Governor  Rolph." 
And  Branion,  who,  of  course,  had  no  idea  that  anything  like  this 
was  coming  up,  said,  "So's  your  old  man!" 

But  Governor  Rolph  convinced  him  that  it  was  indeed  the 
governor,  and  would  he  come  up  on  the  Southern  Pacific  Lark  to 
discuss  the  relief  problem  for  the  state?  Of  course,  Branion 
consented  and  came  up,  and,  in  due  course,  an  appointment  was 
made- -I  believe  first  as  a  special  assistant  in  the  governor's 
office,  because  there  had  been  no  legislation.   I  do  not 
remember  the  starting  date  because  there  was  this  intervening 
period  where  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare  had  to  continue  to 
supervise  the  expenditure  of  funds. 

Hicke:     Are  you  going  to  tell  me  what  happened  to  this  draft  of  the 
legislation? 


37 


Heilbron:  Yes,  ultimately  it  was  enacted,  and  an  emergency  relief 

administrator  was  created,  and  that  position  was  occupied  by  Mr. 
Branion. 

Hicke:     I  hope  you're  going  to  tell  me  that  you  wrote  it  on  the  back  of 
an  envelope  or  something  equally  interesting. 

Heilbron:  No,  no.   I  drafted  a  statute,  and  it  had  to  go  through  the 

legislative  counsel,  but  there  was  quite  a  story  in  connection 
with  this  legislation. 

You  may  recall,  when  I  said  that  under  the  Reconstruction 
Finance  Corporation  Act,  the  State  of  California  was  to  borrow 
money  from  the  federal  government  to  be  repaid  by  withholding, 
at  some  later  year  or  years ,  amounts  equal  to  the  borrowings 
from  the  Federal  Highway  Appropriation  Acts  of  those  future 
years,  so  that  the  State  of  California  as  a  whole  was  obligated 
for  the  benefits  that  were  being  derived  by  the  counties, 
although,  obviously,  the  counties  were  political  subdivisions  of 
the  state.   When  the  legislation  creating  the  Emergency  Relief 
Administration  was  proposed,  the  bulk  of  the  initial  monies  was 
to  go  to  southern  California.   The  San  Francisco  legislators 
were  a  little  skeptical  of  the  whole  state  borrowing  for  the 
benefit  of  their  southern  neighbors,  and  particularly  at  the 
time,  the  San  Francisco  legislative  group  were  in  control  of  the 
legislature --this  is  1933- -although  not  much  later,  the 
political  control  of  the  state  was  transferred  to  the  south 
because  of  the  population  growth  and  so  on.   So  the  San 
Francisco  people  put  up  a  question  and  a  barrier.   Well,  at  the 
same  time,  the  San  Francisco  delegation  wanted  something  for  San 
Francisco,  namely,  the  San  Francisco-Oakland  bridge  required  an 
appropriation  to  build  the  ramps  and  also  to  finance  any 
necessary  condemnation  necessary  to  obtain  the  property  on  which 
the  ramps  would  be  built. 

Hicke:     Was  Mr.  [Florence]  McAuliffe  involved  here? 

Heilbron:  No,  not  Mr.  McAuliffe,  but  actually,  in  a  way,  Mr.  [Lloyd] 

Dinkelspiel.  Mr.  Dinkelspiel  was  in  Sacramento,  representing 
the  California  Toll  Bridge  Authority  that  wanted  those  ramps 
very  much.   I  was  sitting  in  the  gallery,  hoping  that  the  relief 
program  would  go  through.  So,  on  the  basis  of  the  exchange  of 
the  ramps  for  the  state  obligation  for  southern  California,  the 
bill  sailed  through.   I  don't  recall  too  many  references  to  the 
hungry  or  to  the  unemployed  or  to  anything  else.   The  political 
deal  was  made  and  the  Emergency  Relief  Administration  was 
established. 


38 


After  the  legislative  session,  we  went  back  to  work.   A 
large  number  of  additional  counties  had  to  be  checked  for  the 
validity  of  their  claims,  and-- 

Hicke:     Did  that  involve  your  going  to  visit  the  offices? 

Heilbron:   Actually,  they  came  up  to  see  the  department,  and  I  attended  a 
conference,  I  believe  in  southern  California,  when  the 
representatives  of  the  various  counties  came  to  request  aid  and 
file  their  applications. 

One  of  the  areas  that  the  federal  government  was  most 
interested  in  was  work  relief,  particularly  when  Hopkins  got 
into  the  picture  as  the  head  of  the  Federal  Emergency  Relief 
Administration. 

Hicke:     When  you  say  work  relief,  do  you  mean  working  in-- 

Heilbron:   Working  as  a  condition  for  relief.   This  was  a  new  kind  of 

welfare  applicant.   These  are  able-bodied  people  who  were  thrown 
out  of  jobs  and  who  were  capable  of  work.   The  entire  effort  was 
to  preserve  the  dignity  of  the  individual,  and  that  was  to  be 
supported  by  work.   Now  some  of  the  counties  in  California  had 
already  small  work  relief  programs.   The  problem  was  to  prevent 
the  political  subdivisions  from  utilizing  relief  to  replace 
deficiencies  in  their  ordinary  budgets.   In  other  words,  if  they 
could  get  the  Police  Department  running  on  relief  funds,  they 
could  save  local  funds,  or  the  Fire  Department,  or  anything  of 
the  kind.   One  of  the  strict  regulations  of  the  new  operations 
by  the  Emergency  Relief  Administration  was  that  the  funds  must 
not  be  used  to  replace  the  normal  operations  of  government,  but 
it  must  be  extra  in  the  way  of  public  works --supplementary. 

Hicke:     Because  that  would  then  throw  the  regular  firemen  out  of  work? 

Heilbron:   Exactly,  and  furthermore  it  would  be  a  subsidy  to  local 

government,  which  was  not  the  intention.   The  intention  had  to 
be  special  work  projects,  deferred  projects  of  the  county  that 
would  otherwise  not  be  undertaken  if  it  weren't  for  the 
availability  of  the  unemployed.   On  the  other  hand,  it  was  also 
a  clear  policy  of  both  the  federal  and  the  state  governments 
that  work  that  was  made  work- -that  was  superficial  and 
relatively  nonproductive  such  as  carrying  bricks  from  one  side 
of  the  road  and  returning  the  bricks  to  the  other  side  of  the 
road- -that  would  not  count  as  a  work  relief  project.   Actually, 
the  federal  government  gave  that  as  an  example  in  one  state  as 
having  occurred.   Much  later  on,  you  may  remember,  the  federal 
Works  Project  Administration,  WPA,  which  replaced  relief 
programs  to  some  substantial  extent,  was  accused  of  having  leaf- 


39 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 


raking  projects  that  were  an  excuse  for  work  and  did  not  really 
constitute  work. 

Veil,  there  was  no  doubt  about  what  the  policy  was  and 
rather  strenuous  efforts  were  made  to  prevent  the  misuse  of 
funds  in  that  direction.   However,  there  were  undoubtedly  some, 
let's  say,  miscarriages  of  policy.  When  the  new  mayor  in  Los 
Angeles  was  elected  later  on,  after  the  VPA  became  established, 
Vill  Rogers,  I  believe,  presided,  and  his  opening  remarks  were, 
"Well,  Mr.  Mayor,  here  we  all  are,  by  the  grace  of  God  and  the 
WPA."   [The  inference  was  that  WPA  workers  had  done  campaign 
service. ] 

Can  I  interrupt  you  again?   I'm  interested  in  the  concept  of 
preserving  dignity.   Was  this  again  something  new?  The  idea, 
you  said,  partly,  of  the  work  relief  was  to  preserve  the  dignity 
of  the  people  involved. 

I  did  not  use  the  word  dignity  in  the  1933  statute,  but  there  is 
a  provision  which  states:  "Work  relief  shall  be  created  for  the 
purpose  of  keeping  the  indigent  from  idleness  and  assisting  in 
his  rehabilitation  and  the  preservation  of  his  self-respect." 
That  last  phrase  certainly  relates  to  the  maintenance  of 
dignity.   That  was  purposeful.   It  was  recognized  that  people 
were  on  the  streets  who  had  never  been  before,  or  thrown  out  of 
work  on  the  farms  on  a  scale  not  before  known,  and  so  work  was 
quite  important,  and  it  is  going  to  be  repeated  as  a  theme  in 
some  of  these  remarks  that  I ' 11  make . 


And  then,  also,  were  women  differentiated  in  any  way? 
equally  applicable  to  men  and  women? 


Was  this 


Heilbron:   Yes,  women  were  treated  equally  with  men  as  far  as  relief  needs 
were  concerned.   Of  course,  in  those  days,  a  lot  of  the  aid  to 
women  wasn't  family  aid.   The  family  aid  was  relief  for  the 
husband  as  the  working  member  of  the  family,  so  that  the  amount 
of  benefits  conferred  was  dependent  upon  the  size  of  the  family. 
So  some  person  might  receive  two  days  of  work,  some  person 
three,  four,  or  five  days  of  work,  depending  on  the  size  of  the 
family;  in  that  way  the  woman  was  included.   But  when  the  woman 
was  a  single  woman,  for  example,  there  were  some  problems.   We 
had  established  in  California  law  that  the  residence  of  the 
husband  was  the  residence  of  the  wife.   In  the  case  where  the 
husband  was  in  Texas  and  the  separated  woman  was  in  California 
and  she  applied  for  assistance  as  a  resident,  she  was  not 
extended  that  assistance  because  her  residence  was  properly 
Texas.   One  of  the  social  workers  said,  "Cannot  we  get 
assistance  to  pay  for  her  divorce  costs?",  and  I  had  to  rule  no, 


40 


that  was  not  permitted,  but  she  could  receive  aid  as  a 
nonresident.   So  at  least  that  problem  was  overcome. 

Hicke:     So  there  were  certain  provision*  for  nonresidents  separately? 

Heilbron:  You  may  recall  that  the  consensus  among  the  welfare  directors 
and  district  attorneys  in  the  state- -district  attorneys  were 
involved  because  they  had  to  enforce  relatives'  responsibility, 
so  that  the  person  would  not  go  on  relief --the  consensus  was  a 
three -year  state  residence  and  a  one -year  county  residence. 
There  was,  in  the  statute,  a  provision  that  the  county  may 
extend  relief  to  nonresidents.   Now,  the  federal  government's 
requirement  for  residence  was  only  one  year,  and  therefore,  when 
the  counties  received  the  relief  benefits,  they  applied  a  one- 
year  and  not  the  three -year  provision.   So  the  nonresidents  came 
in,  really,  most  of  them,  as  transients.   That  is,  as  transients 
not  fulfilling  the  one-year  provision. 

[tape  interruption] 


Aid  to  Transients 


Heilbron:   Regarding  transients,  there  is  a  rather  interesting  little 
story.   In  a  few  months --let's  see,  we  were  holding  this 
governor's  meeting  in  March.   Not  long  afterwards,  the  Emergency 
Relief  Administration  began,  and  I  was  transferred  from  the 
Department  of  Social  Welfare  to  Mr.  Branion's  office  and  became 
one  of  his  two  assistants.   For  a  period  of  time,  1  dealt  with 
work  relief  questions  and  was  asked  to  do  something  about  making 
an  application  that  would  finance  the  support  of  transients, 
because  the  counties  in  some  parts  of  the  state  had  been 
establishing  transient  camps,  but  their  numbers  were  swelling 
and  they  didn't  have  the  money  to  maintain  them.   The  question 
was,  were  these  camps  well  operated,  were  people  actually 
entitled  to  relief  in  these  camps,  or  were  they  simply  using 
them  to  their  own  advantage  as  they  traveled  up  and  down  the 
state? 

Hicke:     Were  these  the  so-called  Hoover  towns? 

Heilbron:   No,  the  Hoover  towns  were  more  made  up  of  families  who  were 
semipermanently  established  in  tin- roofed  shacks  on  the 
outskirts  of  cities.   These  transient  camps  were  in  the  country, 
for  the  most  part,  and  the  unemployed  rural  farm  workers  and 
people  from  the  cities-- 


41 


f* 

Heilbron:   --went  to  them  for  sustenance  and  shelter,  but  how  genuine  were 
they?  Veil,  I  contacted  Boalt  Hall  and  asked  to  obtain  six 
young  law  school  students  whom  the  dean  was  prepared  to 
recommend  as  observant  and  imaginative  and  willing  to  take  the 
risk  of  some  adventure.   I  got  the  group  together  and  told  them 
that  the  idea  was  to  have  them  go  to  these  transient  camps  and, 
not  do  it  statistically,  but  to  mingle  and  get  an  idea  of  the 
kind  of  people  who  were  there- -was  it  a  genuine  operation?  The 
statistics  would  come  later,  but  what  was  their  evaluation?  But 
they  had  to  live  the  life  of  a  transient,  too.   They  were  given 
a  dine  to  phone  in  case  of  an  emergency  and  otherwise  they  were 
on  their  own.   [laughter] 

So  they  did  go  to  various  camps- -there  were  six  of  them-- 
and  they  came  in  with  their  reports.   One  of  them  was  Mel 
[Melvin]  Belli,  and  I  will  say  that  his  was  the  best  report. 
Indeed,  he  wanted  to  publish  it,  and  I  had  some  problem  with 
respect  to  that,  but  it  was  not  published.  In  a  way,  these 
reports  were  attached  to  an  application  made  to  Washington- -if 
not  physically  attached,  they  were  summarized- -and  Washington 
was  convinced  sufficiently  to  make  a  million  dollars  available, 
so  that  a  further,  extensive  study  would  be  made  of  the  camps 
and  the  support  and  extension  and  operation  of  them. 

This  project  was  achieved  in  due  course,  and  an  extensive 
transient  camp  system  was  developed  for  the  state  of  California 
for  the  relief  of  both  single  people  and  families.   The  camps 
for  families,  and  even  for  the  singles- -and  these  were  mostly 
single  men- -posed  a  problem  for  the  federal  government.   As  you 
know,  California  agriculture  depends  on  migratory  workers- - 
seasonal  workers  who  move  from  region  to  region  after  the  crops 
are  harvested.   When  the  camps  were  established,  some  of  these 
families  thought  they  preferred  to  stay  in  the  camps  rather  than 
move  on  to  work  in  the  next  county  or  region.   The  state 
Emergency  Relief  Administration  asked  for  extended  support  to 
cover  these  migratory  workers,  the  idea  of  the  division  chief 
being  that  perhaps  they  could  be  induced  to  settle  permanently 
and  stop  this  migratory  life.   But  the  federal  government  took 
the  position  that  the  migratory  workers  were  an  agricultural/ 
industrial  problem  for  the  state  of  California  and  its  counties 
and  would  not  be  subsidized  by  the  federal  government.   Only 
people  who  were  truly  in  a  transient  status  outside  of  the 
migratory  worker  situation  would  be  eligible. 

Hicke:     Were  you  involved  in  that? 


42 


Heilbron:   I  was  involved  in  it  because  I  prepared  most  of  the  applications 
that  went  forward  to  Washington.   I  think  that  Washington  missed 
out  on  this  issue,  although  it's  a  difficult  one,  1  appreciate, 
to  administer.   There  were  bitter  feelings  involved  in  the 
situation. 

Hicke:     On  the  part  of  the  officials? 

Heilbron:  Well,  yes,  on  the  part  of  officials  in  adjoining  counties.   In 
one  situation,  at  the  end  of  the  harvest  season,  the  county  was 
offering  money  to  the  migratory  workers  to  leave  their  county- - 
the  harvest  having  been  completed- -and  go  to  the  next  county. 
The  next  county  said,  "If  you  send  them  here,  we'll  meet  them 
with  shotguns."  That's  how  bitter  it  was.   I  say  that 
Washington  did  not  see  one  point,  and  that  is,  they  were 
probably  correct  in  not  wishing  to  subsidize  the  migratory 
agricultural  worker  system  in  the  state  of  California- -the 
ordinary,  normal  operations  of  harvesting  the  crops.   But  the 
family  transient  problem  was  brought  on  not  by  the  usual 
migratory  workers  but  by  the  great  numbers  who  were  coming  to 
California  from  the  Dust  Bowl,  who  did  not  represent  the  usual 
migratory  workers  but  an  excess .  And  that  excess ,  or  surplus , 
was  indeed  a  transient  problem- -indeed  a  federal  problem. 
However,  we  did  not  succeed,  as  far  as  I  recall,  in  obtaining  a 
modification  of  the  federal  rules. 

The  transient  program  was  directed  by  an  old-time  social 
worker  by  the  name  of  H.  R.  Carleton.   I  believe  that  he 
ultimately  wound  up,  at  the  end  of  World  War  II,  with  UNRRA 
[United  Nations  Relief  and  Rehabilitation  Administration]  in 
Greece. 

Hicke:     How  was  it  determined  that  these  were  people  from  Oklahoma  and 
various  other  states  rather  than  Just  the  normal  migratory  farm 
workers?  Did  the  law  students  determine  that? 

Heilbron:   The  area  of  their  reporting  was  pretty  much  up  to  them.   Did 
these  people  seem  to  be  in  need,  and  what  were  their  stories, 
where  did  they  come  from?  Yes,  that's  true --where  did  they  come 
from  and  did  they  like  it  here?  Did  they  want  to  remain?  Did 
they  really  want  to  work?  How  would  they  evaluate  the  people 
who  were  in  the  camp?  Now  naturally  this  was  anything  but  a 
scholarly  project,  but,  let's  put  it  this  way:  it  was  kind  of  a 
journalistic  project. 

Hicke:     And  had  certainly  a  lot  of  sociological  content. 


43 


Heilbron:   And  bright  young  men  would  be  able  to  make  fairly  good 

judgments.   At  least  it  was  recognized  that  there  was  a  problem 
that  had  to  be  addressed,  and  that  started  it. 

I  think  I  mentioned  work  relief.   I  could  make  a  reasonable 
evaluation  of  projects  that  appeared  to  be  outside  of  the  normal 
operations  of  a  county,  but  1  was  not  competent  to  evaluate  the 
projects  on  the  basis  of  their  engineering  value,  and  the  costs, 
and  requested  that  a  work  relief  department  be  created  to  take 
care  of  the  technicalities  that  were  necessarily  involved  in  a 
wide-ranging  program. 

Hicke:     Was  reporting  required  as  to  the  value  of  the  projects  that  were 
undertaken? 

Heilbron:  Yes,  the  federal  government  got  the  report  on  the  projects,  but 
the  state  was  given  the  authority  and  the  duty  to  evaluate  the 
projects  before  approving  them  for  work  relief  status.   In 
fairly  quick  time --and  I'm  referring  to  the  year  1933  itself -- 
decentralized  offices  of  the  Emergency  Relief  Administration 
were  established  in  Los  Angeles  and  in  other  areas,  including 
San  Francisco.   San  Francisco  was  among  the  last  to  come  in  for 
relief.   It  had  been  very  proud  that  the  Associated  Charities 
were  able  to  carry  the  new  relief  load  for  a  number  of  years 
into  the  Depression,  but  then  the  county  welfare  department  took 
over  the  relief  program,  and,  as  of  July  1st  of  '33,  San 
Francisco  put  in  its  application  for  funds  so  that  before  the 
end  of  1933,  the  state  was  pretty  well  covered. 

The  program  that  had  started  with  seven  million  dollars  for 
seven  counties  for  two  months  developed  into  a  fourteen-  or 
fifteen-million-dollars-a-month  request  to  the  federal 
government  during  '34.  Then  California  was  required  to  come 
into  the  financing  of  a  State  Emergency  Relief  Administration  in 
a  much  larger  way  than  it  originally  contributed.   I  think  that 
the  original  contribution  was  to  establish  the  Emergency  Relief 
Administration  with  $200,000  a  year  beginning  on  July  first  of 
'33- -there  may  have  been  an  interim  appropriation- -but  a  large 
fund  act  was  passed  in  1935  with  $24  million  of  state 
contribution  to  the  relief  program.   And  by  that  time,  the  WPA 
had  been  established  too,  so  that  between  the  VPA  and  the  state 
finance  program,  the  California  unemployment  situation  was 
reasonably  well  taken  care  of. 

As  I  said,  there  were  certain  categories  that  were  caught 
in  between  and  had  to  be  taken  care  of  by  the  counties  if  they 
chose  to  do  it.   The  Joad  family  [depicted  in  The  Crapes  of 
Wrath]  was  the  kind  of  family  that  was  caught  in  these  legal 


44 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hlcke: 


circumstances  which  gave  good  cause  for  the  John  Steinbeck  novel 
and  for  many  of  Paul  Taylor's  observations. 

But  are  you  saying  that  it  wasn't  necessarily  true,  or  maybe 
even  typical  of  everyone  who  came  to  California?  That  many  of 
them  were  taken  care  of? 

My  recollection  is  that  the  one  sanitary,  decent  camp  the  Joads 
stayed  in  during  their  otherwise  bitter  California  experience 
was  in  a  government  camp,  self -governed  by  mostly  out-of- state 
migrants.   There  were  too  few  of  such  facilities  in  the  state 
and  often  opposed  by  farming  interests  as  supporting  leftists 
and  "reds"- -promoting  fancy  ideas  of  what  living  conditions  farm 
migrants  should  be  entitled  to  expect. 


How  did  it  compare  with  other  states? 
solution. 


Both  the  problem  and  the 


Heilbron:   Unemployment  relief,  when  given,  was  usually  higher  than  in  most 
states,  but  due  to  the  somewhat  ambiguous  policy  on  migrants, 
out-of-state  migrants  were  competing  for  agricultural  jobs  at 
low,  sub -standard  rates.   I  am  referring  to  the  mid- thirties 
particularly  after  the  Okie  "invasion"  and  after  the  federal 
transient  program  was  well  underway. 

Hicke:     How  did  Mr.  Branion  do? 

Heilbron:  Mr.  Branion,  after  not  much  more  than  a  year  and  a  half  of 

service,  was  suspected  by  the  political  forces  of  William  McAdoo 
of  having  ambitions  to  run  either  for  the  Senate  or  for  the 
governorship- -I  think  it  was  the  Senate- -and  charges  were 
brought  against  him  for  misappropriation  of  federal  funds.   I 
don't  know  whether  it  was  for  wrongful  use  in  work  projects  or 
some  accusation  for  political  purposes,  but  these  were  trumped 
up  charges;  all  of  us  who  had  worked  with  him  contributed  to  his 
defense  fund,  and  the  charges  were  ultimately  dismissed.   There 
never  was  a  trial,  but  Branion  left  the  position. 

Hicke:     It  served  to  discredit  him  somewhat,  probably. 

Heilbron:   Well,  he  wound  up  by  being  General  [Dwight  D. ]  Eisenhower's 

deputy  for  welfare  programs  overseas,  with  a  simulated  rank  of 
general,  so  he  recovered  his  status,  and  he  was  a  well-received 
consultant  during  the  interim  after  he  left.   But  it  was  a  very 
unfair  charge.   And  then  he  was  succeeded  by  around  nine  to  ten 
other  administrators,  one  way  or  another. 


Hicke : 


One  after  the  other? 


45 


Heilbron:  True,  they  didn't  last  very  long.  A  person  by  the  name  of 

Vernon  Northrop- -he  had  a  financial  background- -administered  aid 
for  a  while;  Frank  Y.  McLaughlin  was  perhaps  the  most 
prestigious  of  the  successor  administrators.   He  headed  both  the 
Emergency  Relief  Administration  and  then  the  regional  office  of 
the  WTA  in  California  —  certainly  for  northern  California. 

Hicke:     Both  at  the  same  time? 

Heilbron:   I  think  that  he  gave  up,  after  a  while,  his  work  as  Emergency 

Relief  administrator  and  concentrated  on  his  WPA  responsibility. 

Of  course,  by  1934,  I  had  joined  Heller,  Ehrman,  White,  & 
McAuliffe.   I  was  offered  the  position  in  September  of  1933  for 
commencement  in  January  of  the  following  year.   1  had  had  some 
heady  experiences  in  government  and  had  to  make  a  career  choice, 
and  I  realized  that,  salary  cut  and  all,  it  was  the  right  thing 
to  do  to  begin  practicing  the  law,  and  maybe  to  start  in  with  a 
few  single  probate  proceedings  rather  than  filing  applications 
for  millions  of  dollars  of  aid  and  so  on. 

Hicke:     Why  did  you  decide  that? 

Heilbron:   The  circumstances  and  more  detailed  reasons  I'll  relate  later 
when  we  take  up  my  life  career  with  Heller  Ehrman. 

One  further  aspect  of  the  work  relief  program:  the  other 
assistant  to  Mr.  Branion,  Aleta  Brownlee ,  and  1  received  a  wire 
calling  for  an  immediate  reply  while  Mr.  Branion  was  away  from 
the  central  office.   It  was  an  order  from  Mr.  Hopkins  to  place 
all  California  able-bodied  relief  personnel  on  work  relief 
within  thirty  days.   Miss  Brownlee  and  I  knew  that  this  was  an 
impossibility.  We  did  confer  with  several  of  the  project 
administrators  in  the  state  before  answering,  but  we  did  answer 
to  the  effect  that  we  could  not  accomplish  this  directive  within 
the  time  required  and  pointed  out  that  if  we  did  attempt  to  do 
so,  the  result  would  be  projects  in  violation  of  the  federal 
policy  that  the  projects  had  to  be  worthwhile,  substantial 
projects.   This  was,  perhaps,  an  unusual  reply  for  Mr.  Hopkins, 
who  used  only  to  receive  affirmative  answers  to  his  requests, 
but  he  accepted  it,  and  I  think  that  we  took  up  to  ninety  days 
to  fulfill  the  requirement. 

Hicke:     You  think  he  sent  that  out  to  all  of  the  states? 

Heilbron:   Oh  yes.   It  wasn't  only  in  California.   And  I  don't  know  how  the 
others  answered,  but  I  do  know  what  we  did. 


46 


Self -He IP  Cooperative! 


Heilbron:   There  were  two  other  areas  of  considerable  interest  in  the 
relief  program:  one  had  to  do  with  self-help  cooperatives. 
These  were  unemployed  people  who  got  together  to  produce  for 
themselves- - 

Hicke:     They  organized  themselves? 

Heilbron:   --organized  themselves.   There  were  quite  a  few  in  California, 
even  in  the  early  part  of  the  Depression.   The  federal 
government  wanted  to  encourage  the  program,  and,  under  one  of 
the  sections  of  the  Federal  Relief  Act,  were  authorized  to  do 
so.   The  cooperative  program  was  under  the  direction  of  Vinslow 
Carlton,  who  was  the  son  of  the  owner  of  the  Postal  Telegraph 
Company.   1  don't  know  whether  he  was  a  dollar-a-year  man  or 
not,  but  he  was  a  fine  young  man  and  thoroughly  dedicated  to  the 
program.   The  self-help  cooperators  were  to  produce  for 
themselves,  for  example  on  a  farm  or  cutting  lumber  or 
publishing,  or  whatever,  and  they  would  benefit  by  producing  for 
themselves- -let's  say,  take  a  farm,  for  example --and  then 
trading  the  surplus  with  other  cooperatives. 

Hicke:     Barter? 

Heilbron:   It  was  mainly  a  barter  system.   It  was  not  outside  of  that 

system  except  for  crafts  and  some  sales  to  the  state;  they  could 
sell  craft  work,  because  that  was  regarded  as  generally 
noncompetitive  with  industry.   The  federal  people  thought  that 
maybe  it  could  become  a  permanent  part  of  the  economy.   There 
was  one  large  cooperative  in  the  Alameda  County  area  that  had  a 
lumber  project  and  a  ranch  and  a  publication  division  and  was 
rather  successful.   I  don't  know  how  many  families  were  self- 
sustaining  in  this  fashion.   In  the  early  part  of  the 
cooperative  movement,  they  claimed  24,000  families  were  assisted 
in  Los  Angeles  alone  in  this  way. 

Hicke:     Vere  assisted  by  whom? 

Heilbron:   Veil,  in  the  beginning,  they  got  donations,  let's  say  of  fuel 
from  industrial  companies,  but  then  their  operations  got  to  be 
so  substantial,  and  the  costs  of  lending  them  equipment  or 
donating  equipment  got  so  substantial  that  unless  the  government 
came  in  to  subsidize  their  projects,  they  would  not  be  able  to 
continue. 


Hicke : 


So  they  weren't  exactly  self-sustaining? 


47 


Hcilbron:   Not  entirely.   They  got  the  equipment --the  initial  subsidy  of 

equipment --yes,  that's  true,  from  the  government,  mainly  through 
federal  funds  channeled  through  the  state,  but  once  started, 
they  were  self-sustaining.  Well,  they  got  credits  for  so  much 
work  for  the  cooperative.   If  you  worked  two  days,  you  got  so 
many  credits,  and  you  cashed  them  in  for  your  food  or  whatever 
the  benefits  were.   If  you  worked  three  days  or  four  days,  you 
got  more  credits.   Some  of  these  families  actually  continued  to 
be  on  relief  but  reduced  the  amount  of  relief  that  they  required 
by  reason  of  their  work  in  the  cooperatives. 

Hicke:     So  this  was  part  of  the  work  relief  credit,  is  that  what  we're 
talking  about? 

Heilbron:  Well,  it  wasn't  work  relief.  Work  relief  was  on  a  public 

project.   These  were  privately  produced  goods,  for  themselves; 
for  exchange  with  other  cooperatives. 

Hicke:     But  what  kind  of  credits  did  they  get? 

Heilbron:  The  credits  were  within  themselves.   They  earned  so  many 

credits,  and  if  you  had  two  hundred  credits,  you  could  turn  them 
in  for  the  ration  coupons  for  whatever  the  cooperative  had  to 
offer.   There's  a  large,  formalized  cooperative  movement  in 
California,  of  course,  on  a  very  large  scale  these  days,  but 
this  kind  of  individual  and  family  membership  cooperative,  which 
I  think  the  federal  government  thought  would  become  a  permanent 
part  of  the  economy,  did  not  continue  that  way,  because  when  we 
recovered  economically,  particularly  when  we  got  into  wartime 
industry,  the  unemployment  problem  was  more  than  resolved,  and 
people  came  from  all  over  the  United  States  to  the  shipyards  and 
defense  installations,  and  it  was  an  entirely  different  story. 


Rural  Rehabilitation  Proram 


Heilbron:   So  during  the  years  succeeding  '33,  when  I  was  a  consultant,  I 
continued  with  the  work  on  applications  to  the  federal 
government  and  advice  on  work  relief  questions  and  on 
cooperative  questions,  and  also  organized,  under  the  authority 
of  the  federal  and  state  governments,  the  Rural  Rehabilitation 
Corporation.   This  corporation  was  formed  with  the  idea  of 
making  loans  to  needy  agricultural  people.   The  state  relief 
administration  or  some  state  agency  would  buy  their  crops  and  in 
that  way  take  them  off  of  the  relief  status.   To  some  extent, 
this  was  successful. 


48 


Hicke:     And  then  what  did  they  do  with  the  crops? 

Heilbron:   The  crops  were  sold  in  large  part  to  the  state.   They  could  be 
distributed  as  surplus  foods  to  other  people  on  relief,  in  kind. 
There  were  county  welfare  departments  that  were  dealing  with 
disabled  indigents.   Additionally  they  had  limited  rights  to 
sell,  such  as  to  public  agencies,  but  the  state  would  take  a 
mortgage  on  their  crops,  and  then  they  would  repay  out  of  the 
cash  sales  that  were  made . 

Hicke:     And  how  was  this  funded? 

Heilbron:   This  was  funded  mainly  by  federal  money.   I  know  that  I  drafted 
the  various  forms  of  instruments  connected  with  the  loan  papers 
and  the  chattel  mortgages  and  the  leases  and  so  on,  but  I  did 
not  participate  in  the  administration,  so  I  don't  know  quite  how 
effective  it  all  was.   So  much  depended  on  the  ability  and 
integrity  of  the  individuals  involved  that  I  always  wondered 
about  how  successful  this  would  be  in  the  long  run. 

Hicke:     How  was  the  information  gotten  to  people  who  needed  these 

services?  How  would  they  find  out  about  them?  Through  the 
county? 

Heilbron:   There  were  emergency  relief  offices  in  almost  every  county. 
Hicke:     An  open  office  that  was  staffed  all  the  time? 

Heilbron:   There  were  tremendous  staffs  —  in  Los  Angeles,  for  example,  in 
all  of  the  major  county  seats,  and  relief  was  a  newspaper  item 
of  considerable  importance.   The  development  even  of  a 
cooperative  was  newsworthy.   The  fact  that  there  was  such  a 
thing  as  the  Rural  Rehabilitation  Corporation,  when  it  was 
authorized  in  a  bill  passed  by  the  legislature,  also  struck  the 
media.   And  an  Emergency  Relief  Commission  was  formed  at  an 
early  stage  to  control  policies  on  relief  expenditures.   In 
other  words,  the  Emergency  Relief  director  was  guided  by  an 
Emergency  Relief  Commission. 

Hicke:     State  agency? 

Heilbron:   State  agency.   I'm  not  talking  solely  about  the  Rural 

Rehabilitation  Corporation- -that  had  its  own  board  of  directors 
that  consisted  mostly  of  state  personnel --but  I'm  talking  about 
a  citizen  commission  that  controlled  all  of  the  emergency  relief 
expenditures  in  the  state,  and  there  were  some  very  good  people 
on  that  commission. 


Archbishop  Hanna  of  the  diocese  in  San  Francisco  was  the 
first  chairman,  and  when  matters  became  heated  and  the 
discussion  was  almost  ready  to  get  out  of  hand,  he  would  recess 
the  meeting,  count  his  beads,  people  became  calm,  and  the 
meeting  went  on.  Then  there  was  Dwight  Murphy  from  Santa 
Barbara  who  was  a  good  chairman.  Melvin  Douglas,  the  actor,  was 
a  very  intelligent  and  compassionate  man.   Some  other  names  will 
come  to  me  as  we  go  on,  but  the  commission  was  a  politically 
disinterested  one,  whether  they  came  from  the  Democratic  or 
Republican  side. 

I  might  say  their  meetings  were  also  forums  of  protest. 
The  unemployed  were  not  all  simply  meekly  taking  their  benefits. 
Many  felt  that  they  weren't  receiving  enough;  that  the  family 
budgets  were  too  low.   There  was  a  good  amount  of  leftist 
sentiments,  too,  in  back  of  some  of  the  protests- -not  all  of 
them,  but  some  of  them.   I  think  the  Workers'  Alliance  was  the 
name  of  one  of  the  organizations,  and  they  made  efforts  to 
increase  appropriations  just  like  any  other  group  wants  its 
interests  advanced.   So  some  of  these  meetings  during  the 
thirties  were  quite  lively. 

Hicke:     Did  you  attend  the  commission  meetings? 
Heilbron:   I  attended  them,  yes.   That  was  one  of  my  duties. 
Hicke:     Did  you  take  an  active  part? 

Heilbron:  No,  I  answered  when  my  advice  was  called  for.   1  remember  in  one 
case,  the  chairman  was  from  San  Diego--!  can't  remember  his  name 
right  now- -and  he  had  a  certain  agenda  in  mind,  which  I  didn't 
know  about,  and  an  answer  appeared  to  be  quite  obvious  to  me  on 
an  issue  that  was  being  discussed,  and  I  volunteered  it.   He 
didn't  say  anything  until  after  the  meeting,  and  after  the 
meeting  he  told  me  that  he  appreciated  my  counsel,  but  he  wanted 
to  ask  for  it  before  it  was  given.   [laughter] 

Hicke:     The  meetings  were  here  in  San  Francisco? 

Heilbron:   No,  they  were  all  over  the  state.   1  remember  meetings  in 

Monterey,  in  Los  Angeles,  in  San  Francisco,  and  in  other  cities. 

There  was  a  Robert  G.  Hooker,  who  was  also  a  commissioner, 
a  very  socially  minded  man  of  considerable  means.  Mrs. 
Treadwell,  who  ultimately  took  over  the  administration  of  the 
Federal  Youth  program  in  the  state.   These  were  rather  capable 
people,  but  they  were  selected,  1  guess,  the  way  the  Associated 
Charities  would  have  selected  their  own  board:  they  came  from 
the  well-to-do,  well-meaning  part  of  society  who  felt  it  to  be 


50 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


both  an  honor  and  a  duty  to  be  part  of  the  program,  but  not  so 
ouch  representative  of  people  who  had  closer  ties  to  the  people 
whose  needs  were  to  be  attended  to. 

May  I  continue  with  respect  to  the  relief  programs  during 
the  thirties.   The  relief  administrators  appointed  pursuant  to 
the  1935  Bond  Act  superseded  the  emergency  relief  administrator 
and  succeeded  to  all  of  his  powers.   One  of  the  notable 
administrators  was  Charles  Schottland,  whom  I  had  appointed  in 
one  of  the  welfare  relief  programs  in  1933.   He  became  the 
relief  administrator,  subsequently  the  head  of  the  State 
Department  of  Social  Welfare.   During  the  war,  he  was  the 
Director  for  General  Eisenhower  of  the  Displaced  Persons  Program 
for  Europe.   Harold  Pomeroy  was  another  administrator  who  had  an 
interesting  history.   And  Charles  Wollenberg,  director  of  the 
San  Francisco  Welfare  Department,  became  the  Director  of  the 
Department  of  Social  Welfare. 

Ideas  changed  as  the  economic  conditions  in  the  state 
changed.   It  was  all  unemployment  relief,  certainly  through 
1938,  probably  part  of  1939.   I  remember  that  we  had  an 
appropriation  in  1938.   It  was  $48  million  and  Governor  [Frank] 
Merriam  deleted  a  restriction  on  the  use  of  well  over  $7 
million,  intending  all  of  the  appropriation  for  general  use. 
The  state  controller  contended  that  the  removal  of  the 
restriction  resulted  in  a  decrease  of  the  general  appropriation 
to  the  extent  of  the  money  subject  to  the  restriction.   I 
brought  an  action  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  California  to  nullify 
the  controller's  action  and  uphold  the  governor's  and  the  total 
$48  million.   The  court  decided  in  our  favor.   I  might  say  that 
I  had  the  benefit  of  a  precedent  that  had  been  established  by 
another  case,  and  so  it  was  a  welcome  victory,  but  not  a  great 
one. 

Well,  line -item  veto  is  permitted  under  California's  system. 

In  this  particular  case,  it  was  not  a  veto  but  a  holding  to 
support  the  governor's  authority  to  maintain  the  appropriation. 
However,  he  seems  to  have  vetoed  the  restriction. 


Consultant  to  Department  of  Social  Welfare 


Heilbron:   Subsequently,  toward  1940  when  the  relief  administration  ceased 
to  operate  and  its  remaining  functions  were  taken  over  by  the 
Department  of  Social  Welfare  again,  I  continued  to  advise  the 
department  on  different  subjects. 


51 


Hicke:      So  you  moved  back  to  the  Department  of  Social-- 

Heilbron:  I  didn't  move  back  in  the  same  area,  because  I  was  a  consultant 
to  them  particularly  on  matters  that  related  to  general  welfare 
law. 

Naturally,  throughout  all  of  this  period --throughout  the 
thirties--!  had  very  close  relationships  with  the  Attorney 
General's  Office.  Of  course,  any  litigation  was  still  the 
province  of  the  Attorney  General's  Office.   Occasionally  we  had 
to  have  our  position  bolstered  by  an  opinion  from  the  attorney 
general,  so  I  had  a  very  good  relationship  with  that  office. 

Hicke:     That  was  Earl  Warren? 

Heilbron:   Oh,  there  were  various  attorneys  general.   No,  not  during  this 
period.   But  now  that  you  mention  Earl  Warren,  I  do  recall  in 
the  very  earliest  part  of  my  work  as  an  assistant  administrator 
during  1933,  Earl  Warren,  representing  the  county  of  Alameda, 
brought  its  application  to  our  attention,  and  I  was  the  person 
designated  to  receive  it.   Even  at  that  early  date,  Warren  was  a 
well-known  figure  as  district  attorney  of  Alameda  County,  and  I 
felt  it  a  little  bit  embarrassing  as  a  young  man  of  around 
twenty-six  receiving  the  application- -it  was  an  application,  not 
a  supplication,  I  can  assure  you--from  Earl  Warren  [laughter], 
but  he  treated  me  as  though  I  were  a  judge  and  he  was  pleading 
his  case.   I  always  remembered  that.   It  was  many,  many  years 
later  that  I  brought  my  children  to  see  Earl  Warren,  and  I'll 
tell  you  the  story  at  the  appropriate  time. 

With  reference  to  the  kinds  of  work  for  the  Department  of 
Social  Welfare,  it  was  in  the  adoption  field,  it  was  in 
connection  with  the  licensing  of  life-care  institutions, 
protecting  individuals  who  had  purchased  life-care  contracts 
from  fraudulent  or  negligent  institutions,  and  the  remaining 
phases  of  relief.   But  as  the  defense  industries  grew  in 
California  and  as  recovery  was  taking  place,  the  relief 
requirements  greatly  diminished. 

Hicke :     How  many  hours  a  week  would  you  spend  in  the  Department  of 
Social  Welfare? 

Heilbron:  Well,  not  too  many.   It  was  not  like  the  relief  program  days. 
In  connection  with  the  emergency  relief  program,  it  moved  back 
from  Sacramento  to  San  Francisco,  so  I  could  be  in  close  contact 
with  problems  very  easily.   The  offices  were  at  49  4th  Street. 
The  Department  of  Social  Welfare  was  located  in  Sacramento.   It 
was  more  a  question  of  correspondence.   I  did  not  attend  all  of 
the  meetings  of  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare  Commission;  I 


52 


would  only  if  an  issue  involving  me  was  raised.   By  1941,  I 
recognized  that  I  should  put  all  of  my  energies  into  the  work  at 
Heller.  Ehman,  which,  by  that  time,  I  practically  was  doing 
anyway.   So,  before  I  came  back  from  the  war,  I  resigned  from 
the  department  completely. 

Hicke:     Veil,  you  indicated  that  you  might  be  willing  to  make  some 

comparisons  to  how  the  work  evolved  and  the  programs  evolved. 

Heilbron:   There  are  a  few  concepts  that  have  changed  markedly  over  the 
years.   Some  of  them  changed  pretty  much  in  1933.   In  the 
earlier  days  of  this  century,  it  was  expected  that  one's  kith 
and  kin  would  help  him  in  times  of  trouble,  and  you  are 
dependent  on  your  family,  and  that's  the  reason  why  private 
charity  took  care  of  practically  all  relief.   An  indigent  was 
regarded  as  a  pauper.   You  really  thought  of  an  indigent  in 
terms  of  a  pauper's  grave.   One  old  supervisor  in  San  Francisco, 
who  was  the  master  of  malapropisms ,  would  say,  "We  owe  a  solemn 
duty  to  our  indignant  dead."   [laughter] 

The  kindred  who  were  responsible  in  law  were  the  parent, 
the  adult  child,  the  sister,  the  brother,  the  grandchild.   So  to 
get  to  the  county  was  a  long  process .   And  the  person  who 
enforced  the  kindred  responsibility  was  not  the  general  civil 
attorney  for  the  county  or  city,  it  was  the  district  attorney. 
You  were  confronted  by  the  district  attorney.   In  1933  at  least 
we  cut  down  the  kindred,  realistically,  to  the  parent  and  the 
adult  child  and  the  spouse. 

Then,  also,  there  were  very  strict  rules  about  the  person 
applying  his  own  property  to  the  point  of  destitution- -to  take 
care  of  himself  before  the  public  would  take  care  of  him.   To 
retain  an  automobile  in  those  early  days,  that  was  not  a 
possibility.   Of  course,  you  had  to  borrow  to  the  limits  on  your 
home,  and  if  you  got  assistance  and  then  you  came  into  any  kind 
of  money  or  property,  you  had  to  pay  it  back.   So  all  of  these 
very  strict  rules  were  modified  and  relaxed  during  the  period  of 
the  Depression  when  it  was  suddenly  seen  that  a  person  could 
become  needy  and  be  just  like  every  other  person.   So  that  the 
kindred  liability  was  cut  down  and  the  enforcement  provisions 
were  cut  down,  and  it  was  realized  that  in  some  situations  a 
person  had  to  have  an  automobile  to  get  to  work  and  still  obtain 
some  kind  of  relief.   So  that  was  one  issue  that  changed  a  good 
deal. 

Then  there  was  this  business  of  the  three-year  residence 
requirement  for  the  state  that  actually  was  initiated,  as  I  told 
you,  in  1933  through  a  consensus  of  all  of  the  counties 
involved,  and  the  one-year  residence  in  the  county.   The 


53 


population  didn't  have  the  mobility  in  the  earlier  days  that  the 
automobile  made  possible.   Opportunities  in  other  pastures  could 
be  more  easily  seen,  and  there  was  further  growth  in  California 
during  and  toward  the  end  of  the  Depression-  -first  there  was  the 
big  invasion  from  the  Dust  Bowl  and  then,  of  course,  the  more 
positive  invasion-  -or  immigration,  I  guess  is  the  proper  word- 
to.  California  because  of  the  opportunities  in  defense 
industries.   Yet  the  three-year  residence  requirement  as  an 
effort  to  protect  against  this  very  invasion  continued  until 
1975.   Then,  I  believe,  a  one-year  provision  was  put  in. 

Hicke:     This  is  state  or  county? 

Heilbron:   This  is  state.   Well,  actually,  they  knocked  out  the  state 

provision  because  it  was  meaningless:  if  you  had  one  year  in  the 
county,  you  were  one  year  in  the  state.   So  that's  what  it 
amounted  to.   I  believe  that  it  was  changed  in  '75  to  a  year, 
but  I've  noticed  in  the  newspapers  that  in  southern  California, 
there's  a  movement  to  restore  the  three  -year  statute  for 
practically  the  same  reasons  that  occurred  in  1933.   Some  still 
believe  that  you  can  stem  immigration  by  such  a  law  that  would 
discourage  people  from  coning  in. 

Hicke:     It  would  be  directed  more  against  Hispanics  and-- 


Heilbron:   And  this  proposal  will  be  just  as  unrealistic,  because  when 
people  are  here,  they're  here.   Isn't  that  the  story  of  the 
homeless?   In  spite  of  all  of  civic  complaints,  we  build 
shelters  for  them,  and  it's  become  a  legal  issue  again,  but  it's 
different  as  far  as  I  can  see  --it's  much  different  from  the 
Depression  in  '33.   The  mentally  ill  were  in  institutions  in 
1933,  they  were  not  on  the  streets.   There  was  a  pride  in  1933 
by  the  people  who  were  thrown  out  of  work  so  that  even  when  they 
were  not  assisted  by  public  funds,  they  were  selling  apples  or 
they  were  doing  something  that  seemed  to  justify  their  being  on 
the  streets.  Now,  with  so  many  white-collar  people  being  thrown 
out  of  work,  you  may  have  something  of  the  same  kind  of  people 
needing  aid  before  too  long,  and  that  part  of  it  would  be 
repeated,  but  the  homeless  on  the  scale  that  we  have  is 
something  new  as  far  as  welfare  assistance  is  concerned,  it 
seems  to  me.   The  quality  of  it  is  different,  I  think. 

Hicke:     But  what  you  were  doing  in  the  thirties  was  really  reflecting  a 
whole  change  in  society's  attitude,  or  maybe  it  was  more  a 
change  of  scale,  but  certainly  nothing  on  this  scale  had  been 
done  ,  and  one  of  the  reasons  I  asked  you  about  preserving 
dignity  is  because  I  think  that's  another  thing  that  was  new.   I 


54 


don't  know  how  Important  that  was  say  in  the  19th  century  or  to 
people  when  they  were  Just  being  helped  by  charities. 

Heilbron:   There  was  no  dignity  in  19th  century  programs  as  far  as  I  can 
see  them.   Of  course,  I  guess  we  get  most  of  our  ideas  of 
charities  from  Dickens,  in  the  19th  century,  but  I  think  that  a 
lot  of  it  was  repeated  in  this  country.   The  idea  was  pretty 
much  that  the  poor  were  responsible  for  their  condition,  and 
when  you  did  take  care  of  the  poor,  it  was  on  a  Lady  Bountiful 
basis  and  you  were  doing  good  work.   So  I  think  there  was  a  big 
change  in  attitude. 

I  remember  the  most  impressive,  the  most  attended,  the  most 
entertaining  program  in  the  World's  Fair  of  1939  and  '40  was  the 
WPA  theater  over  on  Treasure  Island,  which  played  The  Swing 
Mikado,  or  something  of  that  kind.  A  black  troupe  did  the 
Mikado,  and  it  was  the  finest  entertainment  that  they  had  at  the 
fair.   It  was  probably  the  most  popular.   Now  that  was  a  WPA 
project  that  certainly  was  a  most  dignified  affair.   I  remember 
the  WPA  Writers'  Project,  where  for  every  state  in  the  United 
States,  I  think,  travel  guides  were  written  by  authors  of 
considerable  talent  and  ability.   Of  course,  these  are 
outstanding  examples. 

Hicke:     I  think  a  lot  of  oral  histories  were  taken  of  blacks  and  slave 
families,  too. 

Heilbron:   There  was  a  great  deal  of  good.   I'll  tell  you  another  example 
of  a  WPA  project  that  was  rather  interesting,  and  that  is  when 
it  was  decided  to  build  a  San  Francisco  World's  Fair  in  1939-40, 
the  question  was,  who  was  going  to  take  the  shallows  outside  of 
Yerba  Buena  Island  and  make  a  Treasure  Island?   It  was 
determined  that  that  could  be  done  by  a  WPA  project,  and  the 
federal  WPA  in  Washington  drew  up  a  contract  with  the  city  of 
San  Francisco  for  the  development  of  Treasure  Island. 
Washington  WPA  headquarters  sent  out  a  draft  contract,  and  made 
a  request  that  a  local  attorney  review  it  from  the  California 
point  of  view,  and  I  was  the  local  attorney  that  the  WPA 
depended  on,  so  I  was  about  to  review  it. 

They  advised  that  it  had  already  been  reviewed  and  approved 
by  the  city  of  San  Francisco,  and  I  found  out  that  it  was  Mr. 
McAuliffe  who  had  approved  it  for  the  city  of  San  Francisco.   So 
I  said,  "Perhaps  I  shouldn't  be  the  person  to  review  this,  Mr. 
McLaughlin."  He  said,  "I  know  all  about  that,  and  I've  taken  it 
up  with  the  federal  people,  and  everybody  is  aware  of  the  fact." 
McAuliffe  told  me,  "You  take  this  contract  and  do  whatever  you 
want  to  with  it.   I'll  never  talk  with  you,  and  no  matter  how 
many  errors  you  find  in  it,  it  will  be  all  right.   Don't  worry 


55 


Hicke : 


about  that,  we  are  all  aware  of  the  situation."   So  with  some 
reluctance,  I  reviewed  the  contract  with  a  prayer  that  I 
wouldn't  find  anything  that  worried  ae. 

But  I  did  find  one  thing,  and  it  was  something  that  all 
parties  seeaed  to  be  pleased  that  I  found.   In  the  contract  it 
said  that  at  the  termination  of  the  fair,  Treasure  Island  would 
become  San  Francisco's  International  Airport.   I  didn't  know 
anything  about  aviation,  but  the  planes  looked  like  they  were 
getting  bigger,  and  the  island  didn't  look  very  big,  and  I 
wondered  what  the  future  of  aviation  was  going  to  be.   I  said, 
"I  think  that  'shall  become'  should  be  changed  to  'may  become," 
and  that  was  agreed  to  by  all  the  parties.   So  no  obstacle  was 
put  into  developing  the  airport  that  we  now  know. 

Having  not  long  ago  landed  at  San  Francisco  International,  I'm 
grateful  to  you. 


Heilbron:   Veil,  another  difference  that  occurs  to  me  is  in  the  adoption 

laws.   When  I  advised  the  department,  and  there  was  an  adoption, 
you  sealed  the  adoption.   The  child  never  knew  who  the  natural 
parent  was.   The  idea  was  you  had  a  complete  substitution  and 
there  would  be  no  pressures  on  the  adopting  parents  or  the  child 
subsequent  to  the  adoption  because  of  a  natural  parent's 
interest  or  contact.   Now  it's  absolutely  the  other  way.   The 
matter  is  open,  the  natural  parents  identified,  and  maybe  it's 
all  for  the  better,  because  when  the  child  knows  that  he  or  she 
is  adopted,  there  will  be  a  natural  curiosity:  where  did  I  come 
from?  and  so  on.   When  he  or  she  is  adopted,  the  relationship  is 
legal  and  is  final.   So  it  does  not  change  the  legal 
relationship,  although  it  can  cause  some  problems,  perhaps,  when 
the  child  becomes  a  young  adult  and  wants  to  know  where  his  or 
her  roots  are ,  and  the  natural  parent  could  suddenly  become  a 
figure  in  family  relationships.   Now  it's  interesting  that 
there's  been  such  a  reversal  of  procedure. 

When  I  started  out  with  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare, 
aid  to  dependent  children  was  a  minor  program.   It  was  the 
occasional  unwed  mother  who  applied  for  aid  for  a  dependent 
child.   But  the  unwed  mother  is  not  an  occasional  status 
anymore,  it's  a  huge  program- -it's  a  family  program- -there  was 
one  unwanted  child  perhaps,  or  even  wanted  child,  who  had  caused 
the  problem  in  these  earlier  days.   That's  not  the  case.   This 
is  now  one  out  of  every  four,  something  like  that;  it's  a  big 
total  and  constitutes  a  completely  new  social  welfare  issue. 

Maybe  that  can  do  for  that  subject. 


56 


Hicke:     All  right.   I  think  we've  gotten  a  lot  of  good  information  about 
the  state  relief  and  welfare  program  in  the  thirties. 

Heilbron:  Well,  I  hope  so,  I  hope  so. 


57 


III  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT  AND  MILITARY  SERVICE 

[Interview  5:  February  5,  1992]  ## 

Pearl  Harbor  and  California 


Hicke:     We  are  going  to  start  with  your  entrance  into  the  military. 
Heilbron:   Yes,  I  thought  we  would  go  into  the  wartime  period. 
Hicke:     Okay. 

Heilbron:   Of  course,  we  all  listened  with  awe  and  horror  at  the 

announcement  Kaltenborn  gave  over  the  radio  on  December  7,  1941. 

Hicke:     H.  V.  Kaltenborn? 

Heilbron:   Yes.   He  announced  the  war  and  graphically  described  what  had 
happened  at  Pearl  Harbor.   1  think  his  broadcast  was  around 
noon.   Naturally,  there  was  a  period  of  considerable  confusion. 
The  Los  Angeles  area  took  emergency  action- -guns  fired  into  the 
air  to  stop  incoming  Japanese  aircraft  that  never  were  present, 
and  a  blackout  was  called;  all  the  lights  in  Los  Angeles  were 
out  except  a  big  sign  pointed  seaward  which  said  "Welcome  to  San 
Pedro."   [laughter]   The  war  began  with  surprises. 

With  a  good  part  of  the  fleet  destroyed  at  Pearl  Harbor, 
people  wondered  where  the  remnants  of  the  Pacific  fleet  were. 
It  was  not  published  anywhere.   It  was  a  kind  of  a  secret 
affair.  All  you  had  to  do  was  go  up  on  top  of  Telegraph  Hill 
and  look  out  and  see  where  the  remnants  were --they  were  in  San 
Francisco  Harbor.   I  think  one  or  two  of  the  escaped  ships  came 
into  the  harbor  also. 

Hicke:     The  escaped  ships? 


58 


Hellbron:   Ships  that  escaped  Pearl  Harbor.  One  or  two  were  on  the  way 
before  the  action. 

Hicke:     Where  were  you  on  that  day? 

Heilbron:   I  was  in  San  Francisco.   We  were  at  home.   We  lived  at  that  time 
on  Jackson  Street,  actually  a  couple  of  houses  away  from  the 
German  consulate.   That  building  subsequently  became  the 
California  Historical  Society  and  that,  of  course,  has  recently 
been  sold  again. 

Now  [German  Consul]  Fritz  Wiedeman,  I  think  he  left, 
however,  before  Pearl  Harbor  and  before  our  declaration  of  war. 
All  I  remember  is  when  he  left  that  house,  he  took  thirty-seven 
Yellow  Taxi  cabs  to  the  airport  to  transport  personnel  and 
property  and  reputedly  gave  a  gift  of  $10,000  as  tips  to  the  cab 
company,  I  guess,  to  stir  up  goodwill  for  Germany,  which  again 
makes  me  think  he  left  before  the  war  was  declared. 

Hicke:     He  was  the  consul? 

Heilbron:   He  was  the  consul  general  for  western  states,  I  believe,  and  he 
became  a  rather  important  figure  in  the  German  foreign  office 
afterward. 

Well,  after  a  couple  of  weeks,  we  were  settled  down  to  war, 
but  the *legal  practice,  for  some  of  us,  was  somewhat  difficult. 
Here  was  a  war  going  on  that  we  recognized  was  a  great 
determining  issue  for  mankind,  and  it  was  hard,  for  me  at  least, 
to  continue  with  civil  practice  as  usual. 

Hicke:     Just  to  go  back  to  December  7th  again,  were  you  expecting 
something?  Were  you  sitting  around  listening  to  the  radio 
because  you  thought  there  was  something  going  to  happen? 

Heilbron:   No,  I  think  we  ordinarily  had  a  news  program  around  Sunday  noon 
and- -I  believe  Kaltenborn's  program  was  usually  at  noon.   Of 
course,  the  buildup  towards  the  war,  the  country  by  country 
takeovers  by  Germany,  was  an  exciting  series  of  radio  programs 
in  themselves,  so  that  it  was  not  unusual  to  be  listening  at 
that  time. 


Board  of  Zconoaic  Warfare 


Heilbron:  Anyway,  during  a  good  part  of  1942  I  did  continue  with  the  firm, 
but  toward  the  fall  I  felt  that  I  wanted  to  contribute  something 


59 


more  directly  to  the  war  effort  than  helping  out  at  the  USD 
headquarters,  which  I  had  done,  and  was  encouraged  to  come  back 
to  Washington  by  friends  I  had  made  in  the  California 
government,  Charlie  Schottland  and  Harold  Pomeroy.   So  I  went 
back  and  interviewed  at  the  OPA,  the  Manpower  Agency--!  think 
Paul  McNutt  was  the  head  of  that --and  the  Board  of  Economic 
Warfare,  and  maybe  one  or  two  others.   I  was  rather  attracted  by 
the  Board  of  Economic  Warfare.   It  was  cutting  the  red  tape  with 
reference  to  the  procurement  of  essential  military  supplies,  and 
it  seemed  to  be  in  the  forefront  of  the  war  activities,  and  I 
agreed  to  come  into  the  board  service  as  a  principal  attorney. 
With  other  attorneys  of  that  group,  I  was  to  negotiate  the 
purchase  of  more  or  less  exotic  metals  and  minerals  that  were 
necessary  in  the  development  of  the  new  technology  of  war.   I 
dealt  with  a  procurement  officer  who  was  an  expert  in  the  field, 
especially  in  the  area  of  beryllium,  titanium,  tungsten,  and 
Brazilian  quartz. 

Almost  at  the  outset,  an  interesting  episode:  we  had  to 
review  contracts  for  the  procurement,  and  I  saw  a  contract  with 
one  H.  I.  Altshuler  for  the  development  of  a  mining  program  in 
Bolivia.   I  didn't  go  much  beyond  the  first  two  or  three  lines 
when  I  took  the  contract  to  the  general  counsel  and  said,  "I 
can't  handle  this;  Mr.  Altshuler  is  my  wife's  brother  in- law, 
and  I  certainly  don't  want  to  get  into  any  conflict-of-interest 
for  myself  or  for  the  agency." 

This  is  an  aside,  but  it  proved  to  be  a  very  wise  decision. 
My  wife's  brother-in-law  was  a  very  effective  and  important 
mining  engineer,  and  he  produced  quite  a  bit  of  the  tungsten  for 
the  United  States  under  the  contract,  but  toward  the  end  of  the 
contract  period,  either  in  late  '44  or  '45,  the  agreement  was  to 
be  terminated,  or  at  least  the  United  States  had  the  option  of 
terminating  it,  and  there  was  an  issue  as  to  how  much  was  owed 
to  the  miners  down  there,  and  they  were  not  paid.  Mr.  Altshuler 
had  to  make  a  special  trip  to  Washington  to  argue  the  justice  of 
the  miners'  claims.   His  arguments  were  accepted;  he  insisted, 
however,  that  instead  of  sending  the  money  down  to  be 
distributed  by  the  local  people,  he  wanted  to  go  back  himself  to 
make  sure  that  the  money  was  properly  distributed.   He  went  back 
and  did  that,  but  for  his  reward  he  got  put  in  jail  by  the 
Bolivian  authorities  on  some  trumped-up  issue.   He  was  let  out, 
or  escaped,  and  got  transferred  to  Peru,  where  he  also  was 
interned,  but  this  time  he  had  very  good  company:  the  future 
president  of  Peru  and  his  future  cabinet  officers,  [laughter] 
because  it  was  a  political  proposition,  I  guess,  pretty  much 
from  the  start. 


Hicke:     Which  president? 


60 


Hcllbron:   I  can't  recall,  but  I'm  sure  I  can  ascertain  it  easily  enough. 

Hicke:     Let  me  just  ask  you,  though,  it  brings  up  an  interesting 

question  as  to  how  those  contracts  work.   Did  the  government 
actually  pay  the  workers?   I  thought  you  said  the  contract  was 
with  him? 

Heilbron:  The  contract  was  with  him  and  he  was  the  person  who  put  in  the 
claims  and  got  the  money  on  his  contract,  and  he  paid  the 
workers,  but  the  point  is  that  the  funds  were  withheld  from  him, 
so  he  did  not  have  the  funds  to  pay  the  workers . 

Hicke:     Do  you  know  what  the  problem  was? 

Heilbron:   I  don't  know.   My  wife  will  recall  it,  because  she  and  her 

sister  had  to  go  to  Washington  and  somehow  argue  with  the  State 
Department  and  raise  the  money  which  was  a  guarantee  of  some 
kind  for  his  return  to  the  United  States.   I  was  overseas  all  of 
this  time  with  the  army;  so  I  wasn't  of  any  help  whatever.   So 
they  pledged  whatever  they  had  and  they  got  him  back.   Then  he 
had  a  long-time  claim  against  the  United  States  on  his  contract, 
which  he  finally  won  fully- -got  fully  reimbursed. 

Well,  this  is  an  aside,  but  that  was  one  thing  I  didn't 
have  to  handle. 

Hicke:     Well,  that's  a  good  illustration  of  some  of  the  things  that 
happened. 

Heilbron:   The  BEW--the  Board  of  Economic  Warfare- -was  a  fast-moving 

operation.   It  was  under  Vice  President  Wallace,  who  wanted  to 
prove  that-- 

Hicke:     Henry  Wallace? 

Heilbron:   Henry  Wallace,  who  was  against  the  slowness  of  that  time  of  the 
Reconstruction  Finance  Corporation,  and  there  was  quite  an 
undercurrent  [of  competition]  of  who  could  do  best  for  the 
country.   The  elimination  of  red  tape  in  preventive  procurement 
in  Spain  and  Turkey  and  general  direct  procurement  in  other 
parts  of  the  world  were  challenges  to  the  Board  of  Economic 
Warfare ,  and  I  think  the  accepted  view  is  that  the  board  did  an 
exceptionally  good  job  in  procuring  important  essentials  for  the 
war. 


Hicke : 


What  is  preventive  procurement? 


61 


Heilbron:   Well,  preventive  procurement  was  to  prevent  the  Germans, 

particularly,  from  procuring  the  very  same  things  that  we  wanted 
for  the  prosecution  of  the  war. 

Hicke:     Get  there  first? 
Heilbron:   Get  there  first,  yes. 

Fast  procurement  and  showing  that  you  need  the  supplies  has 
a  great  effect  on  raising  the  prices  by  the  suppliers,  and,  for 
example  in  Brazilian  quartz,  which  I  believe  was  pretty  much 
picked  up  off  the  ground  by  natives  in  Brazil,  in  the  upper  part 
of  Brazil,  the  prices  would  go  up  from  month  to  month  as  it  was 
perceived  that  Uncle  Sam  needed  the  materials.   Ve  would  stop 
all  purchasing  while  there  was  some  negotiation  and  argument  and 
the  process  would  start  all  over  again. 

It  was  something  like  the  old  Key  Route  trains  that  used  to 
come  into  the  Ferry  Building  over  in  Berkeley.   They'd  come  in 
at  about  forty- five  to  fifty  miles  an  hour  towards  the  pier  and 
have  to  slow  up,  and  sometimes  they  couldn't  slow  up  quickly 
enough,  and  they  bumped  into  something  and  caused  damage  and 
accidents.   There  was  a  hue  and  a  cry  and  the  trains  were  slowed 
down  to  about  fifteen  miles  an  hour.   Then  people  would  miss 
their  boats,  and  in  two  weeks  they  were  going  twenty- five  miles 
an  hour  and  then  wham,  in  about  thirty  days  they  were  back  to 
normal.   [laughter]   Veil,  that  was  something  like  the  quartz 
purchasing  in  Brazil. 

It  was  interesting  to  be  in  Washington  at  the  time.   We 
were  under  no  immediate  threat  of  the  war  reaching  Washington, 
although  German  submarines  were  penetrating  the  Atlantic,  and 
that  included  the  western  Atlantic.  A  doctor  fraternity  brother 
of  mine ,  who  was  in  Pearl  Harbor  and  was  on  one  of  the  warships 
and  operated  all  day  without  knowing  where  he  was  or  whether  the 
ship  was  going  down  or  whatnot- - 

Hicke:     He  was  on  a  submarine? 

Heilbron:   No,  he  was  on  one  of  the  ships  that  was  not  completely 

destroyed- -came  into  Washington,  and  occasionally  we  would  have 
drills  with  air  sirens,  and  then  we  were  supposed  to  rush  into 
buildings.   Then  since  nothing  was  happening,  we  were  never  very 
much  concerned  about  it  and  took  our  time  to  get  to  where  we 
should  go.   But  when  that  siren  blew  that  day,  he  took  us  by  the 
arm  and  he  just  threw  us  behind  a  doorway. 

But  somehow,  since  the  essentials  of  the  procurement, 
rather  than  the  legal  detail,  were  done  by  these  civilian 


62 


experts,  I  had  a  feeling  that  maybe  that  wasn't  the  place  where 
I  could  make  whatever  contribution  I  could  make . 


Joinine  the  U.S.  Army:  Training 


Heilbron:   So  I  applied  for  a  commission  in  the  army  and,  after  time,  was 
accepted.  This  was  during  the  summer  of  1943.  Incidentally, 
General  Barrows  of  the  university  had  given  me  a  good 
recommendation,  and  I  suppose  that  that  was  very  critical  with 
respect  to  obtaining  a  commission. 

Hicke :     How  old  were  you  now? 

Heilbron:   I  was  thirty-six. 

Hicke:     So  you  were  over  the  draft  age  by  some  considerable  amount. 

Heilbron:   I  was  over  the  draft  age  and  had  two  children.   I  had  talked 

this  whole  matter  over  with  my  wife  before  applying  to  the  army, 
and  considered  the  children,  and  we  felt,  together,  that  there 
are  times  when  you  are  tested  and  there  was  a  right  thing  to  do, 
and  we  supported  my  going.   Of  course,  I  had  no  idea  the  period 
would  be  as  extensive  as  it  proved  to  be. 

Hicke:     At  some  point  I  want  to  hear  about  Delphine,  meeting  her  and 

your  marriage  and  so  forth.   Is  this  a  good  time,  or  should  we 
do  that  all  at  once? 

Heilbron:   No,  that's  a  completely  different  story,  and  we  were  already  ten 
years  married  when  this  is  taking  place. 

Hicke:     Somehow  we  need  to  go  back  and  pick  that  up. 
Heilbron:   This  point,  I  think,  is  probably  not  the  right  time. 
Hicke:     But,  anyway,  you  had  been  married. 

Heilbron:   It  was  wonderful  to  have  that  support.   There  were  two  sides  to 
the  question  as  to  whether  I  should  have  done  this- -probably,  if 
there  were  any  hesitation  on  her  part,  I  would  not  have  done  it. 

Hicke:     She  stayed  here? 

Heilbron:   She  was  in  Washington.   See,  we  had  moved  to  Washington  and  so 
this  was  all  done  from  Washington. 


63 


I  went  out  to  Camp  Custer  In  Michigan  for  basic  training. 
It  was  pretty  strenuous,  but  certainly  not  as  strenuous  as  G.I. 
training  would  have  been,  although  we  had  to  crawl  for  a 
considerable  distance  under  live  ammunition  fire,  and  we  had  to 
learn  to  shoot,  and  we  had  what  would  be  a  rather  complete 
course  in  the  amy  in  the  training  of  a  soldier. 

Hicke:     Did  you  get  any  training  in  how  to  behave  as  a  prisoner? 

Heilbron:   Oh  yes.   Surely.   And  what  to  answer  and  so  on.   In  addition,  we 
had  the  beginnings  of  training  already,  at  Camp  Custer,  on 
military  government.  We 'had  a  course  of  military  government 
that  began  with  Persia- -Alexander  the  Great!   Of  course,  it  was 
rather  rudimentary  in  the  earliest  days:  you  used  the  men  as 
slaves  and  did  with  the  women  as  you  pleased. 

Hicke:     This  was  in  preparation  for  the  occupation? 

Heilbron:  Yes,  but  then  it  developed  in  Napoleon,  and  we  had  a  long  course 
on  the  Civil  War  Union  occupation  of  Louisiana,  but  that  was  all 
in  fairly  elementary  terms. 

After  we  finished  with  Camp  Custer,  we  went  to  a  couple  of 
universities.   The  university  groups  expanded,  but  at  that  time 
there  was  Charlottesville  in  Virginia- -that  was  the  University 
of  Virginia—and  Yale  [University],  and  I  went  to  Yale.   It's 
remarkable  what  a  thorough  crash  course  we  received  in  the 
governmental  structure,  the  social  programs  and  attitudes,  the 
organizations  of  Germany  and  the  areas  to  which  we  would 
probably  be  assigned.   With  me  it  was  going  to  be  France,  so  I 
had  a  full  program  with  respect  to  the  history  of  France,  the 
culture  of  France,  what  to  expect  from  the  civilians  that  we 
would  more  or  less  control. 

Hicke:     What  were  you  actually  being  trained  for? 

Heilbron:   We  were  trained  to  take  over  towns,  provinces,  countries  that 
were  conquered  or  liberated  by  our  troops.  We  would  be  left 
behind  to  control  the  reorganization  of  civilian  life  and,  as 
far  as  possible,  to  do  it  in  a  fashion  that  would  protect 
civilian  life  and  at  the  same  time  facilitate  any  further  array 
action  that  was  necessary.   Of  course,  liberation  in  France 
would  be  quite  different  than  an  occupation  of  Germany,  and  it 
was  a  little  bit  a  question  with  respect  to  Italy  as  to  how  it 
would  go. 


Hicke : 


Did  you  have  to  study  French? 


64 


Heilbron:  Oh,  I  studied  French,  phonetic  French,  and  I  have  the  notes 
left,  which  are  kind  of  amusing,  where  the  French  instructor 
tried  to  make  us  speak  conversational  French  in  a  way  that  a 
Frenchman  would  understand.   It  was  the  opposite  of  learning  a 
language  by  studying  its  grammar  and  actually  learning  its 
literature  and  then  going  into  conversation.   We  were  going  to 
go  into  conversation  and  whatever  else  we  could  pick  up  was  on 
our  own. 

Hicke:     That's  really  interesting.   The  first  course  I  took  in  Spanish 
in  school  was  a  U.S.  Army-devised  language  training  course,  and 
that's,  I  guess,  where  it  came  from. 

Heilbron:   Veil,  there  was  a  very  successful  foreign  language  school  in 
Monterey  that  trained  our  people  to  go  to  Japan  and  very 
effectively.   I  think  some  people  would  respond  to  this  very 
well- -I  know  my  wife  would,  she  has  a  good  ear  for  music  and 
language.   1  know  both  my  sons  would,  although  they  learned 
their  language  the  hard  way,  except  my  son  David,  when  he  was  in 
England  and  was  a  Rhodes  scholar  and  had  a  vacation  period,   He 
went  to  Spain  for  his  vacation  and  didn't  know  any  Spanish,  so 
he  got  on  a  train  with  a  dictionary  in  Paris  and-- 

** 

Heilbron:   --didn't  take  his  head  out  of  the  book  until  he  was  about  to 
cross  the  Spanish  border.  A  priest  came  and  sat  in  his 
compartment- -he  was  a  Spanish  priest- -and  they  started  to  talk. 
Of  course,  the  phonetic  side  came  when  he  heard  the  other  party 
speak,  but  he  had  enough  words  and  enough  vocabulary  and  was 
willing  to  make  any  number  of  grammatical  mistakes  in  order  to 
hold  a  conversation,  something  I  couldn't  do.   I  would  be 
worried  as  to  whether  I  was  speaking  correctly  and  then  I  would 
not  be  able  to  talk  at  all. 

In  any  event,  I  was  hard  at  study  in  French.   Except  for 
about  ten  days  in  Paris  where  I  didn't  need  any  French  at  all,  I 
didn't  get  to  France  for  my  military  government  work.   Indeed,  I 
got  to  Italy  and  I  got  into  Austria,  for  which  I  had  no 
preparation  at  all,  except  for  the  concentration  on  Nazi 
governmental  structure  and  what  we  had  to  do  to  dismantle  it. 
It  was  a  very  fascinating  experience  at  Yale.   The  top 
professors  in  their  fields  dealt  with  Germany  and  Europe. 

Hicke:     So  you'd  have  history  professors  and  government? 

Heilbron:   Government,  that's  right,  and  sociology  and  some  military 

instruct ion --what  to  expect  of  the  attitude  of  German  officers, 
German  prisoners- -and  it  was  a  quite  interesting  period. 


65 


My  wife  and  the  boys  cane  up  from  Washington  for  a  part  of 
this  tine- -most  of  it,  I  guess.  We  moved  into  rooms  in  the  New 
Haven  Hotel--!  think  it  was  that.   It  was  next  door  to  the 
theater,  and  I  recall  that  we  heard  that  there  was  a  wonderful 
new  musical  play  intended  for  New  York  that  would  start  in  New 
Haven.   So  we  tried  to  get  in  on  a  Saturday  afternoon  and  it  was 
•old  out.   But  they  said- -we  only  had  two  children,  I  was  in 
uniform,  and  we  looked  a  little  appealing  to  the  ticket  manager 
--and  they  said  just  wait  a  few  minutes,  and  just  before  the 
curtain  went  up,  we  got  seats  in  this  full  house.   It  was 
Oklahoma!   [laughter]   It  was  a  magnificent  performance. 

Anticipating  somewhat,  the  first  musical  show  we  saw  when 
we  came  back  with  the  boys  at  the  opera  house  in  San  Francisco 
was  a  revival  of  Oklahoma! 

Our  mess  was  at  the  Fence  Club,  which  was,  I  believe,  at 
Yale  a  very  prestigious  club  that  very  few  of  the  students  got 
to  enjoy,  but  that's  where  we  had  our  mess.  I  remember,  not  long 
before  going,  we  had  a  guest  and  the  guest  was  Boris  Karloff. 
Boris  Karloff  told  our  sons,  "Now  you  be  good  while  your  father 
is  away,"  and  they  certainly  felt  that  they  had  to  be  good, 
[laughter]   They  had  to  be  good  if  he  insisted. 

From  Yale,  I  went  to  a  camp  in  Pennsylvania,  toward  the  end 
of  the  year- -I'm  talking  about  the  year  '43 --while  we  had 
further  general  training;  it  was  mostly  a  question  of  physical 
training  rather  than  organizational  training  for  military 
government.   I  think  that  was  Camp  Reynolds,  I'm  not  sure, 
because  we  then  went  to  a  staging  area,  also  in  Pennsylvania. 
By  that  time  the  family  had  left  me,  of  course- -went  back  to 
Washington  to  wind  up  our  affairs ,  an  apartment  in  Washington- - 
and  so  I  was  prepared  to  go  overseas  when  we  were  ordered.   I 
remember  we  finally  ended  up  near  the  Port  of  Embarkation  in  New 
Jersey  and  were  allowed  to  go  in  for  one  last  night  into  New 
York.   I  went  with  another  officer- -a  social  worker,  I  think, 
from  someplace  in  the  Middle  West- -and  the  one  thing  that  we 
were  told  not  to  talk  about  was  any  indication  of  when  we  were 
leaving.   Some  other  officers  were  on  the  train  who  talked  about 
whether  it  would  be  cold  on  the  ship  or  not.   It  was  sometimes 
difficult  to  maintain  security  in  Washington.   In  London, 
security  was  pretty  well  maintained. 

I  forget  whether  it  was  in  Washington  or  in  London,  an 
officer  dressed  up  as  Hitler  and  another  well-known  Nazi 
official  went  around  for  two  days  before  they  were  picked  up  and 
recognized.   And  everybody  had  to  have  a  security  card  to  get 
into  the  Board  of  Economic  Warfare  building,  the  OPA  building, 


66 


any  building  connected  with  governmental  activity.   So  security 
in  sometimes  difficult  to  maintain. 


Further  Preparation  in  England 


Hellbron:   Veil,  we  went  to  Europe  on  the  He  de  France,  which  was  stripped 
of  all  of  Its  luxury.  We  were  In  a  room  for  four  people,  I 
believe- -carried  four  as  Its  maximum- -and  we  had  seventeen 
officers,  and  that  was  luxurious.   In  the  hold  were  thousands  of 
G.I.s.   The  lie  de  France  carried  17,000  bodies.   We  had  all  of 
the  military  government  trained  officers  of  the  time  on  that 
ship.   It  had  been  rumored,  and  of  course  we  learned  this 
afterwards,  that  Hitler  would  be  overthrown  and  that  the  need 
for  military  government  officers  was  almost  immediate,  and  that 
was  the  reason  for  our  sailing  at  the  time.   Had  we  known  what 
the  course  of  the  war  would  be ,  we  would  not  have  been  sent 
overseas  at  the  early  date  that  we  went,  because  we  had  to  mark 
a  lot  of  time. 

Hicke:     What  was  the  date  that  you  sailed? 

Hellbron:   We  sailed  close  to  the  end  of  January  of  1944. 

Hicke:     Do  you  know  what  the  rumor  was  about?  Was  it  the  attempted 
assassination? 

Heilbron:   That  was  a  little  later  that  year,  but  It  wasn't  the  rumor  of  an 
attempted  assassination,  it  was  a  rumor  that  the  army  would 
seize  control  and  that  things  were  going  to  come  to  an  end.   By 
that  time,  we  had  already  been  in  North  Africa  and  I  believe  had 
landed  in  Sicily.   My  dates  may  not  be  absolutely  right  In  that 
respect,  but  the  war  was  beginning  to  turn;  at  least  that  was 
what  we  were  told  when  we  landed  in  England. 

We  had  a  little  bit  of  an  eventful  trip  on  the  lie  de 
France.   The  He  de  France  was  a  very  fast  ship  and  was  expected 
not  to  be  in  much  danger,  because  it  could  get  away  from 
submarines,  and  we  were  allowed  on  deck,  even  at  night.   But  we 
had  some  New  Zealanders  aboard  that  ship,  and  there  were  some 
Australians  too,  and  the  New  Zealanders  fussed  around  with  what 
they  thought  were- -well,  I  don't  know  what  they  thought  they 
were—but  what  they  did  was  to  light  up  a  lot  of  flares,  so  that 
the  ship  at  night  stood  silhouetted  against  the  absolute  flares 
in  the  middle  of  the  ocean.   If  a  submarine  had  been  right 
there,  the  target  was  lit  up  for  them.   They  put  out  the  flares, 
and  they  confined  us  to  below  deck  for  the  rest  of  the  trip. 


67 


Hicke : 


Hellbron: 


The  event  meant  that  we  had  to  go  southward  for  half  a  day  that 
we  didn't  expect,  and  it  took  us  a  half  a  day  longer  to  get  to 
Scotland. 

We  landed  at  Greenock,  in  Scotland,  and  it  was  the  first 
feeling  we  had,  really,  that  a  war  was  on.   The  great  balloons 
that  were  to  protect  against  aircraft  bombing,  camouflage  ships 
all  over  the  harbor,  small  boats  going  back  and  forth- -very 
active,  picturesque  port,  but  you  knew  that  there  was  a  war  on. 

Ve  were  transported  to  a  train  and  went  down  to  a  place  in 
western  England- -took  most  of  a  day  to  get  there  —  and  got  off  at 
Swindon  in  western  England.   We  marched  to  Shrivenham  about  two 
miles  away;  that  had  been  a  cadet  training  center,  not  equal  to 
the  British  West  Point,  but,  I  think,  second  thereto.   We 
arrived  there  at  the  very  end  of  January  and  stayed  there  for 
the  balance  of  our  real  military  government  training,  because  we 
had  by  that  time  to  be  allocated,  divided,  assigned  to  certain 
cities,  towns,  provinces,  countries. 

At  first  I  continued  with  my  French  program,  but  I  think  a 
couple  of  months  down  the  line,  Harold  Pomeroy,  who  had  been  a 
relief  administrator  in  California  and  who  was  the 
administrative  officer  of  a  newly  formed  group  that  was  going  to 
Austria,  asked  whether  I  would  be  interested  to  join  that  group 
and,  if  so,  he  felt  that  there  would  be  an  opportunity, 
particularly  if  I  would  come  on  as  a  labor  officer.   I  thought 
that  probably  would  be  quite  interesting,  because  it  was  going 
to  be  in  the  area  of  developing  labor  policy  in  part  of  the 
heartland  of  the  whole  German  operation,  Austria. 

No  one  knew  at  the  time,  before  the  invasion,  what  might 
come  first.   After  all,  we  might  go  up  Italy  and  into  Austria 
and  into  the  underbelly  of  Europe,  go  into  Germany  from  that 
side.   In  fact,  it  was  Winston  Churchill's  idea  that  we 
shouldn't  be  going  up  Italy  at  all  but  going  up  through  the 
Balkans.   But  Italy  was  selected.   So  it  wasn't  clear  how  the 
war  would  end.   I  don't  know  of  any  instructions  in  military 
government  ever  considering  what  happened  if  a  town  were  re 
taken  after  our  military  government  controlled  the  town.   I 
guess  that  the  answer  was  you  would  be  a  prisoner.   So  there  was 
no  particular  instruction  in  that  field. 

How  soon  were  you  expected  to  go  in  after  the--? 

It  depended  whether  you  were  going  into  a  town  or  a  province. 
Every  important  collection  of  small  towns  should  have  its  own 
military  detachment.   I  assume  that  something  akin  to  a  county, 
for  example,  might  be  under  a  military  detachment  with  small 


68 


towns ,  and  then  the  next  one  would  be  one  of  the  provinces ,  and 
then  the  capital  itself.   The  people  in  the  detachments,  after 
we  did  invade,  had  some  extremely  interesting  experiences. 

Hicke:     The  first  ones  in? 

Heilbron:   The  first  ones  in.   In  one  case,  at  the  very  earliest  part  of 
the  invasion  in  France,  I  don't  know  which  town  it  was,  but  it 
was  important  to  get  the  mayor,  who  was  recommended  by  the 
underground,  in  office  and  established.  That  was  done,  and  he 
had  two  motorcycle  escorts  provided  by  the  army- -our  army- -and 
he  was  pleased  to  start  cooperating.   Of  course,  most  of  the 
French  deeply  wanted  to  get  rid  of  the  German  occupation,  deeply 
welcomed  the  American  army. 

Hicke:     But  didn't  they  have  some  French  collaborators? 

Heilbron:   They  had  French  collaborators,  yes,  but  the  bulk  of  the 
population  wanted  to  be  freed. 

Hicke:     But  were  they  not  governing  some  of  these  towns? 

Heilbron:   Oh  yes,  you  displaced  practically  any  political  administration 
that  was  there.   That  was  one  of  the  problems  of  military 
government.   What  you  had  to  study  was  who  were  in  charge  and  do 
you  go  to  the  local  officers .   We  had  long  talks  about  who  were 
the  underground,  who  were  the  dependable  Catholic  clergy,  the 
backgrounds  of  each  place  that  we  were  going  to  go  into.   That 
was  part  of  the  instruction. 

In  any  event,  this  fellow  had  two  motorcycles,  and  he  was 
pleased.   Then  they  went  on  to  the  next  town,  and  they  liberated 
that  town  and  they  gave  the  mayor  a  motorcycle  escort,  but  they 
had  a  terrible  time  getting  things  started.   Finally,  they  found 
out  what  was  wrong.   The  mayor  of  the  first  town  had  two 
motorcycles  for  an  escort  and  he  only  had  one.   [laughter]   So 
even  in  wartime,  you  get  these  absolutely  ridiculous  situations. 

We  had  a  very  concentrated  experience  in  west  England,  as 
far  as  instruction  went.   We  began  to  know  much  more  about  the 
places  that  we  were  going  to  and  some  people  were  assigned- -no 
military  government  officers  went  in  on  D-Day,  but  a  few  went  on 
D-3,  because  there  had  to  be  some  kind  of  liberation  before 
there  could  be  any  kind  of  government. 

It  was  regarded  as  an  interesting  and  constructive  part  of 
the  service.   General  Eisenhower  came  to  Shrivenham,  and  there 
was  a  review,  and  he  talked  quite  frankly  about  what  might  be 
expected.   It  wasn't  going  to  be  easy.   Not  everybody  to  whom  he 


69 


talked  was  going  to  come  home, 
interesting  and  vital  time. 


It  was  a  rather  serious  and 


England- -Vis   V2«   and  D-Dav 


Heilbron:   Well,  one  night  in  June,  I  guess  it  was  June  6,  wasn't  it?  The 
early  morning  of  June  6 ,  beginning  maybe  around  three  to  four  in 
the  morning,  we  heard  the  greatest  roar  of  aircraft  that  1  think 
anyone  will  ever  hear.   From  that  time  in  the  early  morning 
until  that  night,  there  was  a  constant  roar  of  airplanes, 
because  they  would  fulfill  their  mission,  come  back,  and  go 
again.   How  anybody  could  withstand  what  that  power  meant  is 
almost  beyond  belief.   No  one  had  to  tell  us  that  the  invasion 
was  on.   You  see,  most  of  the  airfields  were  in  western  England 
anyway,  so  they  were  all  around  us,  and  the  invasion  began  in  a 
sense  in  King  Alfred's  country,  which  was  western  England. 

Hicke:     Were  you  briefed  at  all  on  the  invasion  before  it  took  place? 

Heilbron:   No,  no,  no.   Ve  did  know  afterwards  that  there  had  been- -whether 
it  was  a  leak,  everybody  on  ship  was  ready  to  go,  you  know,  a 
day  or  two  before,  and  they  had  their  occupation  money,  they 
were  all  ready  to  go  and  then  were  called  back  and  the  invasion 
delayed.   I  forget  the  reason,  but  I  know  one  of  the  finance 
officers  told  me  that  after  issuing  all  of  the  money,  he  had  to 
take  it  all  back,  and  it  was  quite  a  problem  to  reinstate  the 
invasion.   Everybody  knows  that  that  was  a  question  of  climate 
and  a  question  of  whether  we  would  have  to  delay  for  a  month, 
and  perhaps  the  greatest  decision  on  our  side  of  the  war  was 
made  to  proceed. 

Well,  we  went  into  London  where  we  occupied  a  house,  that 
is,  the  Austrian  group,  in  a  place  called  Princess  Gardens.   I 
suppose  you  would  call  it  the  south  side  of  Hyde  Park.   It  was 
an  old  Victorian.   I  guess  four  or  five  stories.   And  that  was 
where  we  had  our  first  offices,  and  not  long  after  we  arrived, 
the  V-ls  and  V-2s  began  to  arrive.   I  think  they  called  them  the 
V-ls.   These  were  the  small,  automatic,  little  bomber  airplanes 
that  ran  on  fuel,  and  when  the  fuel  was  exhausted,  the  plane 
dropped  with  its  bomb,  and  wherever  it  dropped,  it  did  its 
damage. 

Hicke:     A  rocket? 

Heilbron:   It  was  not  a  rocket,  you  see,  it  was  a  flying  bomb,  fuel 

dependent.   While  they  undoubtedly  tried  to  gauge  where  it  would 


70 


fall,  it  was  an  uncertain  and  indefinite  kind  of  a  munition. 
But  it  could  cause  a  good  deal  of  consternation  and  fear.   As 
long  as  you  could  hear  it,  it  was  all  right  because  it  was  still 
in  the  air.   It  was  when  the  sudden  hush  and  stop  occurred  that 
you  were  concerned:  was  it  over  you  or  not?  And  that  was  what 
was  dropping  over  all  of  London  for  quite  some  time. 

The  British  started  shooting  them  down  with  anti-aircraft 
guns,  but  that  was  not  such  a  good  idea.  Unless  they  made  a 
direct  hit  and  exploded  the  bomb  in  the  air,  the  bomb  would, 
instead  of  taking  a  kind  of  parabolic  fall,  come  straight  down, 
and  this  caused,  on  a  beautiful  Sunday  morning  in  the  Guard's 
Chapel,  which  was  a  little  bit  of  a  church  sandwiched  in  between 
larger  buildings,  one  of  the  most  tragic  losses  when,  during  the 
service,  it  killed  everybody  in  the  church.  After  that,  they 
amended  the  way  they  tried  to  shoot  these  down.   Actually, 
fighter  airplanes,  which  could  out -speed  these  very  easily, 
could  shoot  flying  bombs  down  much  better  before  they  arrived  in 
London.   That  was  improved,  but  for  a  while  it  was  rather- -well, 
you  knew  that  you  were  in  the  war. 

We  all  had  to  do  fire  watch  with  the  idea  that  if  you  saw 
something  pretty  close,  you'd  come  down  from  the  roof  and  tell 
everybody,  and  everybody  would  scatter.   By  the  time  you  got 
down,  I  think  it  would  have  been  too  late,  but  anyway  we  were  on 
fire  watch.   One  night  when  I  was  on  fire  watch,  I  counted 
seventy  bombs  flying  over  London.   People  in  London  took  these 
attacks  with  marvelous  courage.   Everything  that  they  could 
normally  keep  going,  they  did. 


Heilbron:   One  vaudeville  kind  of  performance  never  missed  a  night  during 
the  whole  war.   I  went  one  night,  and  Hermione  Gingold  was  a 
young  woman,  and  she  was  the  star. 

Hicke:     I've  seen  her  here  in  the  opera,  I  think.   Hasn't  she  been  here 
singing  in  the  opera,  or  am  I  thinking  of  somebody  else? 

Heilbron:   Veil,  you've  seen  her  in  moving  pictures,  but  she  was  always  a 

comedienne.   She  did  some  serious  things,  too,  but  in  those  days 
she  was  simply  one  of  the  girls. 

Of  course,  the  area  behind  St.  Paul's  was  thoroughly 
demolished,  but  that  demolition  had  taken  place  in  the  German 
air  raids  with  airplanes.   The  German  airplanes  didn't  get 
through  anymore  by  the  time  we  were  up  there.   The  Battle  of 
Britain  by  air  had  been  won.   But  these  bombs  were  launched  from 
launching  pads  in  Belgium,  particularly,  and  possibly  Holland, 


71 


and  they  were  quite  a  nuisance.   I  was  in  a  little  hotel  near 
Hyde  Park,  and  a  friend  of  mine  asked  why  1  remained  in  a  hotel 
when  they  had  a  flat  that  a  lot  of  American  officers  were  in  and 
he'd  get  me  in  there,  which  he  did.   So  I  left  the  hotel  an  hour 
and  a  half  before  the  bomb  hit  the  hotel  and  more  or  less 
knocked  up  the  room  where  I  was  staying. 

I  got  into  a  place- -the  only  room  they  had  was  the  living 
room,  which  they  would  make  up  during  the  day,  and  it  was  kind 
of  a  modern  room.  All  around  it  was  glass  mirrors.  When  I  went 
to  bed,  I  would  think,  "My  god,  if  anything  did  happen,  I  would 
be  glassified." 

Hicke:     Slivered. 

Heilbron:   That's  right,  slivered.   But  it  was  a  pleasant  enough  place,  and 
we  all  gave  the  owner  our  ration  coupons,  and  the  result  was 
that  we  were  attended  to  with  fairly  decent  food  when  we  wanted 
it,  although  we  ate  mostly  at  our  mess.   Our  mess  was  Grosvenor 
House,  and  that's  where  the  officers  in  London  usually  had  their 
meals. 

[tape  interruption] 

Heilbron:  Most  of  the  officers  in  London  had  their  mess  at  Grosvenor 

House.   I  recall  that  we  were  told  to  eat  as  much  as  we  desired, 
but  to  leave  the  plates  clean,  and  that  was  the  order  of  the 
commanding  general  Eisenhower,  who  came  to  visit  us  one  day  at 
noon,  and  naturally,  as  he  passed  through  the  line,  everybody 
wanted  to  see  to  it  that  the  general  had  enough  to  eat.   The 
result  was  that  his  plate  was  full  to  the  top  and  there  he  was , 
confronted  by  his  own  order  and  told  by  his  aides  what  his 
problem  was,  and  like  a  true  soldier,  he  finished  his  luncheon. 

Veil,  going  back  to  the  flat  where  I  had  my  second  place  of 
residence  in  London,  I  thought  it  was  relatively  safe,  because 
there  were  two  stories  above  my  room.   But  one  day,  when  I 
looked  more  carefully,  during  the  afternoon  when  1  came  home,  1 
realized  that  two  of  those  stories  had  been  knocked  out  by  a 
bomb,  and  only  most  of  the  front  surface  was  there,  so  I  was 
really  on  the  first  floor  anyway.   [chuckles]   But  nothing 
untoward  happened. 

Hicke:     Little  harder  to  sleep,  though. 

Heilbron:   No,  you  got  used  to  it.  Just  as  the  Londoners  generally 
accepted  the  situation,  so  the  rest  of  us  did. 


72 


Hicke : 


After  the  invasion,  some  of  our  army  people  came  back  for  R 
&  R  [rest  and  relaxation] ,  but  they  said  they  returned  to  France 
•ore  quickly  because  they'd  rather  be  in  a  place  where  somebody 
was  shooting  at  them  directly  and  intentionally  rather  than  in  a 
place  where  anything  could  happen  at  any  time . 

There's  that  constant  fear  of  not  knowing  what's  going  to 
happen.  1  think  the  suspense  or  something  must  have  been- - 


Heilbron:  Well,  that's  true,  [we  were  happy]  when  the  V-ls  were  finally 

pretty  well  vanquished,  because  we  had  destroyed  them  when  they 
came  in  and  also  we  had  taken  over  their  launching  pads  in  the 
first  part  of  the  invasion.  Ue  had  the  rockets--!  forget,  I 
call  them  V-2s  now,  I  don't  know  which  were  the  V-ls  and  V-2s-- 
but  the  rockets  were  by  far  the  most  dangerous.  You  couldn't 
hear  them  coming,  and  when  they  exploded  they  did  a  great  deal 
more  damage  than  the  other  type  of  bomb. 

A  friend  of  mine  was  on  a  bus  going  through  one  of  the 
streets  in  London,  and  a  bomb  hit  close  by,  and  there  was  a 
terrible  concussion.   I  think  there  is  a  certain  amount  of 
whistle  before  a  bomb  hits,  and  he  dived  in  the  back  seat. 
Finally,  when  things  settled  down  after- -there  was  a  great  deal 
of  shaking  of  the  bus,  but  it  didn't  turn  over- -he  got  up  and 
gingerly  made  his  way  to  the  front  of  the  bus  and  everybody  was 
still  sitting  down  and  he  looked  at  them,  and  not  one  of  them 
could  return  any  words.   They  were  all  dead.   He  was  the  only 
one  in  that  bus  who  survived  that  concussion.   So  London  was  a 
queen  city  as  far  is  its  resistance  to  bombing  was  concerned, 
but  it  deserved  its  reputation. 

I  think  perhaps  the  most  memorable  proof  of  the  spirit  of 
the  Londoners  was  at  a  play,  The  Last  of  Mrs.  Cheney.   During 
the  performance,  one  of  these  explosive  rockets  dropped  in  the 
Thames  [River]  outside  the  theater--!  guess  it  may  have  been  the 
Savoy  theater- -and  the  whole  theater  shook  and  the  cast,  I 
guess,  was  like  that  group  of  people  on  the  bus.   They  were  all 
just  frozen  in  their  positions,  and  after  the  shaking  stopped, 
instead  of  the  situation  on  the  bus,  the  cast  went  on  with  the 
play  from  the  conversation  that  had  just  been  interrupted 
without  any  hesitation,  without  any  indication  of  tremor  or 
anything  else.   But  then  the  audience  stopped  the  show.   For 
five  minutes,  they  clapped  and  applauded.   I  think  that's 
marvelous,   a  better  example  perhaps  of  that  period  than 
anything  else . 

Well,  we  moved  from  our  Princess  Gardens  to  St.  Paul's 
School  for  our  headquarters  of  our  Austrian  group.   Montgomery 
had  his  headquarters  there,  and  Montgomery  left  it  for  the 


73 


Hlcke: 


Heilbron: 


active  front  and  took  all  of  the  remaining  officers  with  him, 
and  we  got  that  headquarters.   It  was  a  pleasant  enough  place, 
and  we  becaae  quite  attached  to  it.   In  fact,  we  consolidated 
the  British  group  and  the  American  group  of  military  government 
in  that  building,  and  in  honor  of  that  occasion,  I  went  to 
Hatred's,  bought  out  all  of  the  St.  Paul's  ties,  and  one  day  all 
of  the  American  officers  came  into  the  mess  with  St.  Paul's  ties 
to  show  that  we  were  really  one  of  them. 

So  this  was  going  to  be  a  joint  occupation? 

Well,  in  Austria,  of  course  it  was  going  to  be  a- -remember  now, 
by  this  time,  we  were  all  scheduled  to  be  the  Allied  Government 
of  Austria. 


Hicke:     Well,  I  know  Germany  was  divided  into  parts,  but  I  didn't  know 
that  was  true  of  Austria. 


Heilbron:   We  were  going  to  be  the  central  government,  and  it  was  going  to 
be  a  four -power  control  of  the  central  government  called  the 
Allied  Control  Commission,  and  our  elements  had  to  be  combined. 
We  were  separate  elements  only  united  at  a  coordinating 
committee  at  the  top,  but  we  had  to  deal  with  one  another.   In 
order  for  a  government  to  have  joint  directions,  there  had  to  be 
joint  agreement  that  those  directions  from  the  Allied  Control 
Commission  were  agreed  to. 

Hicke:     But  it  was  geographically  divided? 

Heilbron:   Oh,  the  zones  were  divided.   There  was  an  American  zone,  a 

British  zone,  Russian  zone,  and  French  zone.   That  was  true  of 
Austria.   Vienna  itself  was  a  coordinated  operation,  but  even  in 
Vienna  there  was  an  international  zone  and  then  each  section  was 
divided  so  that  we  did  maintain  separate  jurisdictions.   But  it 
was  easier  to  operate  when  you  more  or  less  developed  together, 
and  we  developed  with  our  British  group  at  St.  Paul's. 

I  had  one  rather  interesting  experience  in  London.   One  of 
the  things  that  we  had  to  know  was  what  was  going  to  be  left  of 
Austria  to  govern.   I  had  to  go  down  to  one  of  the  war 
administration  buildings  to  find  out  from  intelligence  really 
what  the  situation  might  be  as  far  as  they  would  tell  me.   I  had 
my  security  clearance  to  go  down.   I  took  a  taxi- -I  can't 
remember  the  name  of  the  building  at  the  moment- -but  when  we  got 
there,  the  taxi  cab  driver,  upon  checking  the  address,  finally 
said,  "Oh,  that  was  one  of  the  buildings  where  part  of  it  was 
removed."  Removal  meant,  of  course,  a  big  bomb  had  knocked  it 
down,  but  that's  British  understatement:  it  was  removed. 


74 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


I  had  the  number  of  the  room  to  go  to,  and  I  can't  recall 
the  name  of  the  person,  but  let's  assume  that  the  name  was 
Pence.   I  finally  got  to  the  room  number,  knocked  on  the  door, 
was  told  to  come  in,  and  saw  a  young,  studious -looking  lady 
wearing  outsized  eye  glasses.   I  said,  "Pardon  me,  I'm  looking 
for  a  Colonel  or  Mr.  Pence."  She  said,  "No  Mr.  Pence  here,  but 
there's  a  Miss  Pence.   I'm  Miss  Pence."  I  presented  my 
credentials,  and  she  proved  very  cooperative.   The  young  lady- -I 
would  say  probably  in  her  thirties- -with  maps  all  over  the  wall, 
told  me  that  she  was  working  with  army  intelligence,  and  she 
seemed  to  know  in  advance  what  I  was  interested  in.   She  said, 
"I  understand  you  are  interested  in  Austria." 

1  told  her  I  was  interested  in  what  was  left  of  the 
infrastructure  of  Austria,  particularly  with  respect  to  its 
manufacturing  and  other  industries,  and  she  said,  "Well,  let's 
go  to  the  map."  And  she  also  had  a  number  of  maps  in  a  great, 
big  book,  and  she  showed  me  what  the  targets  were  and  to  some 
extent  what  damage  had  been  reported  done .   1  found  that  from 
day  to  day  she  sent  her  recommendations  with  respect  to  the 
proper  targets  to  weaken  the  German/Austrian  war  effort  from 
this  little  room.   She  had  been  in  Austria,  she  knew  Austria 
backwards  and  forwards,  she  knew  where  all  of  the  places  were, 
and  here  this  little  lady  was-- 

Directing  the  war? 

Not  directing  but  playing  a  significant  parti   I  found  that 
extremely  interesting.   Of  course,  she  knew  that  the  Herman 
Goeringwerke  in  Linz  was  going  to  be  a  principal  target,  and  she 
knew  that  it  was  extremely  well  protected.   They  had  great 
difficulty  getting  through  the  flak,  but  they  had  already  done 
damage  there.   She  suggested  that  1  go  to  one  of  the  airfields 
from  which  the  great  bombers  took  off. 

I  went  up  to  Petersborough,  the  airfield  from  which  our 
major  bombers  flew.   I  had  to  have  an  invitation  from  the  YMCA 
to  get  there  —  the  head  of  the  YMCA  in  San  Francisco  was  running 
the  Special  Services  Department  for  the  army  at  their 
headquarters.   It  was  also  the  place  where  Captain  Clark  Gable 
was  stationed.  He  said,  "Maybe  you'd  be  interested  to  see  what 
happens  during  the  night  before  they  take  off." 

So  I  went  there  to  the  wildest  poker  game  I  think  I  ever 
saw.   Here  these  young  aviators  would  be  betting  $500  on  a  hand. 
Money  didn't  mean  anything  to  them,  and  the  betting  was  really 
out  of  this  world.   I  don't  say  that  they'd  bet  that  amount  on 
every  hand,  but  that's  what  the  bets  were,  and  the  pots  were 
tremendous.   And  then,  when  the  time  came  close  to  the  bombing 


75 


missions  that  left  close  to  midnight,  some  of  them  who  were 
assigned  would  disappear  and  go  on  their  missions. 

Hicke:     Was  there  a  lot  of  drinking? 

Heilbron:   No.   I  can't  answer  that.   The  answer  was  liquor  was  free  and 

easy  in  the  mess  in  a  certain  sense.   That  is,  you  could  go  and 
have  a  whiskey  double  or  single  as  you  wanted  twice  during  the 
mess  period,  an  hour  apart,  and  that  was  all  you  were  going  to 
get.   Now  what  they  did  up  at  the  air  headquarters,  I  don't 
know.   But  I  didn't  notice  that- -you  couldn't  be  in  that  kind  of 
condition. 

Hicke:     That's  what  I  was  thinking. 

Heilbron:   No,  no.   It  was  simply  that  poker  was  the  big  relaxation  for 
many  of  them.   1  remember  meeting  a  couple  of  air  officers  at 
the  Grosvenor  mess  when  they  came  down  for  a  little  R  &  R,  but 
they  couldn't  take  the  R  &  R.   They  were  very  glum.   They  had 
been  on  a  mission  where  I  think  they  were  the  only  plane  to  come 
back  out  of  a  squadron.   One  or  two  planes  came  back  and  they 
had  lost  the  others. 

Well,  that  was  a  bit  of  wartime  story.   Maybe  I  shouldn't 
be  speaking  so  much  of  this  kind  of  thing  when  the  real  subject 
is  military  government. 

Hicke:     No,  I  think  that's  very  valuable  to  get  some  reminiscences  of 
people  who  were  there. 


Through  Italy  to  Austria 


Heilbron:   In  February  of  '45,  I  went  over  to  Paris  and  coordinated  with 
the  officers  who  were  going  to  go  into  Germany,  because  almost 
to- -well,  even  at  that  time,  I  think  by  the  end  of  February  of 
'45,  I  think  that  we  were  still  operating  under  the  advice  that 
Austria  was  going  to  be  an  occupied  country.   Somewhere  down  the 
line,  the  determination  was  made  that  Austria  would  be  treated 
as  a  liberated  country  instead  of  as  an  occupied  country,  but 
still  it  was  essential  to  coordinate  with  the  German  Allied 
Commission,  at  least  the  U.S.  Element,  in  order  to  determine  a 
number  of  issues  that  would  be  the  same  in  Austria  as  well  as  in 
Germany.   For  example,  the  de-Nazification  program. 

I  don't  know  whether  it  was  in  France  or  earlier  in  England 
that  I  talked  with  David  Morse,  who  was  the  chief  Labor  Division 


76 


Hicke: 


officer  for  the  Allied  Control  Commission,  U.S.  Element,  in 
Germany.   He  later  became  the  executive  director  of  the 
International  Labor  Organization,  immediately  after  the  war. 

When  I  returned  to  London,  I  was  advised  that  we  were  to 
move  to  Italy  and  not  follow  the  invasion  forces  through  Germany 
but- independently  to  go  up  through  Austria.   So  I  went  to  report 
to  the  Mediterranean  headquarters  in  Caserta,  which  was  about,  I 
think,  some  seventy  miles  out  of  Naples.   This  was  an  area  that 
had  been  freed  at  a  very  bloody  cost.   It  was  the  area  where  we 
landed  in  Salerno  and  had  to  work  our  way  up.   The  southern  part 
of  Italy  was  called  King's  Italy- -it  was  freed,  it  was 
liberated- -and  we  gave  the  Italian  local  governments  extensive 
authority  in  their  own  area.   We  did  have  our  own  military 
government  detachments  there  already,  and  we  weren't  called  upon 
to  do  much  duty  in  Italy,  although  we  were  on  call,  and  part  of 
our  city  and  province  detachments  did  accompany  our  troops  in 
northern  Italy  by  the  time  we  pushed  into  the  valley  of  the  Po 
[River] .   Since  all  of  us  were  on  call  to  go  to  northern  Italy 
for  the  purposes  of  military  government,  we  had  all  received  a 
unit  award  of  a  bronze  star,  which  I  certainly  did  not  deserve 
because  I  was  not  called  for  that  duty. 

Caserta  was  a  fascinating  headquarters.   It  was  a  tent  city 
in  a  palace- -on  palace  grounds.   It  was  there  that  we  really 
perfected  our  plans  for  the  occupation  of  Austria.   I  can  say 
categorically  that  when  we  got  up  to  Salzburg,  we  didn't  know 
whether  we  were  in  the  planning  stage  or  in  the  operations 
stage.   We  knew  the  places  to  look  for;  the  people  turned  out  to 
be  as  expected.   The  good,  unexpected  part  was  that  the  city  was 
left  quite  intact,  while  most  of  the  cities  of  Germany  had  been 
severely  bombed. 

Munich  was  pretty  well  hit,  but  I  assume  that  after  the 
determination  that  Austria  was  to  be  treated  as  a  liberated 
country,  we  were  not  as  severe  in  our  bombing  attacks,  and  after 
all,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  war  effort,  if  we  neutralized 
Herman  Goeringwerke  in  Linz,  we  neutralized  most  of  what  was 
important  in  the  Austrian  armaments  regime.   Although  there  were 
other  places;  Graz ,  I  believe  was  an  important  area  of  arms 
production. 

I  have  to  Just  interrupt  you  and  ask  you  if  you  know  about  this 
exhibit  that's  coming  on  Austrian  arms  and  armor? 


Heilbron:   No,  I  don't.   That,  I  believe,  is  from  Graz. 
Hicke:     Yes,  it  is. 


77 


Heilbron:   But  I  never  got  down  there.   That  was  part  of  the  British  zone, 
and  I  did  not  get  there.  One  other  area,  however,  that  was,  I 
think,  more  interesting  than  the  armor,  no  matter  how 
interesting  that  may  prove  to  be,  were  the  salt  mines  near 
Salzburg  where  a  great  deal  of  the  best  of  European  art  was 
discovered,  and  where  we  suspected  it  would  be. 

Hicke:     Did  you? 

Heilbron:  We  suspected  that  valuable  things  would  be  there,  not  Just  what 
would  be  there. 

Hicke:     Were  you  part  of  that--? 

Heilbron:   No,  I  was  not  part  of  it,  although  one  of  the  people  who  was 
directing  the  work  of-- 

ff 

Heilbron:   --saving  and  redistributing  the  art  became  the  director  of  the 
Legion  of  Honor  in  San  Francisco  [Thomas  Carr  Howe]. 

We  did  have  some  counsel,  I  think,  to  give  to  the  army  as 
it  went  up  in  Italy.   Our  army  had  the  attitude  that  I  can  well 
understand,  that  when  they  needed  something,  they'd  pay  for 
anything  they  needed,  and  that  the  important  thing  was  to  get  it 
done.   They  had  an  effect  of  raising  wages  and  drawing  off  the 
more  competent  labor  from  the  jobs  that  they  should  be  doing  in 
civilian  life,  and  more  or  less,  let's  say,  interrupting 
reconstruction  of  Italy.   We  advised  them  repeatedly  to  try  to 
maintain  their  wage  levels  at  the  wage  levels  of  the  competing 
civilian  economy  and  to  hold  as  closely  as  they  could  to  that. 
Of  course,  where  they  absolutely  required  immediate  assistance 
and  had  to  pay  for  it,  it  was  different,  but  they  didn't 
normally  operate  that  way. 

I  had  an  interesting  time,  once,  addressing  the  British 
group  that  was  the  military  government  of  the  Naples  area,  just 
outside  of  Herculaneum,  and  told  them  what  our  plans  were  for 
Austria  and  what  our  labor  policies  were.   They  were  interested 
and  polite  and  invited  me  for  luncheon,  and  I  went  up  to  their 
villa,  which  was  a  lovely  place  up  in  the  hills  of  Naples.   The 
luncheon  was  delightful,  leisurely.   After  luncheon, • most  of 
them  retired  for  their  naps. 

Prior  to  the  time  that  we  completed  the  luncheon,  we  did 
have  conversation,  and  I  asked  them  how  long  they  expected  to  be 
in  Italy,  which  seemed  to  be  getting  along,  in  that  area, 
reasonably  well.   "These  people  will  need  us  for  ten  years!" 


78 


[laughter]  Now  this  group  had  come  over  from  India,  where  they 
were  used  to  a  career  of  colonial  life  and  privileges,  and  they 
were  simply  going  to  move  over  to  Italy  and  enjoy  them  there. 

Hicke :     The  new  Raj . 

Heilbron:   That's  right,  and  I  don't  think  they  lasted  very  long  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  they  had  Joyful  anticipations,  because  they 
were  leading  the  good  life,  there  was  no  question  about  that. 

Well,  one  day,  my  colonel--!  believe  it  was,  by  this  time, 
Junius  Smith—and  I  were  going  from  Caserta  to  Rome,  where  we 
had  a  meeting  scheduled,  both  with  respect,  I  believe,  to  the 
future  governing  of  northern  Italy,  that  is,  from  the  military 
government  standpoint,  and  about  Austria.   We  were  stopped 
somewhere  about  midway,  and  the  officer  took  some  time- -no,  I 
guess  he  was  a  sergeant- -some  time  before  he  came  back  to  clear 
us  to  move  on.   The  colonel,  who  had  a  bit  of  a  temper  anyway, 
said,  "For  godsakes,  soldier,  don't  you  know  that  there's  a  war 
on?"  and  the  sergeant,  in  a  very  deliberate  tone,  said,  "Well, 
no,  colonel,  the  war  is  over."  And  that  was  the  time  that  we 
learned  there  had  been  a  surrender  of  the  German  forces  in 
northern  Italy.   [laughter]   So  we  did  go  on  to  our  conference 
and  then  soon  we'd  gone  toward  Austria. 

I  want  to  say  about  southern  Italy  that  the  two  roads  from 
Naples  to  Rome,  one  along  the  coast  and  one  in  the  interior- - 
somewhat  like  our  coastal  road  in  California  and  our  interior 
road  up  the  valley- -were  sites  of  devastation.   There  wasn't  one 
house  intact  between  Naples  and  Rome,  and  bathtubs  hung  out  over 
damaged  floors,  and  rubble  was  everywhere.   Monte  Cassino,  which 
was  a  monastery,  a  great  monastery,  was  a  scrambled  egg  on  top 
of  a  hill.   The  Polish  contingent  took  a  severe  beating  there. 

Well,  we  went  up  north  farther  to  a  staging  area  in 
Florence.   I  believe  there  was  still  some  question  as  to  whether 
there  would  be  German  resistance  in  the  Tyrol  and  Bavarian  Alps, 
and  that  that  was  one  of  the  reasons  for  us  not  getting  to 
Austria  at  once.   They  didn't  know  what  partisan  activity  might 
remain  to  make  it  difficult  for  military  government.   They 
didn't  know  whether  the  Germans  would  make  a  last  stand  anywhere 
in  the  mountains  of  southern  Germany  and  in  the  Alps  of  Austria. 

Florence  was  an  extraordinary  center  of  military 
concentration,  by  that  time.   People  had  come  up  from- -the 
British  Eighth  Army  on  one  side,  our  Fifth  Army  on  the  other 
side,  a  Brazilian  air  group  located  at  Pisa,  Poles,  a  Jewish 
brigade,  British  from  mandated  Palestine- -it  was  a  conglomerate 
of  allied  forces.  All  these  forces  were  represented  at  a  great 


79 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Hlcke : 


Heilbron: 


service  held  when  Roosevelt  died  at  the  Santa  Croce  church  in 
Florence  dominated  by  Verdi's  Requiem,  and  the  people  who  were 
there  were  tremendously  moved—I'm  talking  about  the  military 
and  the  civilians  outside,  and  the  civilians  inside,  too.   It 
was  a  memorable  sight. 

There  was  one  very  interesting  thing  I  saw  as  we  were 
leaving  Florence,  and  it  was  a  series  of  derailed  railroad  cars 
that  were- -I  don't  know  whether  it  was  the  cars  themselves  or 
the  ribbed  cages  that  had  been  brought  from  the  cars;  I  think 
that  was  it.   What  had  happened  was  that  just  before  the  end  of 
the  war,  Herman  Goering  ordered  that  the  treasures  of  the 
Florence  art  galleries,  Uffizi  and  the  others,  were  to  be 
carried  into  Germany,  and  he  loaded  a  train  and  proceeded  with 
that  train  to  go  through  the  great  tunnel  on  the  way  to  Bologna; 
the  tunnel  was  right  exactly  outside  of  Florence.   But  American 
intelligence  found  out  about  it,  so  there  was  the  train  all 
intact  and  there  was  the  train  going  into  the  tunnel,  and  the 
Americans  bombed  the  other  side  of  the  tunnel  and  the  train 
couldn't  get  out.   So  they  brought  the  train  back,  just  before 
we  had  come  into  Florence,  and  these  ribbed  cages  full  of  art 
were  strewn  over  a  big  area,  and  while  I  had  seen  the  [Lorenzo] 
Ghiberti  [bronze]  doors  in  place  when  I  was  a  student  going  into 
Italy  in  1928,  I  didn't  expect  to  see  them  through  the  ribbed 
wooden  cages  of  one  of  the  huge  storage  cartons,  not  cartons,  in 
effect  great,  huge,  ribbed  boxes  where  I  could  see  through  the 
interstices  and  know  that  they  were  the  Ghiberti  doors. 

They  were  still  on  the  train? 

No,  no,  no.   They  were  taken  off  the  train  in  a  railroad  yard 
because  I  could  see  them,  they  were  unloaded,  but  so  much  had  to 
be  done.   We  arrived  shortly  after  the  surrender,  and  the  train 
had  stayed  in  the  tunnel  for  a  while  before  they  pulled  it  back. 
It  was  still  not  a  covered  area,  and  there  was  the  art  of 
Florence .   Now  what  would  have  happened  to  them  had  the  train 
gone  through,  I  don't  know.   Conceivably  we  could  have  bombed 
that  train,  thinking  that  it  carried  military  troops. 
Conceivably  they  could  have  been  put  into  caves  in  Austria. 
Conceivably  they  could  have  been  brought  into  German  cities  and 
bombed  there.   Whatever,  they  were  intact  and  saved  by  the 
intelligence  and  the  bombing  raid. 

That's  a  fascinating  story.   It  makes  you  realize  how  fortunate 
it  is  that  there  is  anything  left  there. 

Well,  an  art  book  was  issued  called  The  Lost  Treasures  of  Europe 
after  the  war,  and  comparatively  very  little  treasure  was  lost. 


80 


All ltd  Control  Commission   Austria 


Heilbron:  Well,  w«  got  up  through  the  Tyrol.  Austria  changed  governors  in 
the  province  of  Tyrol  pretty  shortly  after  the  end  of  the  war, 
and  once  again  I'll  have  to  recall  his  name.   He  spoke  good 
English,  he  was  a  governor  who  had  been  put  in  after  the 
surrender  and  after  the  Nazi  governor  had  fled,  and  he  took 
over.   I  aet  hia  and  talked  to  him  a  little  bit  about  what  to 
expect  farther  on,  and  of  course  much  higher  officers  than  I  had 
interviewed  him,  too,  because  he  was  to  be  a  good  advisor  as  to 
what  to  expect  from  Salzburg,  whom  to  see,  and  everything  else. 
Years  later,  when  he  was  head  of  an  Austrian  ministry,  Delphine 
and  I  were  entertained  by  him  in  a  nice  dinner  in  Vienna. 

Ve  got  to  Salzburg,  and  there's  where  we  set  up  our 
regional  military  government.   The  Russians  occupied  Vienna,  but 
were  not  ready  to  admit  us.   Conditions  in  Vienna  were  very 
difficult.   People  were  short  of  food  rations,  and  I  don't  think 
the  Russians  wanted  us  in  while  they  were  trying  to  clear  some 
things  up  and  while  they  were  preparing  the  way  for  what  they 
thought  would  become  a  communist  Austria.   So  we  settled  in 
Salzburg  and,  as  I  say,  we  knew  what  to  expect,  and  we 
established  the  American  Zone  with  Salzburg  as  the  center.   I 
dealt  with  the  Austrians  whom  we  temporarily  approved  for 
regional  labor  service- -that  is,  with  some  of  them- -after  all, 
Colonel  Junius  Smith  was  at  the  head  of  our  division- -and  we 
successfully  set  up  shop. 

Salzburg  was  close  to  Munich,  and  it  had  not  really  seen 
the  ravages  of  war.   It  had  been  spared.   It  was  a  historic 
cultural  city.  You  could  walk  around  at  night  in  Salzburg  and 
hear  the  playing  of  pianos,  of  classical  music,  almost  all  over 
town.   It  was  an  odd  feeling.   The  end  of  this  horrible  war,  and 
this  kind  of  season  of  peace. 

But  our  de-Nazification  started  in.  We  were  rounding  up 
the  people  who  had  been  the  Nazi  officials  and  the  Nazi  minions. 
There  was  a  very  important  camp  outside  of  Salzburg  where  they 
were  all  brought  together.   Of  course  we  all  wanted  to  have  as 
much  of  the  comforts  as  we  could  take  away  from  the  previous 
Nazi  regime,  and  our  colonel  was  delighted  that  he  was  able  to 
get  the  big  automobile  that  had  been  the  German  ambassador  to 
Rumania's  automobile,  and  he  also  got  hold  of  a  chauffeur  who 
spoke  English  and  who  lived  in  Vienna  and  who  seemed  to  know  his 
way  about,  and  so  he  had  a  driver,  too. 

Well,  that  driver  was  uncertain  about  what  had  happened  to 
his  apartment  in  Vienna.  He  had  been  a  diamond  merchant  and  had 


Hicke : 


Hicke : 


81 


sonehow  gotten  to  Spain  to  avoid  final  military  service  with  the 
Gernan  army  and  had  come  back.   He  had  been  well-to-do,  he  was 
well-to-do.   He  lived  in  one  of  two  apartments  that  had  an 
elevator  in  Vienna.   He  wanted  to  know  whether  there  was  damage 
to  it  and  so  on,  so  we  sent  one  of  our  interpreters  to  his 
place,  and  he  gave  all  kinds  of  directions,  and  our  interpreter 
brought  back  a  very  interesting  picture:  there  was  a  fine 
photograph  of  an  SS  meeting  in  the  room,  and  who  appeared  out  of 
the  picture  of  these  Nazi  officers  but  our  fine  chauffeur,  whom 
the  colonel  had  somehow  gotten  out  of  internment.   But  he  was 
such  a  nice  fellow,  and  so  cooperative  and  so  on.  Naturally,  we 
had  to  yield  him  up  to  the  authorities. 

And  drive  yourself.   [laughter] 


Heilbron:  Meanwhile  we  got  another  driver.   But  that  was  kind  of  an 
interesting  episode. 

The  de-Nazif ication  went  on  apace.   We  were  more  zealous,  1 
think,  than  others  might  have  been.   Our  special  services 
department  thought  that  it  would  be  great  for  the  morale  for  the 
liberated  country  to  put  on  the  Salzburg  Festival  as  early  as 
August  of  the  very  year  of  the  surrender,  and  they  would  do  it 
mostly  with  Austrian  talent.   I  guess  they  notified  our  services 
throughout  Europe  so  that  they  would  get  a  good  attendance. 
After  all,  who  had  transportation  but  the  armed  services  of  the 
various  countries?  And,  we  would  let  in  the  Salzburgers ,  who 
usually  never  get  to  see  the  Salzburg  Festival.   That  was  its 
purpose.   But  in  our  de-Nazif ication  program  and  procedure,  we 
found  that  we  had  de-Nazified  the  wind  section  of  the  so-called 
Salzburg  Philharmonic.   [laughter]   The  Festival  went  on,  but  a 
little  bit  lamely  in  that  area.   I  did  attend  a  couple  of  the 
events  and  it  was  quite  thrilling. 


You  weren't  drafted  to  play? 


Heilbron:   [laughter]  No. 


Well,  1  think  we  insisted  on  a  minimum  of  fifteen  to 
sixteen  hundred  calories  per  person  before  we  would  agree  to 
move  into  Vienna,  but  we  pressed  to  get  into  Vienna;  we  knew 
that  that  was  important.  We  knew  what  the  Russians  were  trying 
to  do,  and  one  day  General  Mark  Clark  called  us  all  together  and 
said,  "Gentlemen,  we  are  about  to  move  into  Vienna,  and  I'm  here 
to  find  out  Just  what  our  procedure  will  be.  My  plan  is  to  have 
it  happen  in  ten  days."  And  there  was  a  little  quiet,  and  then 
the  food  officer  for  the  civilian/military  government,  a  man  who 
had  come  from  IBM  [International  Business  Machines  Corporation], 
spoke  up  and  said,  "Well,  general,  you  know  we  have  our  food 


82 


Hlcke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


requirements  and  our  food  problems.   I  know  where  all  the  things 
are.   I  believe  transportation  is  available,  but  we  can't  do  it 
in  ten  days . " 

This  was  like  the  shot  at  Concord.   This  was  revolution 
against  General  Clark.  You  just  didn't  say  no  to  General  Clark. 
He  asked  some  penetrating  questions  and  the  IBM  man's  position 
was  simply  this:  "General,  I  came  over  here  and  1  am  just  a 
civilian  in  uniform,"  he  said,  "if  anybody  can  get  this  stuff 
into  Vienna,  send  me  home  and  take  him,  because  I  can't  do  it. 
I  can  tell  you  what  I  can  do,  but  I  can't  do  that,  even  if  you 
ordered  me  and  I  tried  to  do  everything  you  wanted  me  to  do." 
The  general  stopped  for  a  moment  and  he  said,  "How  long  will  it 
take?"  And  the  IBM  man  said,  "Thirty  days,"  and  Clark  said,  "In 
thirty  days  we  will  be  in  Vienna." 

Clark  was  a  very  military  type  of  man.   An  order  was  an 
order.   He  was  personally  courageous- -you  may  remember  he  went 
in  on  a  submarine  to  North  Africa  and  arranged  the  campaign  for 
the  invasion  of  North  Africa,  talking  with  the  French  who  were 
the  free  French,  and  he  led  the  very  hard  battles  of  Salerno  and 
up  the  whole  of  Italy,  and  it  was  tough  fighting.   But  when  the 
war  was  over,  he  recognized  it  had  become  primarily  a  civilian 
situation  and  problem,  and  he  gave  the  military  government  the 
right  to  order  his  military  around  to  carry  out  military 
government  orders . 

He  gave  the  civilians? 

No,  we  were  all  military,  but  they  had  to  obey  what  we  said, 
which  was  an  extraordinary  thing. 

You  are  talking  about  the  military  occupation  government. 

Yes,  insofar  as  they  had  jurisdiction.   I  think  Clark  deserves  a 
great  deal  of  credit  for  that,  and  I  think  illustrative  of  it 
was  this  agreement  to  defer  when  he  had  already  made  an 
announcement  and  had  to  retract  it. 

Veil,  he  did  move  into  Vienna,  and  I  remember  with  our 
little  old  Rumanian  automobile  driven  by  somebody  else,  we  got 
to  the  River  Enn  and  we  were  crossing  into  the  Soviet  Zone.   We 
were  met  by  a  border  sentry,  asking  to  see  our  papers,  and  he 
asked  innumerable  questions.  He  had  an  envelope,  and  he  was 
writing  down  the  answers  on  this  envelope:  where  we  were,  what 
we  were  doing,  who  we  were,  where  we  were  going,  why  we  were 
going,  and  so  on.   Our  colonel,  who  had  a  pretty  short  fuse 
anyway,  controlled  himself  pretty  well,  because  we  were  in  the 
Russian  zone,  and  if  we  were  told  to  go  back  it  would  take  days, 


83 


and  we  finally  were  waved  on,  and  as  we  crossed  that  little 
bridge  over  the  Enn,  we  looked  back  and  there  was  this  soldier 
and  he  took  the  envelope  and  he  threw  it  into  the  river, 
[laughter]   So  we  got  to  Vienna. 


Occuation  o 


[Interview  6,  March  11,  1992] 


Hicke:     We're  starting  out  this  afternoon  with  Vienna. 

Heilbron:   Yes,  I  think  we  left  our  discussion  at  the  point  where  we  were 

on  our  way  to  Vienna,  and  I  made  some  reference  to  the  fact  that 
for  some  time  the  Russians  would  not  let  us  in  because  they 
could  not  meet  their  quota  of  what  we  thought  the  minimum  food 
requirements  were  for  Vienna.   I  believe  it  was  1,500  calories. 
The  situation,  they  claimed,  was  too  confused  and  the  facilities 
were  insufficient.   Finally  we  did  get  under  way. 

Hicke:     When  you  say,  "We  got  under  way"-- 

Heilbron:   We  were  moved  by  segments  into  Vienna,  a  city  that  was  mostly 
intact  except  for  the  buildings  on  either  side  of  the  Danube 
canal,  which  had  been  used  as  fortifications  by  both  the 
Russians  and  Germans  in  their  final  fight  for  Vienna  and  for 
some  important  buildings. 

Hicke:     Wasn't  the  Opera  House  destroyed? 

Heilbron:   Pretty  much.   Other  buildings  in  the  more  central  part  of  Vienna 
were  also  badly  damaged,  and  there  was  partial  damage  to  some  of 
the  churches.   But  still  Vienna  was  a  formidable  and  beautiful 
city,  not  like,  for  example,  Dresden  that  had  been  so  badly 
destroyed,  or  Berlin  that  was  demolished. 

Austria,  as  1  mentioned,  was  to  be  treated  as  a  liberated 
country  instead  of  a  conquered  country,  a  decision  made  rather 
late  in  the  course  of  the  war,  a  determination  that  was  probably 
morally  questionable  but  politically  wise,  because  the  Nazis  in 
Austria  were  probably  the  meanest  and  the  cruelest  of  the  lot. 
We  had  many  of  them  cleaning  the  streets  after  we  arrived,  and 
the  Russians  had  done  that  before  we  arrived- -doing  the  dirty 
work. 

Hicke:     Nazi  prisoners  of  war? 


84 


Heilbron:   Veil,  I'm  talking  about  ex-Nazis  or  Nazi  civilians --party 
people .   A  lot  of  the  party  vanished  into  the  woodworks . 

Still,  all  of  the  four  powers  worked  better  in  Austria  than 
in  any  other  place  where  they  had  joint  authority. 

Hicke:     You  mean  there  was  cooperation? 

Heilbron:   In  the  matter  of  cooperation.   There  was  a  famous  four-power 
police  jeep,  a  jeep  which  included  a  representative  from  the 
four  occupying  powers.  Their  Jurisdiction  was  the  international 
zone  of  Vienna.  Vienna  had  been  divided  into  four  zones  of 
occupation- -of  control.   Roughly  speaking,  the  Americans  had  the 
northern  zone,  the  Russians  had  the  eastern  part  of  the  city, 
the  French  had  the  southern,  and  the  British  the  western.   That 
is  probably  a  little  rough  as  to  direction,  but  that  gives  you 
the  principle,  anyway.  The  international  zone  was- -I  think  the 
Opera  House  was  in  that  zone,  as  were  other  of  the  national 
buildings.   In  any  event,  it  was  that  zone  that  was  patrolled  by 
the  four-power  jeep. 

Hicke:     There  was  one  jeep  that  just  drove  around  this  area? 

Heilbron:   Well,  I  think  there  were  more  than  one  jeep,  but  that  was  the 
character  of  the  program.   And  it  kept  pretty  good  order  and 
they  did  not  have  fights  among  themselves,  so  that  was  good  for 
the  police. 

I  mentioned  the  different  sectors  of  Vienna.   The  British 
had  the  area  that  had  the  palaces  and  many  of  the  museums  and 
fine  buildings.   The  Russians  had  the  more  industrial  parts  of 
the  city  and  the  Hotel  Imperial.   The  Americans  had  the  office 
buildings  with  the  steam  heat,  and  the  French  had  pretty  much 
what  was  left.   [laughter] 

Hicke:     I  hope  there  was  a  winery  or  two  there  for  them. 

Heilbron:  They  had  a  pleasant  part  of  town  near  the  shops.  We  had  a  part 
of  what  might  be  deemed  to  be  the  more  central  area  and  the  good 
residence  area,  which  was  fortunate  for  those  of  us  who  occupied 
one  of  the  homes  there . 

Major  [Arthur]  Cladek,  who  was  an  architect  and  who  had 
been  called  over  toward  the  end  of  the  war,  and  I  took  a  home. 
We  were  allowed  to  tell  the  people  who  owned  it  to  leave,  but  it 
was  a  fairly  large  house,  and  we  told  them  that  they  could 
remain.   They  occupied  the  top  floor.   They  did  vacate  the  main 
bedroom  areas,  and  of  course  everybody  had  the  use  of  the  living 
room  and  the  library.   It  was  a  pleasant  house  and  we  enjoyed 


85 


Hicke: 


our  stay  there.   The  owner  of  the  house  had  been  counsel  to  the 
old  Austrian  government  and  he  was  a  man  of  some  consequence , 
but  he  had  been  a  Christian  Democrat  Dolfus  supporter  and  he  was 
out  of  any  important  relationship  during  the  period  of  the  Nazi 
control. 

We  had  some  administrative  difficulties  regarding  the  time 
the  segments  could  confer  with  one  another.   I'm  talking  about 
the  four  occupying  powers.   Our  period  was  the  usual  time  of  day 
that  business  was  conducted  in  the  United  States.   The  Russians, 
however,  did  all  of  their  work  at  night  and  were  rarely  able  to 
work  or  contact  you  until  late  in  the  morning.   The  British  had 
an  extended  tea  period.  And  the  French,  I  can't  give  you  the 
French  timetable,  but  I  recall  that  it  was  only  an  hour  and  a 
half  per  day  when  we  were  sure  we  could  get  everybody  to  discuss 
a  matter,  except  at  times  of  formal  meetings.   Indeed,  we 
alternated  in  accommodating  in  our  respective  sectors  the 
biweekly  meetings  that  our  committee  had.   They  were  bi-weekly 
and  then  they  got  to  be  monthly.   The  favorite  Russian  time  was 
ten  o'clock  in  the  morning  where  they  had  what  amounted  to 
dinner,  because  they  had  a  huge  spread  of  everything  that  was 
good  at  the  Hotel  Imperial.   Whatever  the  food  situation  at  home 
was,  the  spread  was  a  regular  banquet  at  ten  o'clock  in  the 
morning,  when  none  of  us  felt  like  enjoying  it. 

Left  the  caviar  just  sitting  right  there  on  the  table? 


Heilbron:   It  was  almost  that  bad. 

At  the  bottom  of  this  list  of  governmental  supervision  were 
the  poor  Austrians  whose  country  we  were  helping  to 
rehabilitate.   The  ministries  were  gradually  filled  with  people 
from  the  old,  pre-Nazi  regime.  We  wouldn't  take  people  with  any 
kind  of  Nazi  qualifications  or  Nazi  authority  for  any  important 
position. 

Our  minister  came  out  of  a  concentration  camp- -he  was  not 
Jewish,  but  he  had  been  a  Social  Democrat- -by  the  name  of 
Maisel,  and  he  could  not  appear  at  our  first  meeting.   He  had 
four  or  five  teeth  knocked  out  and  he  had  to  have  a  lot  of 
dental  work  done  before  he  could  assume  his  official  duties. 
And  when  he  was  all  together,  they  had  a  kind  of  welcoming 
dinner  for  him  in  a  famous  Viennese  restaurant  called  the  Four 
Hussars.   It  was  about  two  blocks  down  a  dark  street  from  the 
Hotel  Imperial,  which  was  the  Russian  headquarters,  and  it  was 
opened  up  just  for  the  night  and  then  closed  again.   But  it  was 
very  interesting  to  see  these  people  who  had  been  ousted  during 
the  Nazi  regime  enthusiastically  get  together. 


86 


Hicke:     Can  you  tell  me  what  his  actual  title  was? 

Heilbron:  He  became  the  minister  of  Social  Administration,  a  department 

that  included  labor,  housing,  and  social  security  in  our  terns. 
He  was  more  or  less  supervised  by  the  vice  president  of  Austria, 
a  man  by  the  name  of  Boehm,  with  whom  we  had  dealings  on  the 
most  important  matters,  as  well  as  with  the  ministry. 

Now  the  administrative  structure  of  Austria  was  divided 
into  segments,  just  like  our  government  is  divided,  and  our 
committee  dealt  simply  with  the  area  of  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
ministry. 

Some  of  the  issues  we  had  to  deal  with  were  obviously 
wages --we  put  a  cap  on  wages  as  there  was  on  prices --and  one  of 
the  questions  was,  could  Austrian  workers  strike  after  their 
liberalization?  We  had  developed  a  policy  before  entering 
Austria,  and  it  was  true  during  military  government  in  Italy, 
that  you  could  not  strike  the  government  at  these  difficult, 
provisional  times.  You  had  to  begin  to  hold  the  country 
together  before  certain  of  these  economic  freedoms  could  be 
recognized.   This  was  a  US  policy  proposal,  and  it  was  adopted, 
and  of  course  the  Russians  enthusiastically  confirmed  it. 

There  was  a  large  problem  in  connection  with  the  social 
insurance  questions:  pensions  and  health  and  welfare.  After 
all,  the  Germans  had  taken  over  the  entire  Austrian  government 
through  their  anschluss  and  had  taken  over  all  of  the  assets  of 
the  Austrian  system.   I  had  the  idea  that  the  least  we  could  do 
was  to  get  our  American  military  government  in  Germany  to  cede 
an  appropriate  portion  of  assets  to  finance,  at  the  beginning, 
the  rehabilitation  of  the  Austrian  social  security  system. 

Hicke:     Did  you  have  the  records  to  deal  with  this? 

Heilbron:   Well,  the  records  were  there  of  all  of  the  benefits  owing  and 
all  that.   But  our  Control  Commission  in  Germany  said,  "There 
aren't  any  assets  for  anybody.   You  just  have  to  begin  all  over 
again  on  a  kind  of  pay-as-you-go  system."   The  records  were 
there,  the  accounts  were  there,  but  they  had  to  be  fed  by  taxes 
on  wages  and  how  the  old  system  was  financed.   In  effect,  we 
have  a  kind  of  pay-as-you-go  system  in  the  United  States,  too. 
So  it  was  a  difficult  thing  to  reestablish,  but  it  had  to  be 
established  separately  and  independently,  and  just  covering  the 
Austrians . 

Hicke:     Was  there  a  lot  of  protest  from  the  Austrians? 


87 


Heilbron:   No,  the  Austrians  were  very  pleased  to  have  some  scope  of 

independence.   Here  they  had  their  own  system  and  they  could 
work  it  out.   It  was  a  tremendous  Job  of  programming,  and  I'll 
come  to  that  perhaps  in  a  few  minutes,  because  the  Austrians  had 
to  reissue  a  whole  vast  set  of  regulations  on  benefits,  and  in 
their  terms,  and  it  was  not  easy.   But  it  was  reestablished,  at 
least  the  beginnings  were  made  during  the  period  when  I  was 
there . 

Housing,  of  course,  was  a  problem.  The  housing  available 
had  been  damaged,  particularly  in  the  poorer  sections  of  Vienna, 
by  the  fighting,  and  a  lot  of  people  from  the  hinterland  had 
come  into  Vienna  during  the  war.   There  were  two,  quite 
different,  views  with  respect  to  how  housing  should  be  measured 
and  benefits  allocated.   The  Russians  simply  took  square  meters 
and  said,  "You  have  a  family,  you  put  a  cloth  partition 
between,"  and  they  just  took  the  rooms  and  divided  them  up 
according  to  space. 

The  Western  segments  felt  that  you  divided  it  by  rooms,  and 
you  had  an  arrangement  whereby  certain  areas,  like  the  bathroom 
and  kitchen,  were  available  for  common  use.   But  the  Russians 
would  tell  us  they  had  this  problem  and  they  knew  how  to  deal 
with  it  and  this  may  be  new  for  us ,  but  when  we  get  into  a 
situation  of  rationing  housing,  you  have  to  do  it  their  way. 
But  they  finally  concurred,  as  far  as  I  recall,  to  adopting  the 
room  system  that  we  insisted  upon  for  our  three  zones.   How  much 
they  actually  implemented  it,  I  never  knew,  nor  did,  I  think, 
anybody  else  in  our  committee. 

Hicke:     That's  one  thing  I  wanted  to  straighten  out.   Your  minister  was 
in  charge  of  all  of  Austria? 

Heilbron:  Yes. 

Hicke:  But  in  Vienna- - 

Heilbron:  They  had  their  own-- 

Hicke:  The  Russians  could  do  as  they  pleased? 

Heilbron:   No,  no.   The  ministry  dealt  with  policies  for  all  of  Austria, 

but  the  civic  part  of  the  government  was  of  the  city  of  Vienna, 
but  insofar  as  the  implementation  of  policy  was  concerned,  they 
were  controlled  by  the  various  zones,  that  is,  the  supervision 
of  how  things  were  carried  out.   Now  the  whole  purpose  of  the 
four  powers  getting  together  was  that  the  policy  should  be 
joint,  and  as  I  say,  if  the  housing  policy  was  joint,  the 
question  then  was  how  was  it  carried  out? 


88 


Hicke:     Was  it  implemented  by  everybody? 
Heilbron:   How  was  it  implemented. 
Hicke:     I  see. 

Heilbron:   I  mention  this  question  of  implementation  because  we  had  that 

problem  in  trying  to  reconstitute  production  and  factories.   We 
had  a  general  supervisory  program  to  see  whether  the  raw 
materials  could  be  purchased  and  whether  the  work  force  was  in 
place  and  so  on  and  whether  the  whole  body  of  sanitation  rules 
was  being  served.   Because  after  all,  even  though  they  were  a 
Nazi  regime,  there  were  close  regulations  of  how  factories 
operated  and  production  took  place.   We  wanted  to  know  how 
things  were  getting  along  in  the  Russian  zone:  how  was 
production? 

We  told  them,  you  come  to  the  American  zone,  and  you  can 
see  what  you  want.   We  made  arrangements  with,  I  guess  it  was 
the  101st  Airborne  that  controlled  Linz,  to  permit  the  Russians 
to  come  in,  but  we  had  a  hard  time  getting  reciprocal  rights, 
and  I'm  sure  that  went  for  the  city  as  well  as  the  country  as  a 
whole . 

One  area  where  I  became  particularly  involved  was  that  of 
cooperatives.   In  California,  during  the  Depression,  we  knew 
something  about  cooperatives,  the  idea  that  people  would  gather 
together  and  pool  their  labor  and  pool  whatever  finances  they 
had  or  were  given  to  organize  a  business  and  divide  the  profit. 
The  Russians  had  their  cooperatives,  too,  but  they  were  all 
state  operated.   Any  kind  of  profit  went,  of  course,  to  the 
state,  and  that's  the  kind  of  cooperative  that  they  wanted  to 
establish  in  Austria. 

Hicke:     Did  the  cooperatives  work? 

Heilbron:   We  had  no  difficulty,  as  a  matter  of  policy,  saying  we  support 
the  idea  of  cooperatives,  but  how  they  were  working  was  a 
different  matter.   So  we  had  a  vote  in  our  committee  to  support, 
more  or  less,  the  cooperatives  to  which  we  were  used  or  a 
Swedish-type  cooperative  to  get  things  going  again,  because 
capital  was  difficult  to  assemble,  and  the  cooperative  procedure 
seemed  to  be  as  good  as  any  to  get  things  started.   When  the 
policy  got  reworked  in  the  Allied  Control  Commission,  a  draft  of 
a  resolution  was  presented  that  was  somewhat  ambiguous  and 
obviously  could  be  construed  to  be  state  controlled  in  the 
Russian  zone  and  not  so  controlled  in  the  other  zones. 


Hicke: 


Purposely  written  that  way? 


89 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 
Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Yes.   So  I  was  asked  to  sit  in  to  advise  General  [Hark]  Clark  on 
this  particular  issue  and  1  saw  the  translation  and  I  told  the 
general  that  in  my  opinion  this  was  not  something  he  should  vote 
for  and  adopt.   I  explained  it.  And  he  immediately  understood 
it  and  he  turned  to  General  Koniev  and  said,  "This  will  not  do, 
this  will  not  do."  And  he  said,  "You  go  down  and  draft  the 
resolutions  that  should  be  drafted." 

To  you? 

Yes,  and  he  says,  "And  come  back  in  fifteen  minutes." 

Oh,  Louis,  you're  kidding!   [laughter] 

I'm  not.   That's  exactly  what  he  said.   So  I  went  out  and  thank 
God  for  my  experience  when  I  had  to  draft  emergency  legislation 
during  the  Depression  and  was  up  in  Sacramento  for  the  Relief 
Administration.   It  wasn't  too  long  a  resolution.   I  came  back 
and  it  got  translated  and--.   Koniev  wasn't  terribly  interested 
in  the  problem.   This  was  a  minor  thing  as  far  as  he  was 
concerned.   He  wanted  some  things  with  General  Clark,  and  so 
they  agreed.   They  agreed  on  the  draft  that  I  had  drawn  and  so 
it  passed.   When  our  committee  then  met,  afterwards,  we  had 
reports  of  what  had  occurred  between  meetings,  and  the 
resolution  as  drafted  was  reported  to  the  committee  as  approved 
by  the  Allied  Control  Commission,  Pigin  said,  "Hah!"  he  said, 
"That's  a  political  decision,  a  political  decision!"  and  he 
still  opposed  the  idea. 


Wait  a  minute  now,  I  have  to  ask  you,  who  was  Koniev? 
the  Russian  representative? 


Was  he 


Koniev  was  one  of  the  great  generals  in  World  War  II.   He  was 
Clark's  opposite.   The  Control  council  members  were  General 
Clark  for  the  Americans,  General  Koniev  for  the  Soviets;  I  can't 
recall  the  names  of  the  French  and  the  British. 

That's  okay.   I  just  really  needed  to  know  which  side  he  was  on. 
Yes. 

We  all  agreed  that  there  must  be  de-Nazification,  and  the 
Americans  were  quite  sincere  about  it.   And  it  went  down  to 
lower  levels  of  administration  to  cleanse,  in  other  words,  the 
administration.   The  Russians  were  [pause]  effective  in  that 
area  also,  but  the  Russians  had  a  little  different  program  than 
we  had. 


90 


That  brings  me  to  a  little  discussion  about  the  climate  in 
which  we  worked  at  the  beginning  of  our  occupation  of  Vienna. 
There  was  more  cooperation,  as  I  have  indicated,  than  perhaps  in 
any  other  area  in  Europe.  There  was  civility  in  relationships 
for  the  most  part,  on  the  policy  side.   But  at  operative  levels, 
there  was  a  great  deal  of  suspicion  and  distrust,  and  with 
reason.   I  remember  going  down  for  some  purpose  to  one  of  the 
railway  stations  in  Vienna,  and  seeing  trains  on  their  way  east 
with  flat  cars  loaded  with  bicycles  and  appliances  and- - 

f* 

Heilbron:   --liberated  furniture;  anything  that  could  be  taken.   And  they 
went  eastward,  and  that  meant  that  they  were  spoils  of  war  sent 
into  the  Soviet  Union. 

The  second  aspect  of  this  climate- - 
Hicke :     Could  you  do  anything  about  that? 

Heilbron:   Well,  the  answers  would  be  that  property  was  abandoned,  the 

buildings  were  destroyed,  they  were  owned  by  Nazis.   There  was 
an  answer  if  you  asked  a  question,  but  we  knew  that  it  was 
pretty  much  liberated  property. 

Then  there  was  the  support  of  the  communist  party  by  the 
Soviet  occupiers.   Now  you  may  remember  that  I  said  that  it  took 
them  some  time  to  let  us  in.   In  the  meantime,  they  were 
strengthening,  as  best  they  could,  the  communist  party  elements 
that  had  remained  in  Austria  and  had  been  evident  to  some  minor 
extent  prior  to  the  war.   Now,  when  we  first  got  into  Vienna, 
the  energy  facilities  were  sparse,  and  there  were  blackouts 
every  night  for  the  most  part,  but  there  were  about  five  or  six 
points  of  light  that  you  could  see  in  the  evening.  All  over 
Vienna,  if  you  got  into  a  little  higher  part  of  town,  you  could 
see  these  points  of  light.   They  were  the  communist 
headquarters --the  only  places  that  were  permitted  to  have  light. 

Now,  I  really  don't  recall  where  these  points  of  light  were 
located.  They  obviously  were  generously  distributed  in  the 
Russian  zone;  1  don't  see  how  they  could  be  in  the  other  zones, 
but  they  were  there,  wherever  the  population  could  be  reached. 
And  the  Russian  attitude  in  our  committee  as  well  as  in  other  of 
the  departmental  segmental  committees  was,  "Let's  not  try  to  do 
much  policy  work.  We'll  be  out  of  here  in  September.  The 
elections  for  the  provisional  government  are  going  to  be  held  in 
September,  and  they'll  elect  their  government  and  there  is 
nothing  for  us  to  do;  we'll  get  out,"  because  they  expected  a 


91 


Hicke : 


huge  communist  popular  vote  and  they,  in  one  way  or  another, 
supported  a  strong  campaign  for  that  vote. 

The  election  was  held  in  September,  and  the  communists  won 
exactly  the  proportion  that  they  had  before  the  war:  4  percent 
of  the  vote.  And  at  the  first  meeting  we  held  after  that,  I 
recall  Pigin's  opening  remarks:  "It  looks  like  we're  going  to  be 
here  for  a  long  time." 

There  was  change.   Now,  one  of  the  ways  that  life  was  made 
a  little  difficult  for  us  as  responsible  military  governors  but 
pleasant  for  many  of  our  soldiers  and  unpleasant  for  our 
taxpayers  was  the  way  the  currency  was  distributed  and  used  to 
buy  goods.   We  replaced  the  currency  with  occupation  currency, 
and  the  Austrian  banks,  I  believe,  were  in  control  of  the 
printing  of  the  currency,  but  the  Russians,  I  recall,  had  one- -I 
don't  know  whether  they  had  one  printing  plant  or  not- -but  they 
had  a  great  deal  of  currency,  and  I  think  that  they  had  one 
printing  plant  for  currency. 

Was  this  scrip  or  was  it  real  money? 


Heilbron:   Well,  it  was  redeemable  currency.   Quite  redeemable.   Now,  the 
Russian  soldiers  didn't  have  much  idea  of  what  this  currency 
really  involved  in  the  way  of  value  or  purchasing  power,  but  the 
American  soldiers  were  much  more  conscious  of  it.   If  they  sold 
cigarettes  or  wristwatches  or  other  things  that  they  could  get 
from  the  PX  to  their  Russian  counterparts,  they  made  a  very 
handsome  profit.   But  it  was  permitted,  when  you  left  the 
country,  to  turn  in  your  currency  for  American  dollars  at  the 
established  rate.   So  a  lot  of  our  people  went  home  with  a  good 
many  American  dollars,  but  they  must  come,  after  all,  from  the 
taxes  on  the  American  people.   So  that's  why  I  described  it  as 
being  pleasant  for  some  and  unpleasant  for  others. 

Hicke:     A  little  addition  to  the  G.I.  Bill --they  had  extra  money  to  go 
back  to  school  with? 

Heilbron:   That's  right,  that's  right. 

Now,  we  had  a  professor  of  economics  from  Harvard  running 
the  financial  segment  of  the  American  element  of  the  military 
government;  the  Allied  Control  government.   He  was  not 
particularly  a  soldiery  type.   He  was  a  professor  in  a  uniform. 
But  he  knew  finances.   And  they  were  changing  the  kind  of  bills 
that  were  designed  to  be  printed  as  Austrian  currency.   We  were 
finally  getting  to  the  point  where  the  government  would  have  its 
own  currency,  and  the  National  Bank  of  Austria  was  in  charge  of 


92 


Hicke: 


printing  it.   At  least  the  government  was  furnishing  the 
currency  to  the  National  Bank  for  distribution. 

The  Russians --Soviets --gave  an  order  to  the  bank  to  turn 
over  the  plates  to  them  for  the  printing  of  the  currency. 
Arthur  Harget  knew  that  Austria  probably  would  never  recover 
from  what  would  happen  if  the  currency  were  printed  and 
distributed  in  an  inflationary  manner.   So  he  heard  this  from 
the  Austrian  bank,  and  the  order  was  peremptory- -right  away! 
They  deferred  answer,  saying  that  they  did  have  to  report  the 
demand  to  the  Americans,  so  that's  how  Marge t  found  out  about 
it. 

He  went  to  General  Clark's  headquarters  shortly  after  lunch 
and  the  military  aides  guarding  the  general's  quarters  said  that 
he  could  not  see  the  general  at  that  time  because  the  general 
was  taking  his  afternoon  nap- -a  short  nap.   Marget  said,  "Nap  or 
no  nap,"  he  said,  "this  is  very  important;  I  must  see  him."   The 
officer  said,  "Colonel,"  he  was  a  lieutenant  colonel,  I  think, 
or  maybe  a  full  one,  I  don't  know,  "we  don't  allow  this  for 
anybody,  and  this  is  the  general's  orders."   But  Marget  strides 
right  into  the  room.  The  general  was  not  quite  asleep,  and  the 
colonel  taps  him  on  the  shoulder  and  General  Clark  says,  "Why 
Arthur,  what  brings  you  here?"   [laughter]   And  he  told  him. 

He  just  got  right  up  and  grabbed  a  phone  to  call  Koniev  and 
said,  "This  is  not  going  to  be  done!"   And  there  was  apparently 
an  understanding,  and  so  this  Harvard  professor,  in  my  opinion, 
saved  the  finances  of  Austria.   Clark's  response  was  similar  to 
the  response  he  had  given  to  the  IBM  person  in  Salzburg.   When 
he  stopped  being  a  general  in  war,  he  was  an  administrator  in 
peace  and  knew  when  to  follow  his  civilian  advisors. 

The  whole  economy  would  have  deteriorated  considerably. 


Heilbron:   Well,  it  would  have,  certainly. 

I  think  I  told  you  that  at  the  beginning,  commodities  that 
were  scarce  determined  a  good  deal  of  the  personal  economy.   It 
was  a  cigarette  economy  at  one  level.   Did  I  tell  you  how  angry 
we  were  when  our  German  military  government  counterparts  came  on 
leave  to  Salzburg  and  gave  two  packs  for  things  that  we  were 
only  giving  one  pack  for?  It  almost  really  wrecked  the  economy! 

Now  with  respect  to  our  committee  and  our  procedure  within 
our  labor  committee- - 


Hicke:     What  was  the  full  name  of  this  committee? 
name? 


Do  we  have  a  proper 


93 


Heilbron:   I  think  it  would  be  the  Four -Party  Labor  Committee  under  the 
Allied  Control  Commission. 

Hicke:     Okay.   Thank  you.   Sorry  to  interrupt  you  there. 

Heilbron:   Pigin  was  a  bureaucrat  with  communist  rules  of  behavior,  but  he 
was  interested  in  applying  these  rules.   He  was  not  contentious, 
he  was  honest  within  the  limits  of  his  understanding  of  what  an 
appropriate  government  should  be,  and  that  would  be  a  communist 
government .  Mr.  Iley,  of  the  British,  was  a  diplomat.   He 
always  was  able  to  draft  proposals  or  articulate  them  in  a  very 
soft  way  and  was  quite  effective,  but  he  also  knew  when  to  dodge 
a  problem  and  yet  have  it  achieved.   1  remember  that  no-strike 
policy  against  government,  which  I  mentioned  before,  when  we 
first  proposed  it,  he  said,  "Well,  you  know,"  he  said,  "I  shawnt 
[with  British  accent]  object  to  it,  but  you  know  I'm  part  of  a 
Labor  government  and  I  can't  quite  agree  to  it." 

The  American,  Colonel  Junius  Smith,  for  whom  I  was  deputy, 
was  a  tall,  spare,  sharp-tongued  man,  somewhat  contentious, 
rather  hostile  to  the  idea  that  there  could  be  such  an  ideology 
as  communism,  and  willing  to  get  into  heated  arguments.   He  was 
a  very  warm-hearted  person.   I  remember  that  when  we  were  in 
Salzburg,  we  took  a  side  trip  to  Munich,  and  we  went  to  Dachau. 

The  whole  debris  of  the  camp  was  there.   It  was  a  terrible 
sight.   Afterwards  we  went  back  to  Munich,  and  we  saw  the 
unedited  movies  that  the  armies  had  taken  of  the  liberation  of 
several  concentration  camps,  including  Dachau,  of  the  skeletal 
surviving  prisoners,  the  skeletal  dead  prisoners,  of  the 
impossible  living  quarters,  of  the  ovens.   It  was  hard  to 
witness.   They  also  showed  how  the  camp  was  organized  in  a 
picture  with  the  whole  design  of  the  camp.  When  it  was  through, 
all  of  us,  not  only  those  from  Austria  but  there  were  a  whole 
group  of  officers  visiting  Munich  at  the  time  and  saw  this 
picture,  responded  with  a  long  period  of  absolute  silence. 

Later  Smith  asked  me  what  I  thought  affected  me  most  in  the 
picture,  and  I  indicated  it  was  the  somewhat  familiar  picture  of 
the  children  playing  with  bones  for  toys.   He  said,  "You  know 
what  was  the  most  emotional  thing  for  me?  It  was  that 
engineering  design.   There  weren't  any  people  in  it.   There  was 
an  absolute  mechanical  design  to  kill  thousands  upon  thousands 
of  people."  He  said,  "That,  to  me,  was  the  worst  part  of  that 
picture."  That  indicates  the  kind  of  man  he  was.   And  I  thought 
he  was  quite  right. 

The  French  representative  was  an  admiral,  and  he  was  a 
soft-spoken  man,  soft  and  briefly  spoken,  quite  logical,  as  the 


94 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


French  are,  but  he  did  not  take  the  initiative  in  practically 
any  of  the  policy  matters,  as  I  recall.  My  own  Job  was  to  be 
deputy  to  Smith,  but  during  the  fall,  he  left  for  an  extended 
leave  to  the  United  States,  and  1  took  over  the  American 
chairmanship  spot  for  a  good  part  of  the  remaining  time  that  I 
was  in  Vienna. 

I  learned  a  few  things  as  chairman  and  helped  a  little 
bit.   The  chair  put  matters  up  to  vote  upon,  and  the  custom  was 
to  call  on  the  British  and  the  French  and  the  United  States,  and 
lastly  the  Soviets.  This  usually  began  with  three  votes  for  or 
against  the  proposal,  as  you  might  expect,  and  the  Russians  felt 
hedged  in.   Instead  of  it  being  a  benefit  to  say,  "Now,  you'd 
better  go  along,"  it  undoubtedly  helped  to  fortify  the 
resistance. 

Backed  them  up  against  the  wall? 

Backed  them  up  against  the  wall.   So  when  I  was  chairman,  I 
reversed  the  order  and  called  upon  them  first.   And  it  helped. 
I  frankly  talked  about  this  with  Pigin,  and  said,  "I  don't  even 
have  to  call  on  you  first.   I'll  vary  it.   But  I'll  never  call 
on  you  last. " 

What  was  his  response? 

Oh,  his  response  was,  "Thank  you.   It  made  no  difference 
anyway."  He  couldn't  admit  that  it  made  any  difference,  but  it 
did  make  a  difference,  I  think. 

Could  I  just  ask  were  you  all  of  more  or  less  equal  rank,  or  was 
that  ever  a  problem  or  an  issue? 

Well,  it  was  not  a  problem.   I  was  a  major,  the  colonel  was  our 
chief  in  charge ;  of  course  he  was  a  colonel . 

A  full  colonel? 

A  full  colonel.   The  British  sent  a  person  from  their  ministry, 
one  of  the  top  bureaucrats  from  the  labor  department  of  the 
British  government,  and  the  French  sent  an  admiral.   But  it 
didn't  make  any  difference.   It  was  the  authority  which  you  had, 
and  I  had  never  felt  any  trouble  on  that  account. 

I  also  said  that  as  long  as  I  would  be  in  the  chair, 
whatever  disagreements  we  had  during  the  course  of  the  meeting, 
we  would  not  adjourn  unless  it  was  on  a  note  of  agreement.   I 
didn't  care  if  it  was  an  agreement  that  it  was  a  good  sunset, 
but  I  said  that  should  be  the  way  we  adjourn  so  that  we  could 


95 


open  the  next  meeting  with  understanding  and  a  feeling  of 
cooperation.   And  while  it  was  a  very  minor  thing  that  really 
didn't  have  too  ouch  substance  to  it,  I  think  it  had  some  good 
effect  on  the  feelings  within  the  group. 

Hicke:     You  were  already  practicing  the  art  of  negotiation? 

Heilbron:   Well,  that's  where  I  learned  a  great  deal  of  it,  I  suppose.   I 
think  that  I  was  able  to  contribute  something,  because  my 
experience  with  government  during  the  thirties  taught  me  the 
difference  between  policy  and  administrative  detail.   The 
tendency  of  almost  any  policy  group,  whether  it's  a  board  of 
trustees  or  a  committee  of  this  character,  is  to  get  interested 
in  detail  and  try  to  shape  the  way  things  should  be  done  and  who 
should  do  it  and  so  on,  and  that  gets  you  into  all  kinds  of 
unnecessary  trouble.   So  I  think  that  that  was  some  little 
contribution  to  our  procedure.   And,  of  course,  I  think  we  all, 
when  it  was  possible,  sought  consensus.   1  tried  to  make  a 
particular  effort  to  be  on  relatively  decent  terms  with 
Mr.  Pigin,  because  that,  I  knew,  was  where  we  would  have 
problems.   The  Soviet  representatives  usually  refused  any  kind 
of  social  relationships  whatever. 

Hicke:     1  was  wondering  about  that. 

Heilbron:   You  couldn't  get  to  them.   And  it  was  reinforced  by  an 

experience  that  we  had  at  a  social  event  at  the  beginning  for 
not  only  the  leaders  of  the  committee,  but  all  of  the  staffs  got 
together.   The  Russian  girls  asked  our  representatives  how  much 
their  pay  was  in  the  United  States  and  they  couldn't  believe  it 
when  they  heard  it.   That  made  the  rounds  of  the  Russian  staff 
and  those  social  events  were  curtailed  and  then  ceased. 

So  I  asked  Pigin  whether  he  would  come  over  to  the  Hotel 
Bristol,  where  our  chief  mess  was  held  in  Austria,  and  he  said 
he  would.   1  said,  "Now  please  be  sure  to  come,  because  1  want 
to  get  a  good  interpreter,"  and  he  did  arrive  on  time,  and  I  had 
General  Clark's  interpreter,  who  was  marvelous.   He  could  take 
three  or  four  people  in  a  conversation,  speaking  different 
languages,  and  translated  so  quickly  that  you  had  the  impression 
that  you  were  actually  talking  with  the  person.  And  he 
interpreted  for  us  at  dinner. 

I  asked  familiar  things  about  Pigin' s  family  and  what  he 
did  in  the  Soviets,  how  he  had  operated  before  the  war,  where  he 
went  to  school,  that  kind  of  thing.   And  he  was  pretty  frank  on 
policy  questions,  too,  more  frank  than  we  would  have  reason  to 
expect.   I  told  you  how  he  characterized  his  own  general's 
determination  as  political  in  that  cooperative  affair,  and  he 


96 


was  somewhat  frank  in  that  way  as  to  what  the  best  communist 
course  should  be,  not  what  the  compromise  should  be.   Clark's 
interpreter  told  me  that  he  was  the  brightest  Russian  he  had 
met. 

[tape  interruption] 

Hicke:     You  know  what  we're  talking  about  it  here  is  really  the  sort  of 
mini -roots  of  the  Cold  War. 

Heilbron:   I'm  coming  to  that. 
Hicke:     Oh,  okay. 

Heilbron:   By  the  time  that  I  left,  in  February  of  1946,  Austria  was 

settling  down  to  a  decade  of  reconstruction  and  revival.   The 
Christian  Democrats  and  the  Social  Democrats  had  come  together 
in  a  cooperative  government ,  sharing  the  ministries ,  and  our 
state  department  was  taking  up  more  and  more  of  the  military 
supervisory  functions.   The  Austrian  ministries  and  the  economic 
infrastructure  was  slowly  being  rebuilt,  and  they  were  beginning 
to  get  on  the  road  to  the  independence  that  they  achieved  in 
1955.   But  the  Cold  War  was  underway. 

I  had  come  from  a  relatively  earnest  effort  at  consensus 
and  cooperation  in  Vienna.   But  when  I  came  home  with  a  group  of 
military  officers  who  had  served  in  combat  and  were  also  going 
home  and  who  had  had  some  dealings  with  Russian  soldiers  who 
came  into  their  zone,  they  expressed  a  feeling  that  it  wouldn't 
be  long  before  they'd  have  to  come  back  and  fight  these 
fellows.   They  had  a  feeling  that  war  would  be  inevitable,  that 
the  Russians  had  planned  to  take  over  Europe  and-- 

ff 

Heilbron:   For  the  most  part,  they  were  insulated  in  the  American  zone. 

They  didn't  have  the  interchange  that  we  had  in  Vienna.   I  don't 
know  where  all  of  their  thoughts  and  ideas  came  from,  but  even 
the  chaplain  of  this  group  that  came  with  us  on  the  way  home 
felt  that  there  couldn't  be  reconciliation  with  people  like 
that.   By  the  time  I  got  out  of  Europe,  I  felt  that  I  was  almost 
escaping  something  that  was  going  to  happen.   Not  in  a  matter  of 
years . 

Now,  of  course,  this  was  personal  experience  derived  from  a 
small  contact  group,  but  I  came  back  on  a  victory  ship,  and 
there  were  a  lot  of  people  on  that  ship ,  and  I  spoke  with  some 
of  the  officers,  and  they  seemed  to  share  this  attitude.   It  had 


97 


to  be  derived,  partly,  from--. 
from  some  direct  experiences . 


Veil,  it  may  have  been  derived 


Also,  the  Americans  and  the  Soviets  in  Germany  had  a  far 
different  experience  than  we  had  in  Austria.   They  were  in  an 
occupied  country,  and  the  aspirations  for  the  domination  of 
Germany  by  the  Russians  and  the  attitude  that  Germany  would  have 
to  be  held  down  and  almost  not  be  allowed  to  recover  was  deeply 
felt  by  the  Soviets,  who  had  suffered  a  lot  from  the  war.   So 
that  the  disagreements  in  the  Allied  Control  Commission  in 
Germany  were  far  more  substantial  than  those  in  Austria,  and  I 
think  that  that  kind  of  experience  was  reflected  on  the  ship 
going  home. 

Hicke:     You've  really  described  a  microcosm  of  what  I've  read  about 

negotiations  between  superpowers- -this  idea  of  the  Russians  that 
it's  going  to  be  communist  policy  or  nothing.  And  it's  also 
interesting  to  speculate--!  wonder  if  people  other  than  you,  a 
lot  of  people,  approached  negotiations  with  the  idea  that  you 
did,  that  we  are  not  going  to  back  the  Russians  into  a  corner, 
we  are  going  to  maybe  go  out  of  our  way  a  little  bit  to  make 
sure  they  are  first  sometimes,  I  wonder  if  that  might  have  been 
more  effective  than  some  of  our  methods.   It's  just  interesting 
to  speculate  how  much  you  set  up. 

Heilbron:   I  want  to  make  clear  that  that  was  procedural  and  not 
substantive. 

Hicke:     I  know,  but  that  approach  could  make  a  huge  amount  of 
difference,  I  would  think. 

Heilbron:  Well,  it  could,  I  think  that  was  actually  done.   The  maintenance 
of  the  Cold  War  was  a  kind  of  cold  civil  relationship  which  was 
perhaps  both  protected  and  threatened  by  the  huge  arms  build-up 
on  both  sides. 

Hicke:     You  set  up  expectations  —  or  expectations  were  set  up  just  in 
your  little  group  that  the  Russians  were  always  going  to  go 
against  you,  so  they  were  last.   If  those  expectations  were  torn 
down,  as  you  did- - 

Heilbron:   Well,  yes,  but  that  did  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  Soviets 
were  going  to  always  be  persuaded  to  come  to  our  position.   It 
simply  meant  that  the  discussion  would  not  proceed  with 
hostility  and  if  consensus  was  going  to  be  achieved,  it  could  be 
achieved  with  the  minimum  of  rancor. 

Hicke:     I  think  that  could  have  been  crucial  in  some  other  situations. 


98 


Heilbron:  Now,  interestingly  enough,  the  International  Labor  Organization 
held  a  meeting  in  San  Francisco  in  1947,  the  year  after  I  came 
home,  and  the  very  people  that  I  had  been  working  with  came  over 
to  that  meeting,  and  we  entertained  them  in  our  home.   David 
Morse,  who  had  been  the  chief  of  the  labor  program  for  the 
American  military  government  in  Germany,  was  now  the  president 
of  the  ILO.   So  it  was  an  interesting- - 

[tape  interruption] 
Hicke:     So  did  anything  come  out  of  that? 

Heilbron:   It  was  just  a  pleasant  social  event.   Boehm  was  here,  Maisel  was 
here,  and  a  few  others  that  I  had  worked  with.   I  remember  they 
were  most  impressed  by  the  beauty  of  the  city,  and  one  question 
that  one  of  them  asked  as  we  went  through  the  various 
neighborhoods,  and  I'm  including  Richmond  and  Sunset  as  well  as 
Pacific  Heights  and  Sea  Cliff,  was  "Where  are  the  workers' 
homes?"   Europe  was  more  used  to  big  block  apartments  for  the 
working  population,  of  course. 

Hicke:     Especially  in  the  Eastern  European  countries. 

Heilbron:   But  Austria  was  not  that  kind  of  a  country,  and  coming  from  the 
Viennese,  I  was  surprised  to  hear  that  question.  We  did  our 
best  to  show  the  kinds  of  little  homes  that  people  have  in  those 
areas.   I  guess  we  didn't  go  far  into  the  Mission  District 
because  there  wasn't  any  particular  reason  for  it. 

Then  when  Delphine  [Heilbron]  and  I  went  to  Europe  in  1955, 
we  were  invited  to  the  Schonbrunn  Palace  to  witness  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  signing  of  the  Treaty  of 
Independence  by  all  the  powers,  which  we  wanted  to  go  to,  but, 
because  of  our  itinerary,  we  would  have  had  to  miss  Venice 
completely,  and  we  figured  that-- 

Hicke:     That  was  a  hard  choice. 

Heilbron:   --we'd  rather  see  Venice  than  be  in  the  back  row  witnessing  the 
signing  of  a  treaty.   However,  we  did  see  the  Maisels,  he 
invited  us  to  his  home,  and  Victor  Reuther--he's  the  brother  of 
Walter  Reuther--who  was  in  charge  of  the  international  section 
of  the  CIO,  also  was  visiting  Maisel  at  the  time  we  were  getting 
together.   I  think  we  had  a  little  difference  of  opinion  on  some 
management/labor  question,  but  that  wasn't  very  important, 
[laughter]   That  wasn't  very  important. 


99 


Hlcke : 


There  would  be  more  to  say,  I'm  sure- -much  more  to  say  if 
you  developed  more  of  the  details,  but  that,  in  general,  was  the 
experience  in  Austria. 

That's  quite  fascinating.   It  is  very  interesting, 
[tape  interruption] 


Return  to  the  U.S.A.  and  Law  Practice1 


Heilbron:   Well,  the  return  to  the  United  States,  California,  and  to  home 
was  most  welcome.   My  children  were  twenty- seven  months  older, 
so  was  I,  and  so  was  Delphine,  and  we  had  a  most  happy  reunion. 
I  think  I  mentioned  that  during  the  period  of  time  that  I  was  in 
military  government  training  at  Yale,  we  saw  Oklahoma!,  and  the 
first  performance  that  we  saw  together  after  my  return  was  at 
the  Opera  House  and  it  was  Oklahoma! 

I  concentrated  full-time  with  Heller,  Ehrman  after 
rejoining  it  and  gave  up  my  consultation  with  the  relief 
agencies  and  became  a  partner  in  1948.   I  devoted  a  good  deal  of 
my  time  to  the  development  of  a  labor  specialty  in  which  I  had 
had  some  initiation  abroad.   On  the  nonprofit  side  of  affairs,  I 
engaged,  during  the  fifties,  in  the  Public  Education  Society  of 
San  Francisco,  a  kind  of  watchdog  agency  that  preceded  the  San 
Francisco  Education  Fund,  though  not  nearly  as  effective  as  the 
Thacher  agency. 

Hicke :     What  was  the  Thacher  agency? 

Heilbron:   Well,  that's  the  San  Francisco- -she  founded  the  San  Francisco 
Public  Education  Fund.   And  I  was  active  in  the  Congregation 
Emmanu-el  and  the  Jewish  Community  Center,  where  I  became 
president  during  the  fifties,  in  both  of  these  institutions.2 


1  For  Heilbron' s  legal  career,  see  Chapter  IV. 

2  Sectarian,  community,  and  further  public  services  are  dealt  with  in 
later  chapters. 


100 


IV  HELLER,  EHRMAN,  WHITE  &  McAULIFFE  LAW  FIRM,  1934-PRESENT 


Law  School:  Boalt  Hall 


[insert  from  Interview  1:  April  25,  1989] 


Hicke:     When  you  were  at  Boalt  School  of  Law,  did  you  specialize  in  any 
kind  of  law? 

Heilbron:   No.   I  suppose  that  the  courses  at  Boalt  were  pretty  well 

distributed  for  the  preparation  of  both  the  bar  and  general 
practice.   As  previously  noted,  I  did  participate  in  Moot  Court 
and  was  the  co-winner  of  the  competition  during  my  senior  year 
at  Berkeley.   That  might  have  indicated  the  life  of  being  a 
trial  lawyer  but  actually  that  didn't  occur.   Most  of  my 
practice  has  been  outside  of  court  with  clients  in  business  and 
personal  transactions  and  in  labor  matters  (although  some  of 
these  involved  court  or  NLRB  [National  Labor  Relations  Board] 
appearances).   I  did  take  a  course  with  Barbara  Armstrong,  who 
taught  labor  law.   In  that  day  the  specialty  of  labor  law  was 
not  too  well  developed;  so  I  suppose  I  did  indicate  an  interest 
which  became  part  of  my  specialized  practice  much  later  on. 

Hicke:     And  you  graduated  in  1931? 

Heilbron:   That's  correct. 

Hicke:     So  you  were  in  law  school  in  the  midst  of  the  Depression? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  I  entered  in  '28,  and  the  Depression  took  a  time  to  develop 
after  the  stock  market  crash  in  October  of  the  following  year, 
1929.   However,  that  did  not  faze  me  too  much.   I  married  while 
I  was  in  law  school,  a  few  days  before  the  stock  market  crash, 


'Interviews  conducted  for  the  book  Heller,  Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe: 
A  Century  of  Service  to  Clients  and  Community,  by  Carole  Hicke,  1991. 


101 


and  thus  got  into  the  problems  of  both  married  life  and  economic 
life  very  quickly. 

Hicke:     And  going  to  law  school  besides. 

Heilbron:   I  was  in  law  school  during  the  entire  period  through  mid-1931 . 
During  that  time  I  was  assistant  to  the  dean  of  men,  and  its 
offices  fortunately  were  just  across  the  way  from  Boalt  Hall  at 
California  Hall.   So  I  did  have  that  position  during  law  school. 

Hicke:     What  did  that  involve? 

Heilbron:   For  the  most  part,  you  will  recall,  that  involved  taking  care  of 
fraternity  problems- -economic  and  academic.   I  believe  I  told 
you  about  these  in  a  previous  interview. 

Hicke:     Okay,  well  back  to  law  school.   What  did  Barbara  Armstrong's 
course  cover?  That  was  quite  early  before  an  NLRB  action  had 
taken  place. 

Heilbron:   That's  true.   It's  a  bit  difficult  to  recollect,  but  I  guess 

that  I  can  say  that  a  good  deal  of  it  was  anticipatory,  although 
some  of  it  obviously  had  to  do  with  ruling  case  law.   California 
was  in  the  vanguard  of  states  with  protective  legislation  for 
women  and  minors,  and  some  of  the  New  Deal  did  develop  from 
California  legislation;  so  there  was  a  background  of  law  with 
respect  to  child  labor  and  minimum  hours  for  women.   We  had  a 
workmen's  compensation  law  that  was  established  in  1911,  I 
believe.   So  there  were  plenty  of  things  to  talk  about. 

Hicke:     After  you  graduated,  what  did  you  do? 

Heilbron:  After  I  graduated  I  prepared  for  the  Bar,  took  Mr.  [Bernard] 

Witkin's  course  in  preparation.   Later  on,  I  taught  part  of  Mr. 
Witkin's  course,  but  first  I  took  it  and  passed  the  Bar.   After 
that  I  sought  employment.   I  applied  at  Heller,  Ehrman,  among 
other  places ,  and  I  had  been  recommended  to  Mr .  Ehrman  by  Monroe 
Deutsch,  who  was  the  provost  at  the  University  of  California  at 
the  time,  and  before  very  long  I  met  Mr.  Lloyd  Dinkelspiel,  Sr., 
who  was  the  partner  in  charge  of  hiring  new  associates.   There 
was  no  place  at  that  time,  but  I  was  promised  that  when  the 
first  vacancy  developed,  I  would  be  contacted  and  given  a  chance 
to  become  associated  with  the  firm. 

So  to  summarize  some  previous  remarks ,  I  became  one  of  the 
staff  of  the  State  Department  of  Social  Welfare  with  the 
interesting  project  of  consolidating  and  rewriting  the  indigent 
laws  of  the  state,  and  this  was  a  time  when  the  attitude  toward 
needy  people,  particularly  able-bodied  unemployed,  was  changing, 


102 


and  private  agencies  throughout  the  state  were  overburdened  with 
the  new  problem  of  the  unemployed  in  the  Depression. 

Hicke:     How  long  did  you  say  you  worked  for  the  State  Department  of 
Social  Welfare? 

Heilbron:   I  was  there  during  1932  and  in  1933- -most  of  that  year  was  with 
the  State  Emergency  Relief  Administration.   By  September  of  that 
year,  Heller,  Ehrman  contacted  me,  and  I  had  to  decide  whether  1 
was  going  to  continue  in  government  or  whether  I  was  going  to  be 
active  in  the  profession  for  which  I  had  been  educated,  and  I 
did  accept  the  offer,  but  remained  to  the  end  of  the  year  with 
the  Relief  Administration  in  order  to  finish  up  some  of  the  work 
we  were  doing. 


Joining  Heller.  Ehrman.  White  &  McAuliffe.  1934 


Hicke:     Why  did  you  choose  Heller,  Ehrman? 

Heilbron:  Actually,  I  had  been  to  several  other  law  firms.   I  knew  Mr. 
Dinkelspiel,  Sr.   Heller,  Ehrman  had  a  splendid  reputation  in 
San  Francisco.   Small  as  it  was,  it  stood  among  the  larger  firms 
in  San  Francisco,  and  I  was  the  thirteenth  person  in  the  firm; 
so  you  can  see  that  all  firms  were  scaled  down,  compared  to  what 
they  are  today  [chuckles].   I  did  have  an  opportunity  with 
another  firm  at  that  time,  but  there  never  was  any  question  in 
my  mind;  when  Heller,  Ehrman  took  a  person  in  during  those  days, 
it  practically  spelled  a  lifetime  career;  so  I  didn't  entertain 
any  doubts . 

Hicke:     Can  you  elaborate  a  little  bit  on  the  reputation  of  the  firm? 
What  was  it  well  known  for? 

Heilbron:  Well,  you  know,  you  didn't  enter  a  firm  because  you  investigated 
what  it  was  known  for.   You  knew  it  practiced  civil  law,  it  had 
a  fine  reputation,  its  people  were  in  the  community,  you  knew 
them  from  the  community,  and  so  I  don't  think  you  entered  for  a 
specific  purpose.  You  were  going  to  do  everything,  once  you  got 
there,  as  all  the  other  attorneys  were  doing  at  that  time.   You 
didn't  think  particularly  whether  you  were  going  to  go  into 
litigation  or  were  going  to  go  into  probate,  for  example.   I 
suppose  that  the  known  connection  between  the  firm  and  the  Wells 
Fargo  Bank  was  of  interest,  because  it  obviously  meant  that  a 
good  deal  of  legal  work  would  be  generated  by  that  relationship. 


103 


Hlcke:     And  that  a  very  important  bank  had  a  lot  of  confidence  in  the 
firm? 

Heilbron:  Yes,  that  would  be  true.  And  I  would  like  to  say  that  a 
positive  factor  attracting  me  to  Heller,  Ehrman  was  its 
reputation  for  being  an  open,  friendly  firm.   From  its  first 
partnership,  it  drew  no  sectarian  lines  and  was  the  first  firm 
in  the  city,  I  believe,  to  make  a  conscious  effort  to  include 
members  of  the  three  Western  faiths  in  fairly  even  numbers  in 
the  firm,  and  that  was  known  and  that  did  have  an  interest  and 
attraction  for  me ,  as  I  imagine  it  did  have  for  others . 

Hicke:     That's  a  very  important  characteristic. 
Heilbron:  Yes. 

Hicke:     Can  you  recall  who  called  you  and  actually  asked  you  to  come  to 
work? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  Mr.  Dinkelspiel. 

Hicke:     And  did  he  tell  you  to  start  the  first  Monday  of  the  year  or 
some  such  thing? 

Heilbron:   No,  he  asked  if  I  could  come  September  1,  and  Mr.  R.  C.  Branion, 
who  was  the  director  of  unemployment  relief  at  the  time,  asked 
if  it  would  be  possible  for  me  to  remain  for  the  closing  three 
months  of  the  year  because  of  the  immense  burdens  then  being 
placed  on  the  Relief  Administration.   I  was  the  principal 
contact  with  Washington  at  the  time,  drafting  the  requests  for 
additional  funding,  almost  from  month  to  month,  and  I  think  Mr. 
Branion  felt  that  it  would  be  helpful  if  I  could  remain  until 
the  end  of  the  year. 

Hicke:     Was  the  pay  comparable  to  what  you  were  receiving- -the  pay 
offered  by  the  firm? 

Heilbron:   It  was  a  little  more  than  half  of  what  I  was  receiving. 
Hicke:     I  wondered.   Do  you  remember  how  much  it  was? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  I  remember  that  I  got  $175  a  month  when  I  came  to  Heller, 
Ehrman,  and  I  was  getting  $300  even  during  that  time  of 
Depression.   But  I  decided  that  it  was  a  lifetime  career  I  was 
embarking  upon  and  that  if  I  remained  with  the  government,  I  was 
going  to  stay  with  government  and  try  to  climb  the 
administrative  ladder.   I  will  say  that  the  firm  was  very 
reasonable  about  my  continuing  to  advise  the  Relief 
Administration,  and  I  became  a  part-time  advisor  of  the  Relief 


103a 


LOUIS  H.  HEILBRON 

Louis  H.  Heilbron  was  born  in  Newark.  New 
Jersey,  May  12,  1907.  The  son  of  Simon  L. 
and  Flora  (Karp). 


Received  his  A.B.  dc.crec  in  192S  ami  LL  B. 
decree  in  19M  from  the  L'niversity  of  Califor 
nia.  Admitted  to  the  bar  in  California.  October. 
1931. 

Mr.  Heilbron  is  a  member  of  the  firm  ot 
Heller,  Ehrman.  White  and  McAuliffc. 

He  is  a  member  of  the  San  Francisco  Bar 
Association,  and  State  Bar  of  California. 

He  is  married  and  has  two  children 

Residence  is  in  San  Francisco.  California. 

Offices:  11  Montgomery  Street.  Sail  Francisco. 
California. 


104 


Administration  and  the  Department  of  Social  Welfare,  and  WPA, 
during  the  thirties  and  that  service  yielded  supplemental 
earnings . 

Hicke:     Do  you  have  the  date  of  your  employment --the  first  day? 

Heilbron:  Yes,  January  1,  1934.   I  completed  1933  with  the  Relief 
Administration  and  then  went  to  work  as  of  January  1. 

Hicke:     But  you  didn't  necessarily  start  on  New  Year's  Day? 
Heilbron:   Oh,  no.   The  first  work  day  was  January  2. 


Earlv  Davs 


Hicke:     Well,  on  whatever  day  you  did  start,  what  happened  when  you 
walked  in  the  door? 

Heilbron:   I  went  to  Mr.  Dinkelspiel's  office  and  he  saw  to  it  that  I  got 
an  office. 

Hicke:     You  had  an  office  to  yourself? 

Heilbron:   Well,  that's  a  good  point.   It  wasn't  really  an  office.   It  was 
the  library  annex  that  was  part  of  the  premises  at  14  Montgomery 
Street.   14  Montgomery  Street  was  the  Wells  Fargo  Bank  Building, 
and  the  bank  occupied  all  of  the  floors  except  the  seventh, 
which  Heller,  Ehrman  occupied.   There  was  a  library,  a  main 
library,  on  that  floor,  and  then  also  at  one  end  bordering  a 
kind  of  grubby  court  was  the  library  annex.   That  was  filled 
with  old  English  reports,  old  American  reports,  and  me.   And  the 
traffic  was  light  because  of  the  nature  of  those  legal 
resources . 

Hicke:     A  bit  dusty,  maybe? 

Heilbron:   I  suppose  it  was.   Its  window,  as  I  said,  looked  out  on  a  court 
that  was  located  between  the  Hobart  Building  and  14  Montgomery 
Street.   Things  were  rather  quiet  there,  but  sometimes  there  was 
activity.   Once  I  looked  out  through  the  window  and  down  came  a 
falling  body,  which  crashed  through  the  glass  roof  of  a  luggage 
shop  all  the  way  to  the  first  floor  below.  A  suicide.   This  was 
not- -this  was  unusual  but  not  unique  in  those  days.   People 
jumped  from  buildings,  and  Montgomery  Street  was- -I  wouldn't  say 
perilous,  but  it  was  hazardous.   [laughter]   So  that,  early  on, 
was  one  experience  with  the  Depression. 


105 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 

Heilbron: 

Hicke: 

Heilbron: 


Heilbron: 


You  really  did  get  a  firsthand  experience  of  it. 

About  that  first  day,  the  annex  was  where  1  was  taken,  and  then 
I  went  into  the  main  library.   I  was  introduced  to  the  other 
associates. 

Was  there  a  librarian? 

No,  we  didn't  have  a  librarian.   We  did  our  own  research,  and 
I'«  trying  to  think  if  one  of  the  chief  secretaries  had  any 
library  responsibilities,  but  I  don't  believe  so.   We  went  to 
the  library  to  do  all  our  own  research.   Of  course,  legal 
research  was  very  familiar  by  reason  of  law  school  training,  so 
that  wasn't  too  much  of  a  problem. 

So  you  met  all  of  the  other- - 

I  met  all  the  others,  including  one  of  the  older  associates, 
Albert  Monaco,  who  was,  perhaps,  the  scholar  associate  of  the 
office  at  the  time,  and  he  enjoyed  asking  questions  of  his 
associates.   He  would  usually  begin  his  question  by  saying: 
"Sharkey,  what  about  this  situation?"  And  in  a  more  restrained 
way,  he  asked  me  a  rather  complex  question.   1  can't  remember 
what  it  was,  but  I  certainly  knew  that  I  didn't  have  the  answer. 
But  he  kept  on  talking  and  gave  about  two  or  three  solutions  to 
the  question  that  he  himself  asked,  and  I  latched  onto  one  of 
them,  and  he  thought  that  I  was  pretty  competent.   [laughter] 

That's  wonderful.   Was  that  the  first  day? 

The  first  day,  and  I  got  my  feet  wet  right  away. 

Yes .   Did  somebody  take  you  to  lunch  or  what  did  you  do  for 
lunch? 

I  really  can't  remember.   The  associates  did  go  out  for  lunch 
together,  and  I  am  sure  I  was  provided  for  on  that  day.   I  think 
that  one  wants  to  get  adjusted  quickly,  you  know.   There  is  a 
great  story  of  Earl  Warren.   He  had  not  been  a  judge  before  he 
was  appointed  Chief  Justice.   He  went  back  to  Washington,  and  on 
the  first  day  of  his  becoming  active  as  Chief  Justice,  he  went 
through  the  black  curtain  and  called  the  calendar,  and  you'd 
think  he'd  been  there  for  ten  years,  according  to  people  who 
were  present  at  that  time. 

ff 

Of  course,  joining  a  law  firm  on  the  first  day  is  hardly  the 
same  [laughter]  as  having  a  first  day  as  Chief  Justice.   1 


106 


merely  mean  that  one  can  become  adjusted  rather  speedily  if  you 
know  that's  your  job. 

Hicke:     Well,  what  was  dropped  in  your  lap  when  you  first  started? 

Heilbron:   I  can  recall  the  kinds  of  problems  that  we  dealt  with  in  those 
days.   But  I  can't  tell  you  what  was  assigned  the  first  day.   I 
do  have  a  recollection,  however,  that  I  immediately  got  a 
problem  from  Mr.  Dinkelspiel,  because  that  obviously  was  going 
to  be  a  question:  what's  this  associate  going  to  do? 

I  got  a  legal  problem  for  research  from  Mr.  Dinkelspiel, 
and  others  followed.   I  was  introduced  to  all  of  the  senior 
partners,  all  of  that  ceremony  took  place  right  away. 

Now  with  respect  to  the  kinds  of  things  that  we  did  in 
those  days:  I  mentioned  to  you  that  we  did  everything  that  we 
were  assigned.   First  of  all,  there  was  routine  bank  business. 
Unfortunately,  during  the  Depression,  even  after  making 
allowances  for  hard  times  for  people  in  trouble ,  the  bank 
engaged  in  a  number  of  foreclosures,  and  that  was  a  problem. 
Many  small  businesses  and  people  faced  bankruptcy,  and  we 
appeared  before  the  bankruptcy  referee. 

The  New  Deal  spawned  alphabet  agencies,  although  a  new  set 
came  into  being  much  later,  but  the  big  agencies  that  are  more 
or  less  historic  came  into  being  at  that  time,  the  National 
Labor  Relations  Board,  the  Agricultural  Adjustment  Board,  the 
NRA,  I  think  it  was  called  the  National  Industrial  Recovery  Act. 
It  had  a  relatively  short  period  of  life,  but  it  certainly 
stirred  things  up  while  it  applied;  businesses  adopted  codes  of 
fair  competition,  and  we  did  have  assignments  to  work  on  for  our 
clients  who  were  engaged  in  developing  a  code  for  their 
business . 

There  was  some  experience  in  litigation,  and  it  was  like 
being  thrown  into  the  swimming  pool:  whether  you  had  learned  to 
swim  before  or  not,  you  were  going  to  swim  if  you  were  going  to 
get  to  the  other  end  of  the  pool.   [laughs] 


Hillside  Support  Case 


Hicke: 


Can  you  give  me  any  examples? 


Heilbron:   Yes,  I'll  give  you  one  or  two  examples.   I  remember  having  a 
lateral  support  case,  that  is,  on  a  hillside  lot,  the  lower 


107 


hillside  supports  the  upper  side,  and  you  shouldn't  do  anything 
on  that  hillside  which  causes  a  spillover.   And,  by  the  same 
token,  the  upper  hillside  shouldn't  so  overburden  his  part  of 
the  hill  that  it  falls  on  your  parcel. 

Somehow,  I  think  through  the  bank,  I  represented  a  family 
that  had  a  great  deal  of  earth  spill  over  and  ruin  the  vegetable 
gardens  and  flower  gardens  on  their  property.   They  wanted 
compensation,  and  they  also  wanted  the  upper  property  owners  to 
pay  for  a  supporting  wall  to  prevent  it  from  recurring.   The 
upper  property  owners  claimed  that  the  lower  property  owners  had 
done  things  in  watering  and  also  in  the  way  they  planted  to 
cause  their  earth  to  slip  from  them,  and  therefore  it  was  the 
lower  family's  fault.   And  so  we  went  to  court,  each  maintaining 
his  position. 

This  was  a  minor  case,  but  the  courtroom  was  filled.   I  had 
an  Italian  family,  and  the  Greek  family  above  was  in  a  feud, 
practically,  with  the  Italian  family.   This  was  in  the  Mission 
area,  because  that's  where  the  hillsides  were  that  were  still 
cultivated  to  some  extent. 

After  three  days  of  the  court  being  filled  and  with 
audience  reactions  to  the  testimony,  the  court  summoned  me  and 
the  other  young  lawyer  gladiator  into  his  chambers  and  said, 
"Gentlemen,  if  I  have  to  decide  this  case,  I'll  decide  it,  but," 
he  said,  "it  doesn't  matter  who  will  win,  this  is  going  to  be 
civil  war."  He  said,  "You  fellows  settle  this  case,  because 
it'll  never  be  settled,  even  by  a  decision  of  the  court." 

So  we  settled  the  case  as  might  be  expected  on  a  half-half 

basis,  with  our  sharing  the  cost  of  the  embankment  that  had  to 

be  put  in,  and  that  was  the  case  that  I  remembered  because  it 
was  the  first  time  I  was  in  court. 

Hicke:     And  were  the  two  parties  satisfied  on  those- - 

Heilbron:   I  understand  that  they  embraced  each  other  afterwards.   [laughs] 

Hicke:     Really? 

Heilbron:   And  I  was  invited  to  go  to  the  celebration.   I  didn't  get  there, 
though . 


Hicke : 


They  had  a  party? 


Heilbron:   They  had  a  party  to  celebrate  the  end,  because  I  think  the  court 
admonished  them  that  they  should  be  good  neighbors,  and  they 


108 


were  fundamentally  good  people- -emotional- -but  If  they  could 
agree  on  this  kind  of  a  settlement,  they  were  happy. 

Hicke:     Well,  that  was  a  wonderful  case  to  get  started  on.   All  court 
cases  should  end  like  that. 

Heilbron:  That's  right. 

Hicke:  That  was  your  first  litigation,  you  say? 

Heilbron:  That  was  the  first  experience,  yes. 

Hicke:  Had  you  not  even  accompanied  another  lawyer  for  a  trial? 

Heilbron:   No,  that  was  rather  interesting.   Later  on,  when  I  had  a 

personal  injury  case,  I  asked  Mr.  Dinkelspiel  if  he  would  come 
and  at  least  listen  to  the  presentation  and  the  questioning  and 
give  me  some  counsel  as  to  procedure,  and  he  did  that,  very 
kindly.   But  it  was  not  the  usual  practice.  You  learned  pretty 
much  on  your  own. 

Hicke:     How  long  after  you  had  started  did  you  try  this  case? 

Heilbron:   Oh,  I  would  say  it  was  within  the  first  year.   But  we  learned 
much  by  accompanying  the  senior  attorneys  in  more  important 
litigation. 


United  Airlines  Crash 


Heilbron:   We  had  a  very  important  case  where  again  I  was  the  associate 

accompanying  Mr.  Dinkelspiel,  and  I  did  a  good  deal  of  the  brief 
writing  and  trial  preparation. 

It  had  to  do  with  a  United  Airlines  plane  on  a  beautiful 
calm  night  approaching  San  Francisco  airfield,  the  airport,  and 
suddenly  plummeting  into  the  Bay  without  reaching  the  airport. 
Many  people  died,  even  though  the  water  was  relatively  shallow 
where  the  plane  landed,  but  there  were  a  good  many  deaths  by 
drowning . 

There  was  apparently  no  explanation.   The  airline  company 
developed  one,  through  an  accident  that  happened  elsewhere,  that 
something,  some  foreign  element,  substance,  had  fallen  into  a 
crevice  where  the  stick  that  controls  the  elevation  was  located. 
But  we  didn't  accept  that  at  all,  and  we  were  representing  one 


109 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 
Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


of  the  plaintiffs,  that  is  the  widow  of  one  of  the  plaintiffs 
who  was  a  prominent  attorney  in  San  Francisco. 


Do  you  recall  who  it  was? 
I  think  it  was  a  Mr.  Butler. 


I  can't  remember  his  first  name. 


Vincent  Butler.   [killed  October  7,  1935] 

Yes,  Vincent  Butler.   I  remember  doing  the  research,  and  you 
know  there  were  very  few  legal  cases  involving  this  kind  of 
accident.   I  think  there  were  seven  or  eight  in  all,  since  the 
beginning  of  commercial  air  transportation. 

But  I  was  satisfied  that  the  doctrine  that  applied  to 
trains  was  the  doctrine  that  was  going  to  apply  to  airplanes, 
and  that  is  the  very  well-known,  established  doctrine  of  res 
ipsa  loquitur,  the  act  speaks  for  itself.   If  the  person  cannot 
answer  the  apparent  negligence  involved  in  the  act,  then  he  has 
not  met  the  burden  of  reply,  and  since  in  the  case  of  driving  a 
complex  locomotive  or  an  airplane,  the  only  people  who  know  the 
operation  are  the  skilled  people  operating  the  engine  or  the 
airplane,  if  they  haven't  got  an  explanation,  then  they  fail  to 
meet  the  burden  of  proof  and  are  liable.   We  obtained  a 
favorable  settlement.   And  to  my  knowledge,  to  this  day  no 
airplane  company  has  permitted  a  case  to  get  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  where  the  res  ipsa  loquitur  doctrine 
could  be  finally  established.   It  has  simply  been  assumed,  and 
the  cases  are  all  settled. 

So  that  was  a  watershed  case,  really. 

Well,  I  suppose  so.   Of  course  as  I  did  tell  you,  there  were 
other  cases  before  us,  but  this  was  the  largest,  I  think, 
commercial  passenger  accident  up  to  that  time. 


Choo « Ing  the  Jury 


Hicke:     What  was  it  like  to  go  into  court  the  first  time,  getting  back 
to  that  other  case? 

Heilbron:   I  was  scared  to  death.   I  remember  another  case  I  had.   It  was 
against  a  stock  brokerage  firm  that  failed  to  sell  on  the  order 
of  the  client- -verbal  order  of  the  client.  At  least  that  was 
our  claim,  and  there  was  a  good  deal  of  testimony  going  to  be 
derived  on  both  sides. 


110 


Hicke:     Do  you  remember  the  name? 

Heilbron:   I  remember  the  plaintiff  was  Henry  Altshuler,  who  was  a  brother- 
in-law  of  my  wife.   But  I  don't  recall  the  broker.   In  any 
event,  we  sat  through  the  jury  selection,  and  I  was  associated 
in  this  case  with  another  attorney  who  was  not  in  the  office 
(Henry  Robinson),  and  he  was  not  too  experienced  either.   So  we 
got  there  to  choose  the  jury,  and  now  and  again  we  objected  to  a 
person  to  be  on  the  jury,  and  we  almost  got  finished  with  the 
jury  selection.  At  the  first  recess,  we  then  heard  from  the 
bailiff,  "Do  you  know  what  you  guys  did?  You  fellows  knocked 
off  some  of  the  best  plaintiffs'  jurors  we  have  around  here." 
[laughter]  We  were  really  fortunate:  we  settled  the  case,  and 
that  was  it.   [more  laughter] 

We  had  removed  jurors  from  the  jury  box  for  reasons  that  we 
felt  were  prejudicial  to  our  case;  for  example,  we  thought  that 
this  business  person  would  lean  too  much  toward  the  brokerage 
firm.   But  evidently  the  judgment  was  not  as  good  as  it  might 
have  been. 

Apparently  we  didn't  dismiss  them  all,  because  the  other 
side  was  willing  to  settle  the  case.   You  know,  the  great  bulk 
of  cases  get  settled,  even  though  many  of  them  are  at  what  we 
call  the  courtroom  steps.   And  some  [are  dismissed]  during  the 
early  part  of  a  trial,  but  usually  when  a  trial  begins,  it 
continues . 

Hicke:  Do  you  aim  for  a  settlement,  or  do  you  go  by  the  wishes  of  the 
client  as  to  whether  he  or  she  wishes  to  aim  for  a  settlement, 
or  do  you  prefer  a  court  trial? 

Heilbron:   Well,  it  depends  on  the  case.   If  you  have  an  extraordinarily 
good  case- -you' 11  have  to  talk  to  the  litigators.  You're  not 
talking  to  a  litigator  when  you're  talking  to  me,  although  I've 
had  my  experiences  in  court.   I'm  sure  they  will  tell  you  that  a 
good  deal  depends  on  the  case.   If  you  have  a  rather  weak  case, 
you  prefer  to  settle.   If  you  have  a  strong  case  and  you  feel 
that  the  offers  of  settlement  are  not  realistic  and  that  you  can 
do  far  better  by  trying  the  case,  you  go  ahead.   Of  course,  your 
client's  desires  are  very  important.   You  might  recommend 
settlement  and  he  might  refuse,  and  there  are  some  clients  who 
will  not  settle  under  any  circumstances.   You  may  recommend;  the 
client  decides. 

Hicke:     Also,  in  cases  you  have  mentioned,  you  have  always  been  a 

plaintiff  attorney.   Is  that  a  general  rule  of  the  firm  or- -I 
don't  mean  rule,  but  do  you  generally  represent  plaintiffs  more 
than  defendants,  or  vice  versa? 


Ill 


Hellbron:  Oh,  no,  even  In  litigation  that  I  had  at  the  beginning  I  had 

defendants  just  as  well  as  plaintiffs.   A  law  firm  such  as  ours, 
representing  many  corporations,  means  defending  them  In  many 
situations. 


Senior  Partner*  and  Clients 


Hlcke:  Let's  get  back  to  your  first  days  at  the  firm.  1  wonder  If  you 
could  tell  me  a  little  bit  about  all  of  the  senior  partners,  as 
much  as  you  can  remember. 

Heilbron:   Of  course.  Mr.  [Emanuel  S.]  Heller  had  died  in  1926,  and 
there's  no  one  here  who  can  tell  you  about  Mr.  Heller  from 
personal  contact.   Maybe  I  should  say  something  about  him 
because  he  was  the  founder  of  the  firm. 

Hlcke :     And  whatever  you  know  or  heard  would  be  helpful . 

Heilbron:   He  began  practice  In  1890,  I  believe  on  Sansome  Street  near 

Pine.   He  was,  by  his  portrait,  a  very  handsome  man.   He  soon 
became  the  attorney  for  the  Veils  Fargo  Bank.   He  had  the 
reputation  of  being  a  very  precise  and  careful  lawyer.   He 
believed  in  following  the  rules  of  court  and  practiced  very  much 
to  the  letter.   By  that  I  mean  if  a  document  was  to  be  notarized 
it  was  going  to  be  notarized  in  front  of  a  notary  and  not,  as 
some  lawyers  did  for  many  years --they  don't  do  that  much  any 
more- -take  the  signature  and  then  let  the  notary  subscribe  later 
on.   If  he  were  in  litigation,  I  don't  think  he'd  grant 
continuances  very  easily  to  the  other  party  who  might  have 
requested  them. 

The  story  was  that  if  you  had  a  case  down  in  San  Jose,  you 
got  your  train  fare  and  your  carfare  to  the  railroad  station  at 
Third  and  Townsend  and  back  and  that  was  it.  And  if  you  had  to 
remain  in  San  Jose  over  lunch,  that  was  on  your  own.  [laughter] 

Hlcke:     Okay. 

[tape  Interruption] 
Hicke:     We  were  just  starting  to  talk  about  Frank  Powers. 

Heilbron:  With  respect  to  Powers,  the  partnership  of  Heller  &  Powers  was 
formed  in  1896,  and  I'll  talk  about  Powers  in  a  moment,  after 
completing  comments  about  Mr.  Heller. 


112 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


It's  a  little  strange  to  me  that  in  1898  Heller  went  off  to 
the  Spanish-American  War,  but  he  did,  and  he  eventually  was  a 
captain  in  the  Quartermaster  Department  there  in  the  [U.S.] 
Army.   The  family  legend  has  it  that  after  he  left  the  army,  the 
auditors  of  his  department  found  that  there  was  a  missing 
hammer.   He  offered  to  pay  for  it.   Apparently,  he  couldn't 
account  for  it.   But  they  didn't  want  any  compensation,  they 
wanted  the  hammer,  and  for  thirty  years  he  had  correspondence 
with  respect  to  that  hammer.   One  wonders  whether  perhaps  the 
meticulousness  with  which  he  practiced  partly  was  derived  from 
his  experience  with  the  army. 

May  I  say  that  the  information  that  I  have  received  with 
respect  to  Mr.  Heller  comes  primarily  from  two  sources:  from  his 
daughter-in-law,  Elite  Heller,  and  his  grandson,  Clary  Heller, 
both  of  whom  are  deceased. 

He  was  deeply  interested  in  Californiana  and  collected 
paintings  and  engravings  and  prints  with  reference  to  the 
history  of  the  city.   In  the  14  Montgomery  Building,  our 
corridors  were  filled  with  these  lithographs,  engravings,  and  so 
on.   So  there  is  no  doubt  about  that  factor. 

He  was  quite  civic  minded,  and  it's  my  understanding  that 
he  and  two  others  started  the  San  Francisco  Symphony  with 
contributions  of  $100  each.   Apparently  money  went  a  lot  farther 
in  those  days  than  it  does  today.   I  don't  know  what  use  was 
made  of  that  money,  whether  it  was  simply  to  employ  a  secretary 
or  clerk;  I  certainly  don't  believe  it  employed  an  orchestra. 
But,  nevertheless,  that  was  the  seed. 

His  son,  Ed  Heller,  introduced  Ellie,  his  prospective 
bride,  to  his  father,  and  after  the  introduction  and  a  kind  of 
family  interview  and  she  left,  Mr.  Heller  is  reported  to  have 
said,  "She  seems  to  be  a  very  nice  girl,  but  is  she  healthy?" 
And  there  again  is  another  carefully  phrased  statement. 

a 

He  acquired  a  good  deal  of  property  in  Atherton,  and  I  think  the 
city  more  or  less  grew  around  his  property  and  divisions  of  his 
property. 

Do  we  have  his  address  at  a  house  where  he  lived? 

Well,  we  do  have  his  address.   I  don't  have  it  at  my  desk  [98 
Faxon  Road] .   The  property  remained  in  the  name  of  the  family 
until  his  grandson's,  Clary's,  death.   He  incorporated  Atherton, 
and  indeed  he  included  some  disputed  land  with  Menlo  Park,  but 


113 


no  litigation  ever  resulted  from  that,  and  Atherton  proved  to  be 
the  lasting  beneficiary  of  it. 

He  was  very  much  involved  in  the  construction  of  the  new 
Temple  Eaanu-El  at  Arguello  and  Lake  Streets,  which  was  built  in 
1926,  and  he  was  particularly  interested  in  the  architecture, 
which  has  become  rather  famous.   Clary  stated  that  he  loved 
horses  and  displayed  them  in  a  kind  of  festival  or  circus  from 
time  to  time.  The  Menlo  Park  Circus  Club  may  have  developed 
from  this  kind  of  celebration. 

Hicke:     Sort  of  English  riding,  jumping,  something  like  that? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  it's  a  group  that  was  very  much  interested  in  riding.   I 
don't  know  to  what  extent,  if  it  was  simply  English  riding  or 
otherwise.   That's  rather  unimportant,  I  think,  with  respect  to 
this  history  anyway. 

He  was  a  delegate  to  the  Democratic  Convention  in  1920, 
which  nominated  [James  M. ]  Cox  and  [Franklin  D. ]  Roosevelt  for 
the  presidency  and  vice  presidency.   In  a  sense,  that  has  some 
importance.   Mr.  Ehrman  was  a  prominent  Republican,  Mr.  Heller 
was  a  prominent  Democrat,  and  just  as  there  has  been  no  line 
drawn  on  sectarian  lines,  there  has  never  been  a  line  drawn  on 
any  kind  of  political  lines  with  respect  to  people  who  might  be 
interested  in  the  firm  or  the  firm  might  be  interested  in  them. 

Now,  do  you  want  to  go  on  with  some  indication  of  the  other 
senior  members  of  the  firm?  What  about  Mr.  Powers? 

Hicke:     Yes. 

Heilbron:   Mr.  [Francis  H.]  Powers  ceased  to  be  a  name  partner  on  his  death 
in  1920,  but  some  things  he  did  have  had  an  effect  even  to  this 
day.  Again  I  must  rely  on  the  memories  of  others  or  newspaper 
accounts . 


He  appeared  an  unlikely  partner  of  the  somewhat  austere  Mr. 
Heller.   He  was  an  aggressive  trial  attorney,  wore  boots  in 
court,  had  a  temper,  was  sympathetic  in  the  handling  of 
employees,  seemed  interested  in  the  results  rather  than  in 
detail.   He  was  an  imaginative  real  estate  operator  as  well  as  a 
lawyer.  He  bought  a  considerable  amount  of  property  on  the  edge 
of  Monterey  Bay  and  sold  many  of  the  lots  to  professors, 
musicians,  and  artists.   Ultimately  he  incorporated  the 
development- -it  became  the  town  of  Carmel. 

His  interest  in  maintaining  good  personal  relations 
influenced  his  partners  and  the  practices  of  the  firm.   The 


114 


precedent  of  his  interest  in  real  estate  and  real  property  law 
has  been  followed  throughout  the  firm's  history.   Some  of  his 
Carmel  clients  remained  with  us  for  many  years. 

Regarding  Carmel:  the  story  has  come  down  to  us  and  has 
been  frequently  retold  that  Powers  laid  out  the  streets  of 
Carmel  by  employing  his  own  surveyor  and  giving  him  as  his 
helper  one  young  Florence  McAuliffe.  McAuliffe  was  no  expert  in 
this  assignment  and  that  is  why  his  help  produced  streets  that 
are  curvy,  uneven  at  the  edges --and  charming.   I  stand  by  the 
story. 

Hicke:     So  then  we  come  to  Mr.  Ehrman. 

Heilbron:   He  was  the  perfect  gentleman  lawyer.   He  set  the  tone  for  the 
office.   He  was  the  benevolent  monarch. 

Hicke:     Along  the  way,  if  you  can  think  of  some  stories  that  illustrate 
some  of  these  things--. 

Heilbron:   I'll  try  to.   Lloyd  Dinkelspiel,  Sr. ,  was  the  Prime  Minister, 

and  Florence  McAuliffe,  the  Chief  Counselor.   Mr.  E.  dealt  with 
the  major  matters  for  the  Wells  Fargo  Bank. 

Hicke:     This  is  Mr.  Ehrman? 

Heilbron:   This  is  Mr.  Ehrman.   He  became  the  trustee  for  the  Western 

Pacific  Railroad.   He  had  a  remarkable  memory  for  California 
cases.   I  don't  think  that  there  was  an  important  California 
case  whose  citation  he  did  not  know.   And  he  had  a  similar 
recollection  of  the  most  important  California  statutes,  so  that 
in  a  way,  he  was  a  library  resource. 

Hicke:     Was  he  just  particularly  interested  in  the  California 
government? 

Heilbron:   At  his  time,  it  was  possible  for  a  lawyer  who  had  deep  roots  in 
California  to  know  most  of  these  cases.   Now,  with  the  vast 
number  of  reports,  it's  really  not,  I  don't  think,  possible. 
Maybe  Mr.  Witkin  is  an  exception.   Then,  one  year  of  reports 
could  be  put  in  one  book;  now  it  takes,  even  with  the  Supreme 
Court,  several  volumes  to  record  the  cases  of  one  year. 

Hicke:     But  also,  he  was  rather  unusual- -not  everybody  knew  all  of  the 
California  statutes. 

Heilbron:   No,  I  don't  say  he  knew  all  of  the  California  statutes;  I  say 

the  major  statutes  he  could  locate  quite  quickly  from  memory  by 
the  year,  and  the  cases  he  remembered  rather  well  as  far  as 


115 


citations  went.   He  joined  the  firm  some  months  before  the 
earthquake . 

Hicke:     Just  out  of  law  school? 

Heilbron:   Oh,  no.  He  was  associated  with  Garret  McEnerny  and  W.  S. 

Goodfellow  for  several  years;  he  joined  Heller  and  Powers  in 
late  1905.   The  earthquake/fire  occurred  in  April  1906;  the 
building  in  which  they  were  located- -14  Montgomery- -was  badly 
daaaged  and  the  firm  moved  to  Mrs.  Heller's  house- -E.  S. 
Heller's  house- -on  Jackson  Street,  down  from  Octavia,  on  the 
north  side  of  the  street.   The  house  still  stands.   Indeed,  if 
you  look  at  that  picture  over  in  the  middle  of  the  wall  there, 
that's  the  house,  and  you  will  see  three  banners  at  the  lower 
windows.   One  of  them  is  for  the  Union  Trust  Company,  at  that 
time  a  client  of  the  firm.   The  other  is  for  the  Wells  Fargo 
Bank,  also  a  client  of  the  firm,  and  then  the  firm  name  is  on 
the  other  banner. 

Mr.  Ehrman  describing  the  conditions  of  practice  at  the 
time  when  they  were  in  Mrs.  Heller's  house,  to  the  San  Francisco 
Bar  Association  once  remarked  that  confidentiality  with  the 
clients  was  a  problem,  because  all  of  these  institutions  were  on 
the  first  floor  of  the  home.   So,  if  you  wanted  to  protect 
confidentiality,  you  went  into  the  bathroom  and  gave  to  the 
client  the  only  seat,  and  there  the  necessary  business  was 
conducted. 

He,  like  Mr.  Heller,  was  very  civic  minded  and  generous  and 
a  patron  of  the  arts.   He  was  the  main  financial  supporter  of 
Yehudi  Menuhin,  making  possible  the  advanced  musical  education 
of  Mr.  Menuhin  abroad,  as  a  child,  and  as  a  young  man. 

Hicke:     That  is  certainly  a  contribution  to  society. 

Heilbron:   Yes.   And  he  himself  was  an  accomplished  violinist  and  supporter 
of  the  city's  symphony  and  opera.   He  was  a  regent  of  the 
University  of  California,  and  in  connection  with  that,  I  have  an 
untold  anecdote  about  Mr.  Ehrman.   He  was  on  the  board  of 
regents  at  the  time  of  the  loyalty  oath  controversy.   If  you 
will  recall,  the  controversy  started  out  when  a  modified  oath 
was  developed  by  the  administration  and  adopted  by  the  regents. 
Later,  when  the  academic  senate  protested  against  that  oath, 
President  Sproul  changed  his  position  and  recommended  against 
the  modified  oath- -so  called  the  "Regent's  Oath." 

Ultimately,  that  oath  was  held  unconstitutional  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  California.   But  the  oath  generally  required  of 
employees  of  the  state  with  reference  to  loyalty  was  upheld,  and 


116 


Hicke: 


Hicke: 


the  faculty  was,  for  the  most  part,  willing  to  take  it.   One  day 
I  was  able  to  discuss  the  issue  with  Mr.  Ehrman  and  asked  him 
what  he  thought  about  the  situation.   He  said  that  he  wasn't  so 
concerned  about  what  oath  was  taken  or  whether  any  oath  should 
be  required.  What  he  was  concerned  about  was  the  constitution's 
protection  of  the  university  as  a  kind  of  "fourth  estate" --that 
it  was  constitutionally  immune  in  matters  of  academic 
governance,  he  felt,  and  it  was  the  power  of  the  institution 
that  he  wanted  to  preserve.   In  other  words,  he  disagreed  with 
the  Supreme  Court's  determination  and  felt  that  it  was 
inconsistent  with  the  original  constitutional  provision 
protecting  the  university.   I  thought  that  was  a  rather 
interesting  position. 

Yes.   The  issue  itself --the  side  that  he  was  on  would  not  be 
normally  typical  of  his  philosophy?  Am  I  correct  in  thinking 
that?  And  that  is  why  you  questioned  him? 


Heilbron:  Well,  yes.   He  was  a  Republican,  but  on  the  moderate/liberal 

side.   People  were  surprised,  knowing  him,  that  he  had  taken  a 
position  supporting  any  oath. 


That's  what  I  wanted  to  get  clear. 


Heilbron:   He  was  also  a  board  member  of  the  California  Historical  Society. 
He  was  very  much  interested  in  history.   His  son  was  an 
historian;  he  died  at  an  early  age- -in  his  twenties. 

Mr.  Heller  married  his  wife  Clara  Hellman  in  1899.   I  don't 
know  when  Mr.  Ehrman  married  Florence  Hellman,  but  it  may  well 
be  that  the  firm  had  a  relationship  with  the  bank  prior  to  those 
marriages.   I  think  that's  rather  important  to  indicate  since 
the  father  of  both  these  ladies,  Isaias  Hellman,  was  president 
of  the  bank. 

There  again,  you  had  an  interesting  situation.   Clara 
Heller  became  an  ardent  Democrat  because  her  husband  was  one, 
and  Mrs.  Ehrman  [her  sister],  a  prominent  Republican  supporter, 
and  sometimes  the  frictions  that  developed  caused  them  to  not 
speak  to  each  other  at  long  intervals . 

Yes,  Mr.  Ehrman  was  quite  generous  with  reference  to  firm 
members  in  the  purchase  of  homes .   He  would  lend  them  money  for 
the  purchase  of  a  home  at  2  percent  interest,  and  let  them 
declare  their  program  of  repayment.   1  know  I  financed  my 
purchase  of  a  home  at  the  bank,  and  when  he  heard  about  it,  he 
was  most  distressed,  and  in  order  for  him  not  to  be  distressed, 
I  transferred  the  loan  to  him  at  a  great  savings  in  interest. 


117 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


I  think  it's  well  to  say  that  during  his  active  partnership 
life,  no  important  decision  was  made  with  respect  to  admission 
to  partnership  without  his  consent.   There  were  some  very 
competent  lawyers  in  the  early  days  who  felt  that  they  should  be 
partners,  and  when  they  announced  to  him  that  their  time,  they 
felt,  had  come,  he  said  that  if  it's  a  question  of  their 
deciding  when  they  were  going  to  be  partners,  it  was  unfortunate 
but  they  would  have  to  separate. 


What  were  the  standards  for  partnership? 
of  how  it  was  decided? 


Do  you  have  any  sense 


I  would  imagine  they  were  partly  subjective,  because  these 
people  were  competent  people,  but  I  think  there  was  probably  an 
element  of  undue  assertiveness,  and  maybe  evidence  of  an  effort 
to  work  a  power  play  and  what  it  might  mean  to  the  future  of  the 
firm,  that  affected  his  judgment.   I  don't  know,  obviously. 

Now,  Jerome  White  was  a  bear  of  a  man- -big- -and  he  did  a 
good  deal  of  the  trial  work  of  the  firm  in  its  earlier  days.   He 
was  interesting  to  watch.   He  was  persistent  in  his  cross 
examination  of  a  witness.   He  had  twenty  ways  of  putting  a 
question  and  finally  getting  an  answer  over  his  opponent 
lawyer's  objection.   He  was  somewhat  gruff,  sometimes  rough  on 
associates  with  his  candor.   He  purchased  a  home  out  in  Seacliff 
just  above  the  waters  outside  the  Golden  Gate  Bridge,  and  at 
seven  o'clock  in  the  morning  he  went  swimming  every  day. 

Outside  the  bridge  in  the  ocean? 

Yes.   This  wasn't  China  Beach,  this  was  even  west  of  China 
Beach.   He  went  down  the  stairs  to  the  shore  at  the  very  edge  of 
the  cliff  below.   I  remember  that  he  became  involved  in 
important  litigation  because  one  of  his  clients  by  the  name  of 
Kohn  willed  him  the  bulk  of  his  estate.   Kohn  had  a  son  whom  he 
disinherited,  and  he  made  that  clear  in  his  will.   The  son  and 
father  didn't  get  along  at  all,  and  there  was  a  good  deal  of 
correspondence  in  which  the  son  vented  his  anger  and  discontent 
and  the  father  vented  his ,  and  told  him  in  letters  that  he  was 
not  going  to  give  him  anything  by  way  of  a  legacy. 

When  the  time  came  to  litigate  the  will  contest  involving 
Mr.  White,  the  letters  became  the  most  important  evidence.   The 
case  really  depended  on  the  ability  of  Mr.  White  to  produce  the 
letters  at  the  appropriate  time  at  trial.   The  letters --that  is, 
the  father's  letters  to  the  son- -were  in  White's  possession,  but 
the  son  claimed  them  as  his  property,  because  the  letters  had 
been  addressed  to  him.   So,  the  son  brought  an  action  of 
replevin,  that  is  to  recover  the  letters. 


118 


Mr.  White '•  attorney  was  Theodore  Roche,  then  one  of  the 
great  trial  lawyers  in  San  Francisco.   The  opponent  was  Eugene 
Bennett  of  Pillsbury,  Madison  [&  Sutro] ,  also  certainly  one  of 
the  great  trial  lawyers  of  San  Francisco.  Mr.  White  was  also 
helped  by  Senator  Hiram  Johnson,  who  made  his  first  appearance 
in  court  after  twenty  years  of  leaving  it  and  being  in  the 
United  States  Senate.   There  were,  of  course,  assorted 
assistants  to  this  amazing  case  that  was  conducted  before  a  very 
good  judge,  Judge  Ward. 

I  went  out  there  carrying  the  briefcase  but  most  interested 
to  watch  the  proceedings,  because  of  the  ability  and  status  of 
the  lawyers  involved.   Senator  Johnson  gave  the  most  eloquent 
address  of  all  of  them  when  he  said  that  he  "had  not  been  in 
court  for  over  twenty  years,  Your  Honor,  but  that  he  knew  that 
there  was  a  time  when  justice  had  to  be  done  and  called  him  to 
the  court,  and  that  in  all  fairness  these  letters  had  to  be 
preserved  in  order  that  the  trial  would  have  a  proper  course  and 
a  just  result."  The  judge  finally  impounded  the  letters  for 
purposes  of  the  trial,  and  the  case  then  was  over,  because  the 
son  knew  that  he  would  not  have  any  chance  if  the  letters  were 
available  to  the  court. 

Hicke:     That's  interesting  procedure. 

Heilbron:   I  might  add  that  some  observers  did  not  understand  why  the  court 
could  not  release  the  letters  under  order  that  they  would  have 
to  be  produced  on  subpoena  at  the  trial.   Whether  that  was  part 
of  the  argument  of  the  other  side,  I  can't  recall,  but  in  any 
event,  the  case  took  the  course  that  1  have  indicated. 

Hicke:     Was  Senator  Johnson  acquainted  with  Mr.  White? 

Heilbron:   Yes.   But  Senator  Johnson  was,  I  believe,  an  absent  or  former 

member  of  the  Roche  firm,  and  probably  that's  how  he  got  brought 
into  the  proceedings. 

Now  we  can  go  into  Florence  McAuliffe. 
Hicke:     Yes,  let's  proceed. 

Heilbron:  McAuliffe  was  a  barrel-chested  Irishman,  and  if  Ehrman  was  the 
aristocrat,  McAuliffe  came  up  from  the  ranks  of  office  boy.   He 
was  not  a  learned  lawyer,  and  probably  in  these  days  of 
recruitment  from  the  top  law  schools  of  students  who  are  in  the 
top  of  their  class,  may  not  have  been  recruited  if  it  had  been 
his  misfortune  to  have  belonged  to  a  later  generation.   He 
nevertheless  was  a  good  lawyer.   He  was  immensely  practical.   He 


119 


was  an  excellent  judge  of  human  nature.   He  could  foretell  the 
results  of  litigation  just  by  knowing  who  the  judge  was. 

He  was  a  moving  legal  figure  in  the  building  of  the  San 
Francisco  Bay  Bridge  [completed  1936].   In  fact—I'm  assuming 
the  building  of  the  bridge  was  inevitable --it  might  have  been 
ten  years  longer  in  the  building  if  it  weren't  for  his 
persistence  with  the  RFC  and  the  Congress  and  the  legislature. 

Financing  it  and  paving  the  way  through  authorization  for 
eminent  domain  were  very  important  matters.   The  south  was  not 
too  enthusiastic,  although  they  got  a  bargain  for  their 
assistance  with  the  bridge. 

Remember,  I  was  up  in  the  legislature  on  the  day  that  this 
bargain  was  resolved.   The  San  Francisco  delegation  was  a  little 
slow  in  being  willing  to  put  the  state's  credit  back  of  relief 
for  five  southern  California  counties.   So  the  Los  Angeles  group 
said,  "Well,  if  you  don't  feel  that  the  relief  of  our  counties 
is  important  to  the  state,  then  we  have  some  reservations  about 
the  importance  of  that  bridge  that  you  want  to  build."  So 
relief  was  exchanged  for  condemnation. 

Hicke:     It  must  have  been  interesting  for  you  wanting  both  things. 

Heilbron:   It  was  fascinating. 

Hicke:     Do  you  recall  who  was  in  the  San  Francisco  delegation? 

Heilbron:   I  believe  Joe  Feigenbaum  was  the  leader.   I  can't  recall  the 
others. 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


I'm  wondering  also  who  retained  Mr.  McAuliffe. 
Bridge  Company? 


Was  there  a  Bay 


Mr.  Purcell  was  the  Chief  Engineer  of  the  San  Francisco/Oakland 
Bridge  and  a  very  good  friend  of  McAuliffe.   He  was  retained  by 
either  the  State  Department  of  Public  Works  or  the  agency  that 
was  formed  as  the  California  Toll  Bridge  Authority.   And  when  I 
say  that  McAuliffe's  persistence  resulted  in  the  financing- - 
that's  true,  but  Purcell 's  equal  determination  and  skill  were 
involved. 

I  believe  that  McAuliffe  was  also  the  lawyer  selected  by 
the  Golden  Gate  Bridge  District  with  respect  to  the  bridge  that 
was  building  over  the  Golden  Gate,  but  he  gave  most  of  that 
function  over  to  Jerome  White. 


120 


Hicke:     Mr.  [Don]  Falconer  of  your  firm  indicated  that  he  was  looking  at 
both  of  them. 

Heilbron:   That's  correct,  but  I  think  he  devoted  so  much  time  to  the  San 
Francisco/Oakland  Bridge  that  he  gave  much  of  the  work  to  White. 

Hicke:     That's  interesting.   The  firm  handled  both  of  those. 
Heilbron:   Both  of  those  rather  important  matters  for  the  Bay  Area. 

Hicke:     What  was  the  connection  with  the  Golden  Gate  Bridge  building? 
Did  he  know  the  engineer?   1  can't  remember  his  name. 

Heilbron:   [Joseph]  Strauss.   I  don't  know  that  connection. 

To  get  back  to  McAuliffe,  he  served  as  president  of  the  Bar 
Association  of  San  Francisco  and  as  president  of  the  State  Bar 
[Association  of  California] .   He  was  a  conservative  man  in  his 
politics,  in  his  view  of  what  government  should  and  should  not 
do  with  reference  to  welfare  and  the  state.   Personally  he  was 
absolutely  liberal  and  generous  to  a  fault.   He  was  a  bachelor. 
He  educated  his  nieces  and  nephews  and  many  of  them  went  to 
college  on  the  basis  of  his  support. 

I  had  one  very  interesting  experience  with  McAuliffe.   I 
was  asked  by  Governor  Culbert  Olson  to  draft  a  work  relief  bill. 
Olson  believed- -and  I  guess  this  was  toward  the  latter  part  of 
the  Depression  [1939] --that  every  able-bodied  person  should  work 
as  a  condition  of  relief.   This  wasn't  a  particularly  new  idea, 
but  he  felt  very  strongly  about  it.  And  the  work  relief  bill 
reflected  that  view.  McAuliffe  felt  the  same  way.   But  he 
thought  that  Olson  simply  wanted  a  bill  to  authorize  payments  to 
people  who  would  be  leaning  on  shovels  and  sweeping  leaves; 
those  were  some  of  the  comments  that  were  made  with  reference  to 
the  WPA  before  it  really  got  under  way. 

But  Olson  was  serious,  and  1  communicated  that  seriousness 
to  McAuliffe.   Now  they  were  political  opponents  and  known  to 
be.   Here  1  was  carrying  drafts  of  the  legislation  back  and 
forth  with  amendments  and  so  on,  and  finally  McAuliffe  agreed. 
And  the  San  Francisco  delegation  was  notified  that  the  bill  was 
in  proper  shape  and  could  be  supported.  Meanwhile  I  felt  a 
little  bit  uncomfortable.   Herb  Caen  was  a  young  man  at  that 
tine  on  the  make,  and  what  a  nice,  juicy  morsel  it  would  have 
been  to  show  that  these  two  political  opponents  were  meeting  on 
common  ground  through  one  young  man.   But  the  bill  went  through, 
and  this  has  not  been  articulated  before. 


Hicke: 


How  did  Olson  happen  to  come  to  McAuliffe? 


121 


Hellbron:   He  didn't  come  to  McAuliffe.   I  simply  drafted  it,  the  governor 
knew  I  was  showing  it,  and  I  knew  they  both  agreed  in  principle. 

Hicke:     And  that  was  the  basis  that  you  were  able  to  work  on? 

Heilbron:  Yes- -that  this  was  an  honest  work  relief  program.   Now  all  these 
work  relief  programs  were  difficult  to  administer,  because  it 
depended  on  a  municipality  or  a  county  or  the  state  doing  its 
regular  work  through  regular  appropriations  and  not  substituting 
cheap  relief  personnel  to  do  the  same  work.   In  other  words, 
unless  the  regular  appropriations  were  maintained,  it  was  a 
hoax. 

Hicke:     Did  you  write  in  some  provision  in  the  bill  for  oversight  or 
administration  that  would  take  care  of  the  problem? 

Heilbron:   Certainly. 

Hicke:     Do  you  have  any  idea  how  it  was  followed  through? 

Heilbron:   I  think  by  that  time  there  was  a  good  deal  of  sophistication  on 
how  to  administer  work  relief.   By  that  time  the  WPA  was  pulling 
out  of  the  work  program,  and  the  state  had  to  take  over. 

Hicke:     Can  you  tell  me  more  about  Florence  McAuliffe? 

Heilbron:   McAuliffe  was  not  too  easy  to  work  for,  because  he  had  a  way  of 
slipping  out  instructions  in  short  phrases  and  in  a  rather  low 
voice,  and  it  sometimes  was  a  kind  of  detective  story  to  piece 
together  the  elements  of  his  question,  and  request  for  a  good 
answer.  And  you  wanted  to  get  the  issue  straight- -you  didn't 
want  to  go  back  into  his  office  and  ask  what  it  was .   I  got 
along  pretty  well.   1  knew  how  to  listen.   Perhaps  it  was 
because  we  had  mutual  interests  in  welfare,  although  he  would 
say  to  me,  "You  people  just  want  to  give  away  all  this  money  and 
really  not  look  after  it;  let  the  local  people  handle  it.   We'll 
handle  it,  just  give  it  to  us.   We  don't  need  any  standards  and 
conditions --we  have  better  standards  and  conditions  than  you 
have."   [laughs]   Which  was  the  old  local  government  idea. 

Hicke:     Did  you  work  fairly  closely  with  him? 

Heilbron:  Yes,  I  did  a  number  of  things  for  him  that  he  turned  over 

relative  to  clients'  estates.   However,  our  relationships  were 
mostly  in  this  government  area.   It  might  be  when  some  proposed 
legislation  had  to  be  drafted,  or  he  would  ask  me  to  review  some 
pending  legislation. 


Hicke : 


Do  you  know  how  clients  came  to  him?  How  or  why? 


122 


Hicke : 


Hellbron: 


Hellbron:   I  don't  know  a  list  of  the  clients,  but  here  was  a  man  of 

considerable  political  clout,  known  throughout  the  city,  a  good 
friend  of  Governor  James  Rolph,  a  good  friend  of  the  mayor 
[Angelo  Rossi]  and  the  supervisors;  well-known  bar  president  and 
practitioner.   He  also  got  a  share  of  some  of  the  Carmel  people, 
I  assume  from  Frank  Powers . 

Shall  we  go  on  to  Dinkelspiel? 

One  more  thing.   Did  Mr.  McAuliffe  ever  think  of  running  or  ever 
run  for  office  himself? 

Totally  disinterested.   He  was  chairman  of  the  Welfare 
Commission  of  San  Francisco,  and  that,  of  course,  was  a  pro  bono 
service  to  the  City,  as  a  lay  commissioner.   That  he  enjoyed. 
But  he  had  no  interest  in  himself  being  in  politics  unless  you 
call  being  an  inheritance  tax  appraiser  under  the  State 
Controller  as  political. 

Lloyd  Dinkelspiel,  Sr. ,  I  always  thought,  had  a  touch  of  a 
genius.   He  engaged  in  all  kinds  of  legal  practice  —  corporate, 
domestic  relations,  litigation;  while  he  managed  the  firm,  as  I 
indicated,  he  was  prime  minister.   He  had  been  an  athlete  at 
Stanford- -a  good  track  man  and  played  polo. 

fl 

Heilbron:   He  engaged  in  many  pro  bono  activities:  civic,  sectarian, 

educational.   He  had  been  president  of  the  United  Crusade  (then 
called  the  Community  Chest),  he  was  national  president  of  the 
Jewish  Welfare  Board,  he  was  president  of  the  Stanford  trustees. 

His  door  was  always  open.   He  had  a  great  capacity  for 
laughter  and  occasional  explosions  of  temper.   His  wrath  was 
like  a  thunderstorm,  when  it  passed  he  apologized. 

Outside  of  the  office,  I  remember  him  best  as  the  host  of 
our  summer  parties  at  the  Hellman  estate  in  Hayward.   There, 
partners,  associates  and  spouses,  and  occasionally  a  significant 
other,  carefully  and  appropriately  dressed,  came  for  an 
elaborate  luncheon  and  tennis  playing  and  swimming,  and  Lloyd 
was  there  always  in  khaki  shorts  and  a  faded  shirt  barbecuing 
the  steaks  while  the  butler  and  maids,  in  uniform,  served  us. 
It  was  a  happening. 

The  Hellman  estate  is  now  a  park.   The  main  house  is  called 
Dunsmuir  House.   And  you  can  rent  it  for  a  wedding  or  an 
anniversary  celebration. 


123 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


I  would  say  Lloyd  had  a  definite  influence  on  me .   He 
encouraged  my  interest  and  participation  in  civic  activities, 
but  in  the  law  he  also  had  a  direct  influence.   He  felt  that  one 
should  never  forget  the  client's  major  interest.   When  he 
advised  a  client  who  was  about  to  make  his  will,  and  who  said 
what  he  wanted  to  do  was  to  be  sure  to  save  all  the  taxes  he 
could,  Lloyd  would  say,  "Now  look,  that's  fine,  and  we'll  save 
you  all  the  legitimate  taxes  that  should  be  saved,  but  for 
heaven's  sake,  give  as  you  want  to  give  and  then  look  at  the  tax 
picture.   Don't  look  at  the  tax  picture  and  then  start  giving." 
I  never  forgot  that  advice . 

As  a  matter  of  fact  I  converted  it  somewhat  in  a  little 
different  situation.  When  a  person  came  to  make  out  his  will 
and  said,  "You  know,  I  think  the  best  way  is  to  give  the 
children  as  much  as  I  can,  give  it  to  them  now  and  avoid  probate 
taxes,  take  lower  gift  taxes,"  I  would  tell  them,  "Now,  look, 
before  you  go  further  I  want  you  to  read  a  play.   Have  you  read 
King  Lear  recently?"  If  they  hadn't  I  said,  "Read  it  and  then 
we'll  talk  about  it."  If  they  had  read  it,  then  I  would  remind 
them  what  happened  to  the  poor  old  king.   And  the  client  usually 
gave  it  a  good  deal  of  thought  and  said,  "I  think  you're  right. 
I  certainly  don't  want  to  have  to  go  back  to  my  children  and  ask 
for  help  in  the  event  that  I  would  have  some  kind  of  a 
calamitous  illness  or  in  some  way  lose  my  money,  my  funds." 


How  did  you  learn  to  give  this  advice? 
or  see  cases  where  this  happened? 


Did  you  have  experience 


Oh  no,  no.   It's  just  a  matter  of  common  sense.   The  play 
involves  the  very  essence  of  what  your  advice  should  be.   It's 
common  sense  advice,  not  necessarily  legal  advice. 

That's  wonderful,  a  good  example  of  drawing  on  literature  for 
some  common  sense,  as  you  said.   Do  you  happen  to  know  how  Mr. 
Dinkelspiel  came  to  the  firm? 

Well,  he  married  Flutie  Hellman,  and  so  there  was  a  definite 
family  relationship  to  start  with.   I  would  guess  that  it  was 
always  assumed  that  when  he  became  a  lawyer,  he  would  come  into 
the  firm  of  Heller,  Powers  and  Ehrman. 

Because  of  his  wife? 

Well,  the  relationship--!  mean  it's  like  saying,  how  did  Peter 
Haas  come  into  the  Levi  Strauss  firm?  If  your  family  has  the 
business  and  you  have  a  strong  relationship  with  the  firm's 
personnel,  I  believe  it  would  be  assumed  that,  if  you  were 
qualified,  you  would  be  invited  and  you  would  accept.   And  Lloyd 


124 


was  immensely  qualified.   Lloyd  was  a  top  flight  candidate  for 
any  firm. 

Hicke:     So  he  was  narried  probably  during  the  tine  he  was  going  through 
law  school  or--? 

Heilbron:   Oh  no,  no-- 

Hicke:     Had  he  been  practicing  law  elsewhere  before  he  got  married? 

Heilbron:   That  I  don't  know.   I  would  imagine  that  he  came  directly  from 
his  Harvard  education  to  the  practice.  Now,  once  again  you  do 
direct  my  attention  to  what  came  first,  and  it  may  well  be  that 
the  Dinkelspiels  had  another  interest  or  relationship.   I'm  sure 
many  of  the  firm's  principal  clients  were  his  friends  or 
relatives.   For  example,  his  sister  was  married  to  a 
Schwabacher.   I  knew  his  mother,  I  didn't  know  his  father.   But 
there  must  have  been  all  kinds  of  client  relationships  and 
personal  relationships  that  would  have  directed  him  to  this 
firm. 

Hicke:  So  he  was  an  old  San  Francisco  family? 

Heilbron:  That's  right,  that's  right. 

Hicke:  And  you  worked  for  Mr.  Dinkelspiel? 

Heilbron:  Yes,  I  worked  with  him  on  a  number  of  matters. 

Hicke:     What  were  his  primary  concerns?  Can  you  just  name  some  of  his 
clients? 

Heilbron:  Well,  he  did  a  good  deal  of  the  important  bank  work.   He 
represented  a  lady  whose  name  I  can't  remember  in  a  very 
important  or  very  sensational  custody  case.   There  was  a  big 
will  contest  he  won.   I  mentioned  the  United  Airlines  case.   Let 
me  see . 

I  remember  one  of  the  Superior  Court  judges  referred  to  him 
a  case  involving  a  young  doctor  who  had  come  to  California  from 
a  nonaccredited  school- -medical  school  —  and  he  asked  for 
reciprocity  to  practice  medicine  in  this  state. 

He  had  been  a  very  effective  doctor  in  the  Veterans 
Administration,  but  the  state  medical  board  denied  him 
reciprocity.   I  think  there  was  an  order  to  give  him  his  license 
by  the  Superior  Court  and  then  it  got  reversed  in  the  Court  of 
Appeal,  and  the  judge  who  had  given  him  a  license,  ordered  the 
license,  knew  that  he  was  not  well  financed  and  so  asked  Mr. 


125 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Dinkelspiel  if  he  would  take  the  case .   Ve  did  try  to  get  the 
case  reversed  in  the  Supreme  Court,  and  I  remember  drafting  most 
of  the  brief. 

Mr.  Dinkelspiel  argued  rather  eloquently.   There  had  been 
six  other  doctors  fron  this  same  university  during  its 
nonaccredited  period- -incidentally ,  it  got  accredited  the  year 
after  his  graduation.  Our  argument  was  that  as  a  matter  of 
equal  protection,  affirming  equal  protection,  that  he  should  be 
treated  like  the  six  doctors  who  preceded  him  and  who  had  been 
given  reciprocity. 

And  the  California  Supreme  Court  wanted  to  go  with  us,  but 
finally  decided  that  they  couldn't  confirm  six  other  mistakes  by 
a  seventh.   [laughter]   And  they  decided  against  us. 

What  would  be  his  reaction  when  something  like  that  happened?  I 
mean,  that  was  kind  of  a  strange  case  to  lose. 

Veil,  we  knew  we  had  a  hard  case.   There  were  analogies  in 
criminal  proceedings --you  let  off  some  people  and  you  had 
another  person  who  was  convicted  in  a  trial,  then  you  couldn't 
get  an  appellate  court  to  reverse  because  of  errors  made  in 
those  other  cases. 

But  what  would  have  been  Mr.  Dinkelspiel- -would  he  be  upset  or 
would  he  just  throw  it  off? 


Heilbron:   No,  he  was  somewhat  upset  by  it,  sure.   But  on  a  strict  legal 
issue,  he  recognized,  as  we  did  from  the  beginning,  that  this 
was  something  of  a  long  shot.   And  I  think  that  there  were  ways 
of  distinguishing  the  other  six  cases  that  had  been  admitted, 
reducing  the  number  of  true  comparisons- -for  example,  the 
greater  length  of  practice  of  the  people  who  had  been  admitted, 
as  compared  with  our  man.   Anyway,  Lloyd  knew  the  Chief  Justice 
quite  well,  who  was  Phil  Gibson,  and  Lloyd  talked  with  him  and 
learned  that  the  Court  wanted  to  reverse- -the  first  draft  of 
opinion  was  in  our  favor,  but  then  when  they  reconsidered,  they 
felt  it  had  to  go  the  other  way. 

I  do  want  to  emphasize  that  Lloyd  was  an  excellent  lawyer 
all  around- -trial ,  business,  corporate,  personal. 

So  those  were  the  lead  people  in  our  firm. 


126 


Office  Space  mnd  Routines 


Heilbron:  Maybe  you  would  like  some  idea  of  what  it  was  to  practice  in  the 
building  that  we  were  in. 

Hicke:     That's  one  of  ny  questions. 

Heilbron:   As  I  mentioned,  I  was  the  thirteenth  lawyer  in  the  firm.   The 

building  was  rebuilt  after  the  fire  at  14  Montgomery  Street.   It 
was  the  headquarters  of  the  old  Wells  Fargo  Bank.   This  was  an 
extremely  important  local  bank,  but  it  did  not  have  the  great 
branch  operation  that  Veils  Fargo  now  has  after  the  merger  with 
the  American  Trust.   But  it  was  a  well -respected  bank  and  with  a 
considerable  amount  of  California  business,  particularly  in 
northern  California. 

Ve  were  on  the  seventh  floor.   Ue  came  to  work  at  about 
8:45,  left  at  about  5:15,  worked  on  Saturdays  up  to  1  p.m., 
because  the  bank  was  open  in  those  days,  and  suddenly,  I  see, 
the  bank  is  open  again  on  Saturdays.  Ue  felt  that  we  had  to 
keep  open  in  order  to  serve  the  bank. 

Hicke:     You  had  a  lunch  hour,  you  said. 

Heilbron:   Oh,  yes.   Ue  had  a  lunch  hour,  and  we  had  a  cafeteria  on  the 

eleventh  floor,  and  the  associates  were  allowed  along  with  bank 
personnel  to  have  the  privilege  of  that  cafeteria.   For  twenty- 
five  cents  you  could  eat  a  lunch  that  was  so  large  that  you 
slept  after  the  meal.   Everything  was  five  cents,  including  the 
entree.   It  could  be  a  meat  entree. 

Hicke:     Is  that  where  you  ate  most  of  the  time? 

Heilbron:   No,  not  all  the  time  but  certainly  on  rainy  days.   Even  outside  the 
office,  prices  were  quite  low  for  a  lunch.   You  could  get  a  lunch 
for  thirty -five  cents.   Oh,  there  were  various  places- -Breens  down 
the  street,  and  around  the  corner,  there  was  the  Fly  Trap. 

Hicke:     That's  a  lunch  place? 

Heilbron:   That  was  a  peculiarly  named  place,  but  it  was  a  San  Francisco 
landmark  on  Sutter  Street  below  Montgomery.   It  was  a  French 
restaurant  that  was  a  little  higher  priced  than  the  other 
establishments  near  us,  but  heavily  patronized.   They  brought 
you  a  big  bowl  of  soup,  but  the  waiter  had  his  thumb  imprints  on 
the  edge.   It  was  an  interesting  place,  however. 


Hicke: 


It's  not  really  a  very  inviting  name  for  a  lunch  place. 


127 


Hellbron:   Terrible  name!   Terrible  name,  and  yet  it  was  filled  to 

capacity.  There  were  two  other  French  restaurants  nearby, 
Pierre's  and  Camille's,  on  Pine  Street.   I  will  say  that  the 
eating  facilities  were  far  superior  to  what  we  have  now. 
Without  any  question.  Ve  had  excellent  restaurants  all  around 
us  at  aoderate  prices . 

Hicke:     Was  any  business  done  over  lunch? 

Heilbron:   Oh,  I  suppose  so,  sure.   Sure. 

Hicke:     And  one  more  thing—did  you  have  to  work  at  nights? 

Heilbron:  We  did  if  our  work  demanded  it.  And  that  was  up  to  us.   I  would 
say  that  attorneys  work  under  greater  pressure  today  than  we 
did,  except  when  we  were  on  trial,  because  no  matter  when  you're 
on  trial,  that's  pressure.   It  was  more  of  a  gentlemen's 
profession  at  the  time.   You  didn't  sue  your  fellow  attorneys 
for  malpractice.   If  you  needed  more  time,  there  was  very  little 
difficulty  in  getting  continuances  from  your  fellow  attorneys. 

Hicke:     Was  there  much  exchange  with  other  attorneys  outside  the  firm? 
Heilbron:   You're  talking  about  referrals? 

Hicke:     Well,  outside  of  the  town  probably  you  did  that.   But  I'm 

thinking  of  the  city.   Were  there  times  when  you  would  call  upon 
another  lawyer  who  had  some  special  expertise  that  you  needed 
or-- 

Heilbron:   Oh  yes,  I  think  that  there  were  very  pleasant  relationships  with 
other  people.   I  remember  that  if  I  had  a  bankruptcy  matter  and 
was  concerned  about  the  next  procedural  step,  I  wouldn't 
hesitate  calling  a  bankruptcy  lawyer  whom  I  knew  and  asking  him 
for  his  assistance. 

Hicke:     Would  you  say  that's  something  that's  pretty  well  gone  now? 

Heilbron:   I'm  not  sure  that  that's  gone  out,  no --particularly  with 
specialization,  it  is  still  done. 


Depression  Work 


Heilbron:   I  mentioned  a  little  bit  about  the  practice  that  we  had  in  the 
early  days  of  the  Depression.  You  remember  I  talked  about  the 


128 


alphabet  agencies  and  the  rules  and  regulations  that  they  issued 
and  the  necessity  for  construing  them  and  applying  them. 

There  was  also  a  good  deal  of  probate  and  estate  planning 
that  arose  out  of  the  very  condition  of  the  Depression.   You  may 
remember  that  many  people  lost  a  great  deal  of  property  value 
because  things  were  deflated,  and  so  they  did  their  wills  with 
some  consideration  for  protecting  their  descendants  from  making 
some  of  the  errors  that  their  generation  had  made. 

And  that  meant  they  created  trusts  for  their  beneficiaries 
so  that  generally  they  wouldn't  be  able  to  get  to  the  principal 
and  would  have  to  live  on  the  interest,  although  we  always  wrote 
in  emergency  clauses- -they  still  do- -allowing  the  trustee  to 
invade  principal  in  the  event  of  an  emergency. 

There  was  a  very  substantial  change  in  legislation 
affecting  wills  in  1976,  the  Tax  Reform  Act  and  it  was  the 
occasion  when  we  looked  over  a  number  of  the  wills  that  we  drew 
back  in  the  thirties.   It  was  shocking  to  see  that  some  people 
had  provided  for  $25  a  month  or  $50  a  month  for  Uncle  Willie, 
with  the  idea  that  that  was  going  to  help  him  meet  possible 
emergency  conditions  in  the  future. 

I  think  that  several  of  us  may  have  drawn  wills  at  the  rate 
of  a  couple  a  day,  because  people  were  conscious  of  the 
necessity  to  provide  for  or  against  the  future.   This  was  partly 
the  result  of  the  bank's  situation  in  relation  to  us. 

In  those  days  if  a  person  came  to  the  bank  and  discussed 
what  he  should  do  by  way  of  a  last  will  and  testament,  the  Trust 
Department  would  usually  be  willing,  even  anxious,  to  draw  his 
will.   If  there  were  complications,  they  would  tell  the  party  to 
go  to  his  lawyer.   But  if  he  or  she  said,  "But  I  don't  have  a 
lawyer;  who's  your  lawyer?"  then,  of  course,  the  bank  had  a 
lawyer,  and  that  was  ourselves.   In  that  way,  we  got  referred  a 
great  many  people  who  had  had  no  previous  relationship  with  us 
and  accounted  for  a  great  deal  of  business.   The  fee  for 
drafting  a  will  was  very  low,  moderate  at  best,  but  the 
possibility  of  being  the  lawyers  who  would  be  counsel  to  the 
executors  of  the  estate  could  mean  substantial  fees. 

This  situation  even  improved  with  the  Bank-Bar  Treaty  in 
the  mid- thirties,  according  to  which  a  bank  could  no  longer  draw 
any  wills  or  trusts,  but  had  to  refer  the  matter  to  an  attorney 
--the  party's  attorney,  if  there  was  one.   The  bar  requirement 
that  the  party  consult  his  or  her  own  attorney  was  clear  and 
explicit.   But  still  if  they  had  none  and  asked  about  the  bank's 
counsel,  the  bank  could  refer  them  to  us.   So  the  net  result  of 


129 


the  treaty  was  to  our  benefit,  since  the  bank  itself  was 
prevented  fron  drawing  these  documents.   Larry  Baker  drafted 
many  of  then,  becoming  quite  an  expert  in  estate  planning  and 
trusts,  but  Don  Falconer  and  I  and  the  rest  of  the  associates 
shared  the  work. 


Mora  on  tarlv  Pr 


Hicke:     We  were  just  talking  off  tape,  and  you  agreed  to  talk  a  little 
bit  about  the  influences  that  were  most  important  to  you. 

Heilbron:   I  did  mention  the  influence  of  Lloyd  Dinkelspiel,  Sr.   Then 

there  was  Mr.  Monaco,  whom  I've  previously  mentioned.   When  Mr. 
Monaco  had  a  legal  problem  he  did  most  of  the  work  himself,  even 
after  his  partnership.   He  might  let  somebody  else  do  some  work 
just  to  see  how  well  he  did  it,  still  he  carefully  would  check 
on  it.   But  the  person  very  often  couldn't  find  the  books, 
because  they  were  in  Monaco's  room.   He  would  have  slips  of 
paper  in  the  books.   When  he  wrote  a  brief  the  books  were  all 
around  his  room  in  concentric  circles. 

The  influence  was  just  this.   If  that's  the  way  you  had  to 
research  in  order  to  write  an  adequate  brief  or  an  appropriate 
opinion,  you  had  to  be  pretty  serious  about  it,  and  while  most 
of  us  felt  that  some  of  his  research  was  superfluous  and  too 
detailed,  because  it  didn't  matter  whether  a  case  involved 
$1,000  or  $1  million,  the  fascination  of  the  legal  issues  was 
what  attracted  him. 

Yet  one  could  see  true  research  in  the  making,  and  that  had 
an  influence  on  me  on  the  quality  of  the  work  I  tried  to  do.   I 
think  the  Depression  itself  was  an  influence. 

Hicke:     I  wanted  to  ask  you  about  that. 

Heilbron:   It  made  a  person  rather  careful  in  what  he  did,  how  he  planned, 
what  he  saved,  and  affected  the  values  he  had.   The  firm 
throughout  the  thirties  would  take  in  one  person  at  a  time,  and 
that  person  was  initially  the  subject  of  great  discussion  in  the 
abstract:  should  any  person  be  taken  in?  I  think  that  was  very 
definitely  the  impact  of  slow  growth  during  the  Depression. 

Hicke:     Slow  growth  of  businesses  you  mean? 


130 


Heilbron:   Veil,  businesses --we  had  a  good  share  of  available  business.   We 
had  perhaps  a  more  assured  situation  than  most  law  firns,  and 
yet  there  was  this  care  that  was  the  result,  I  think,  of  the 
Depression.  We  had  some  very  substantial  litigation  for  the  Six 
Companies.   The  Six  Coapanies  built  Hoover  Dam.   Some  of  our 
largest  contractors--!  believe  Bechtel  was  among  the  companies 
that  built  that  dam. 


One  case  was  particularly  memorable.   The  plaintiff  claimed 
impotence  as  a  result  of  carbon  monoxide  poisoning  resulting 
from  the  manner  in  which  the  tunnels  were  built  in  relation  to 
construction  of  the  dam.   He  was  obviously  going  to  be  the  first 
of  a  number  of  cases.   The  damages  could  have  been  very  high 
even  in  those  days  of  much  more  restrained  verdicts. 

So  we  were  able,  as  the  trial  proceeded,  to  get  a  person 
that  we  knew  to  become  rather  friendly  with  this  plaintiff,  and 
they  went  together  on  a  binge  in  Los  Angeles.   During  this  binge 
they  went  to  certain  places  where  this  plaintiff  demonstrated 
anything  but  impotence.   The  defense  was  able  to  bring  In 
decisive  testimony,  and  that  ended  carbon  monoxide  Impotency 
cases . 

Mr.  White  was  the  person  who  handled  the  case  for  the  firm 
and  Mr.  Baker  assisted  him. 

Hicke:     You  said  you  have  some  more  information  about  practice  in  the 
thirties. 

Heilbron:  Yes.   There  were  a  number  of  wild  schemes  In  the  state  of 

California  to  pull  us  out  of  the  Depression.   One  of  them  was 
the  program  of  providing  $30  every  Thursday. 

Hicke:     Was  that  Townsend? 

Heilbron:   No.   Townsend  was  to  be  $200  per  month  for  everyone  over  sixty. 
This  was  different;  this  was  $30  every  Thursday,  to  be  done 
through  the  issuance  of  warrants  redeemable  by  the  state.   1  was 
asked  to  advise  one  of  our  clients,  Lee  Kaiser,  who  was  an 
investment  broker,  on  the  constitutionality  of  the  proposal.   I 
wrote  a  rather  extensive  opinion  in  which  1  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  among  other  considerations,  the  proposal 
violated  the  federal  Constitution,  particularly  the  currency 
clause,  because  the  issue  of  the  currency  was  the  province  of 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  and  these  warrants,  you  see, 
were  scrip  in  the  nature  of  currency. 

This  opinion  was  published  in  the  San  Francisco  Recorder, 
the  legal  newspaper,  in  three  or  four  installments,  and  then  we 


131 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


wondered  whether  Mr.  Kaiser  had  made  the  best  use  of  the 
opinion,  because  we  night  be  educating  the  people  who  proposed 
the  program  to  rewrite  the  bill  in  a  legally  acceptable  form  and 
present  it  again.   It  was  never  done. 

The  people  of  the  state  were  so  shocked  by  the  idea  that  an 
older  person  (I  think  the  people  had  to  be  over  fifty)  was  to 
receive  $30  every  Thursday;  they  thought  that  it  would  simply 
break  the  state  of  California  financially.   It's  rather 
interesting,  because  as  we  compare  figures  and  what  Social 
Security  costs  and  benefits  now  are,  we  might  not  be  so  shocked 
by  the  amounts  as  by  the  eligibility  and  financing. 


Let  me  just  interrupt, 
that  Recorder  article? 


Is  there  any  chance  you  have  a  copy  of 


No,  but  I  would  imagine  that  it  would  be  in  the  files  of  the 
Recorder.   Naturally,  it  was  signed  by  the  firm  name,  not  myself 
individually. 

Social  Security.   That  was  one  of  the  New  Deal  measures 
that  was  to  act  as  a  preventive  so  that  another  depression  would 
not  have  the  effect  of  the  depression  that  then  existed,  and  it 
had  a  great  many  opponents . 

One  of  its  proponents,  and  one  who  testified  before  the 
appropriate  congressional  committee,  was  Barbara  Armstrong.   It 
was  almost  the  culmination,  well,  not  the  culmination  because 
she  was  still  a  young  woman  at  the  time,  but  I  guess  it  was  her 
most  important  work.   Mr.  [Herbert]  Hoover  was  out  of  office. 
Mr.  Hoover  was  resident  at  Stanford. 


I  don't  like  to  digress,  but  Mr.  Dinkelspiel  when  he  was 
president  of  Stanford  used  to  see  Mr.  Hoover  once  a  year  in 
order  to  get  his  point  of  view.   He  used  to  see  him  at  breakfast 
and  he  went  down  to  Palo  Alto  for  the  occasion.   He  would  say, 
"I  never  knew  what  I  was  going  to  get,  scrambled  eggs  or 
silence."   [laughter] 

Anyway,  Mr.  Hoover  was  not  silent  on  this  occasion.   Mr. 
[Richard  E. ]  Guggenhime  somehow,  being  fairly  recently  out  of 
Stanford  and  having  young  friends  there,  got  to  Mr.  Hoover  and 
asked  him  whether  he'd  be  willing  to  come  up  to  San  Francisco  to 
talk  to  some  young  men  in  the  law  and  some  not  in  the  law,  and 
this  he  did  at  Mr.  Guggenhime 's  family  house. 

I  think  there  were  some  thirty  of  us .  I  was  introduced  as 
the  sole  Democrat  in  the  group.  And  Mr.  Hoover  said,  "Well,  we 
can  take  that  ratio." 


132 


Hicke:     Did  he  have  that  sense  of  humor? 

Heilbron:   He  had  some  sense  of  humor.  He  was  rather  informal,  although 
his  views  were  as  stuffy  as  could  be  anticipated  and 
particularly  with  respect  to  the  Social  Security  Act,  which  was 
under  discussion,  pending.   1  don't  know  if  it  was  in  the  year 
it  was  actually  passed  or  whether  it  was  in  the  prior  year,  but 
it  was  pending  as  a  very  important  matter  of  legislation. 

Mr.  Hoover  said  there  was  no  necessity  for  it,  there  were 
plenty  of  private  insurance  companies  ready  to  write  policies 
which  would  protect  a  man  for  his  own  permanent  welfare  after 
his  retirement  and  a  man  should  work  up  his  own  retirement  and 
he  could  see  no  reason  for  the  federal  government  coming  into 
the  situation. 

Mr.  Lee  Kaiser,  whom  I  mentioned- -he  was  not  a  lawyer  but 
he  was  invited  to  this  occasion- -and  1  asked  the  only 
questions.   We  wanted  to  know  whether  all  of  the  other 
industrial  countries  of  the  world  that  had  some  form  of  social 
insurance  were  wrong. 

The  answer  was  they  were.   Theirs  was  too  socialistic  an 
enterprise.   The  other  question  that  I  asked  was,  "Considering 
the  habits  of  all  of  us,  was  it  likely  that  individuals  on  their 
own  would  get  this  insurance?  They  could  have  gotten  this 
insurance  before  but  they  hadn't  done  so  and  wouldn't  this 
proposed  program  help  protect  against  a  major  depression  such  as 
the  one  we  were  suffering?" 

But  he  stood  by  his  guns,  and  he  just  felt  that  government 
had  been  entering  into  too  many  things.   He  didn't  think  most  of 
the  New  Deal  agencies  were  necessary.   "Look  what  happened  to 
the  NRA."   (That's  just  what  should  have  happened  to  it.   It  was 
declared  unconstitutional  and  it  was  unconstitutional,  however 
for  a  valid  legal  reason- -that  is,  Congress  could  have  done  it, 
but  they  authorized  the  NRA,  an  executive  agency,  to  issue 
codes ,  and  that  went  too  far . ) 

However,  there  were  these  other  agencies,  the  Agricultural 
Adjustment  Act  and  all  of  the  other  agencies  that  were  created 
by  the  New  Deal  by  "that  terrible  man,  Rex  Tugford.".  It  was  an 
enjoyable  evening,  there  were  no  raised  voices  even  though  some 
of  the  Republicans  themselves  were  divided  about  the  acts  of  the 
New  Deal. 

I  know,  for  example,  Dick  Guggenhime- -we  became  later  on 
partners- -was  certainly  supportive  of  Social  Security,  in  fact 
he  had  been  an  assistant  to  Dean  Acheson  when  Dean  Acheson  was 


Hlcke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


133 


in  the  Treasury  Department,  and  so  he,  I'm  sure,  benefitted  from 
some  of  the  liberal  views  of  Mr.  Acheson. 

But  that's  kind  of  a  sidelight.  Rather  interesting,  I 
think,  though  not  part  of  the  firm's  history,  it  occurred 
because  someone  in  the  firm  brought  it  about. 

I  mentioned  too  about  the  bank  and  its  traditions.  At  the 
time  of  the  bank  closure  in  1933,  President  [F.  L. ]  Lipman  was 
the  head  of  the  bank,  and  it  almost  broke  his  heart  to  have  to 
close  the  bank.   In  fact,  all  of  the  firm  partners  had  to  come 
down  to  the  bank  at  the  dead  of  night  to  research  whether  the 
bank  should  comply  with  the  closure  order. 

People  from  the  firm? 

People  from  the  firm.   They  all  came  from  a  gala  social 
occasion.   Mr.  Lipman  was  a  very  conservative  banker.   He 
believed  he  had  custody  of  the  people's  money.  When  the  people 
wanted  their  money,  they  should  get  it  under  any  circumstances. 

The  bank  could  take  any  run.   There  wouldn't  be  a  run 
because  people  had  that  faith.   He  probably  was  right,  as  far  as 
the  bank's  condition  was  concerned.   At  directors'  meetings  of 
the  bank,  he  asked  for  prompt  attendance  at  10  a.m.   He  would 
place  $20  gold  pieces  at  each  of  the  directors'  places  —  that  was 
the  fee  in  those  days,  a  $20  gold  piece. 

Just  one? 


Heilbron:   Yes,  it  was  just  one  $20  gold  piece.   Now,  I  don't  know  whether 
they  got  anything  else.   But  they  got  that.   At  10:01  a.m.  he 
went  around  and  collected  the  gold  piece  of  any  person  who 
hadn't  yet  attended.   Usually  the  attendance  was  very  prompt. 


Japanese  Relocation 


Heilbron:   I'll  give  you  one  more  incident  of  my  minor  participation  in 

what  proved  to  be  an  historic  situation.  This  goes  into  early 
'42,  and  that  is  the  time  of  the  ill-advised  Japanese 
relocation.   The  Japanese  owned  a  good  deal  of  commercial 
property,  including  several  large  stores  in  Chinatown. 

In  a  number  of  cases ,  non- Japanese  people  had  or  were 
anxious  to  have  leases  on  these  Japanese -owned  properties.   But 
the  owners  did  not  know  how  long  they  would  be  in  relocation 


134 


Hlcke : 
Hellbron: 


Hlcke: 


Hellbron: 


Hicke: 
Hellbron: 

Hicke: 
Hellbron: 


camps ,  and  they  certainly  did  not  know  how  long  the  war  was 
going  to  last.   The  question  was  whether  to  draw  up  or  amend 
leases  and  give  the  bank  authority  as  agent  to  execute  documents 
on  behalf  of  the  owners . 

I  was  confronted  with  being  asked,  how  long  do  you  think 
the  war  will  last?  How  long  should  these  leases  be?  We 
discussed  this  back  and  forth  with  these  good  people,  and  they 
thought  the  war  would  last  four  years. 

Who's  -they,"  the  bank? 

No,  the  Japanese.   The  bank  thought  that  it  might  not  last  that 
long,  perhaps  only  a  couple  of  years,  so  the  lease  period  should 
be  shorter  so  that  If  the  Japanese  did  return  they  could  get 
their  stores  back. 

I  suggested  three  years  as  a  compromise,  and  that's  what 
they  decided,  which  was  a  little  wrong.   It  was  close,  but  it 
was  kind  of  an  interesting  small  detail  that  meant  a  great  deal 
to  these  people . 


Who  paid  for  the  writing  of  the  leases? 
Japanese? 


The  bank  or  the 


I  don't  recall,  but  the  leases  were  going  to  produce  money,  and 
there  was  no  reason  in  the  world  why  the  Japanese  wouldn't  pay 
for  negotiating  the  leases.   They  were  pretty  substantial 
people.   The  fact  that  they  had  to  go  to  relocation  camps  was  a 
shame  legally  and  morally,  but  economically  something  could  be 
done  -  - 

So  they  weren't  really  poor? 

Oh  no,  no.   They  were  substantial  citizens.  We  were  all  caught 
in  a  certain  amount  of  bewilderment.   Anyway  these  clients  of 
the  bank  decided  to  disregard  all  estimates  and  sell. 

With  what  effect  on  Chinatown? 

To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  much  of  the  prime  property  in 
Chinatown  owned  by  the  Japanese  passed  to  Chinese  or  others  and 
was  not  recovered  by  the  Japanese . 


135 


Practice 


[Interview  2:  May  5,  1989  ]## 


Hicke:     When  you  spoke  about  your  experience  in  Austria  immediately 
after  World  War  II,  you  said  it  related  mostly  to  policies 
affecting  labor. 

Heilbron:   Yes,  it  involved  the  ministry  of  the  Department  of  Social 

Administration,  really  an  enlarged  labor  department.   It  meant 
reviving  the  social  security  system  and  reestablishing  or 
providing  labor  policies. 

Hicke:     I  know  you  described  the  work  of  your  Four -Power  labor 

committee.   I  don't  remember  if  I  asked,  did  the  country  have 
strong  labor  unions? 

Heilbron:  The  tradition  in  Austria  was  that  labor  and  politics  were  much 
more  involved  (as  in  other  European  countries)  than  they  are 
here --we  tend  to  have  our  unions  concentrate  in  the  economic 
field- -so  that  they  had  a  coalition  government  of  the  Christian 
Democratic  Party  and  the  Social  Democratic  Party.   The  Social 
Democratic  Party  represented  the  union  interest  pretty  much. 

Hicke:     You  indicated  that  your  work  in  Austria  was  of  some  importance 
to  you  in  developing  your  interest  in  labor  law. 

Heilbron:   I  became  interested  in  labor  policy,  in  the  way  grievances  were 
handled,  there  was  a  question  of  what  the  strike  policy  should 
be  regarding  the  new  government,  should  strikes  be  permitted  and 
so  on.   It  was  generally  agreed  that  it  was  necessary  to  have  a 
period  of  calm  and  rebuilding  before  strikes  could  legally  be 
permitted.  After  serving  as  deputy  head  of  the  Labor  Committee, 
U.S.  element,  and  chairing  the  Four-Power  labor  committee  twice 
(on  a  rotating  basis),  I  came  back  in  early  1946  and  rejoined 
the  law  firm. 

Hicke:     And  what  had  been  happening  to  it  while  you  were  gone?  Did  you 
get  some  sense  of  that? 

Heilbron:  Yes,  I  understand  that  there  were  one  or  two  replacements  of 

those  who  went  into  the  service ,  but  those  who  remained  had  to 
do  a  great  deal  of  the  kind  of  work  that  they  had  done  as 
associates,  even  though  they  were  full  partners.   I  think  even 
Mr.  Ehrman  was  pulled  into  service  attending  to  some  court 
matters. 

Hicke:     They  were  happy  to  have  you  back,  obviously. 


136 


Heilbron:   Yes,  but  I  think  that  I  was  one  of  the  last  to  get  back.   And  by 
that  time,  the  firm  was  pretty  well  readjusted  to  its  personnel 
as  it  was  just  before  we  went  into  service;  the  replacements  had 
left. 

Hicke:     So  by  about  1946  the  people  who  had  left  had  come  back? 

Heilbron:  Yes. 

Hicke:     But  no  new  people  had  been  hired,  maybe,  is  that  correct? 

Heilbron:   I  don't  recall  new  people  at  that  time.   The  records  may  show 
differently,  but  I  don't  recall  any. 


Postwar  Years 


Hicke:     And  what  did  you  start  in  doing  when  you  returned? 

Heilbron:   I  suppose  I  started  with  the  miscellaneous  activities  that  I  had 
been  engaged  in  prior  to  leaving,  but  very  early  I  got  into  the 
labor  field  representing  some  of  our  clients  who  had 
organizational  labor  problems,  and  I  believe  it  was  partly 
because  of  the  experience  that  I  had  during  the  war  service  that 
made  it  somewhat  natural  to  be  directed  to  that  work. 

Hicke:     Did  that  work  come  to  you  from  the  senior  partners  who  knew  what 
you  had  been  doing? 

Heilbron:   I  suggested  it  and  they  concurred.   Then  very  early  on,  very 

quickly  when  it  became  known  that  I  was  doing  this  kind  of  work, 
the  other  clients  came  to  me. 

Hicke:     Who  were  some  of  your  first  clients? 

Heilbron:   Gallenkamp  Shoe  Stores  had  a  chain  in  California,  and  there  was 
considerable  work  done  for  them.   It  was  mostly  contract 
negotiations  as  far  as  they  were  concerned.   In  the  late 
thirties,  the  Wagner  Act  was  passed  (the  National  Labor 
Relations  Act) ,  which  gave  considerable  authority  for  unions  to 
organize  and  listed  a  number  of  unfair  labor  practices  on  the 
part  of  employers  that  were  deemed  unfairly  to  inhibit  such 
organization.   Not  all  of  them  had  been  so  used,  but  the  purpose 
of  it  was  to  give  a  bargaining  position  to  labor. 

In  1947  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  was  passed,  which  then  listed 
a  number  of  unfair  labor  practices  by  labor  unions  that  were 


137 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


deemed  unfair  to  employers,  and  it  was  after  that  Act  that 
Gallenkamps  had  a  number  of  its  negotiating  problems.   I  recall 
negotiating  with  one  of  the  labor  leaders  in  Los  Angeles  (Joe  de 
Sllva) .  He  was  a  very  interesting,  colorful  character,  but  he 
and  his  unions  were  rather  angry  about  the  Taft-Hartley  having 
been  passed,  and  when  an  issue  arose  that  seemed  to  me  to 
involve  a  Taft-Hartley  issue  and  I  would  bring  it  up,  he  would 
refuse  to  listen  to  the  phrase  Taft-Hartley.   So  we  developed  a 
procedure  where  the  Act  was  referred  to  as  "that  thing." 
[laughter] 

De  Silva  became  politically  active  in  the  Democratic  Party. 
I  think  he  went  back  as  a  delegate  to  one  of  the  national 
conventions,  and  he  was  his  own  boss  and  managed  things  in  his 
own  way.   I  remember  Dick  Guggenhime  was  down  in  Los  Angeles 
with  me  on  one  occasion,  and  we  were  at  the  Brown  Derby.   Joe 
saw  us  there,  and  he  sent  over  cocktails  and  a  bottle  of  wine 
and  [laughter]  and  everything  else.   It  was  after  we  stood  firm 
on  a  contract  issue.  He  was  a  different  type  of  labor  leader,  I 
don't  think  he  was  one  of  a  kind,  but  his  attitudes  had 
statewide  impact  on  many  union  agents.   Gallenkamps  having 
various  stores  and  not  negotiating  statewide  but  within  each 
area,  it  made  it  necessary  to  meet  and  deal  with  various  union 
leaders  and  know  their  relationships.   That  was  one  client. 

What  were  the  specific  problems? 

Primarily,  it  was  wages,  what  the  wages  would  be,  how  grievances 
would  be  handled,  problems  about  an  arbitration  clause.   I  think 
that  at  one  time  we  got  into  a  picketing  situation  where  the 
question  had  to  be  what  was  legal  picketing,  how  many  people  in 
front  of  the  store,  and  so  on.   I  don't  know  whether  I  mentioned 
it  before,  but  during  much  of  the  period  when  I  was  handling 
labor  problems,  we  were  dealing  with  efforts  at  organization, 
the  legality  of  employers  trying  to  prevent  unions  from  seeing 
their  employees  in  and  about  the  plant,  employers  right  to  meet 
with  their  employees  and  what  they  could  say.   After  recognition 
and  bargaining  began,  there  were  picketing  and  strike  problems, 
secondary  boycott  problems,  all  tied  in  with  an  interesting 
period  when  labor  was  doing  extended  organizing.   Now  this 
situation,  while  1  understand  it  still  obtains  to  some  extent, 
has  been  very  much  superseded  by  individuals  rights ,  as 
distinguished  from  organizational  rights.   Antidiscrimination 
statutes  give  rise  to  most  of  the  litigation  now,  and  wrongful 
discharge.  Maybe  I  mentioned  this  before,  but  the  labor  law 
practice  has  changed  considerably,  and  the  number  of  people 
involved  who  may  have  claims  has  increased  greatly.   You  may  be 
dealing  with  one  labor  union  with  respect  to  a  problem,  but  you 


138 


Hicke : 
Hellbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke : 

Heilbron: 

Hicke: 


•ay  be  dealing  individually  with  a  number  of  people  who  claim 
wrongful  discharge  or  discrimination. 

Are  you  going  to  talk  about  another  one  of  your  labor  clients? 

Yes,  Langendorf  Baking  Company  and  the  San  Francisco  Bakery 
Employers  Association  were  two  really  interesting  clients. 

What  was  the  second  one? 

The  San  Francisco  Bakery  Employers  Association.   That  included 
all  the  principal  bakeries  except  the  French  bread  bakeries. 

That's  interesting.   Why  weren't  they  included? 

Well,  they  always  had  a  special  relationship.   They  baked 
different  bread  and  they  handled  their  own  affairs. 

So  they  had  their  own  association? 

I  don't  believe  so.   At  the  time  there  were  only  one  or  two,  so 
that  it  wasn't  even  a  question  of  an  association,  and  I  think 
that  they  just  didn't  want  to  be  part  of  an  association  that  was 
dominated  by  very  large  organizations  and  didn't  want  to  have  to 
take  program  from  such  an  association  that  ran  the  gambit  of  the 
usual  labor  problems . 

Mr.  Stanley  Langendorf  was  very  much  in  charge  of 
bargaining,  even  though  the  other  baking  companies  were  rather 
formidable .  We  used  to  work  out  some  rather  complex  agreements , 
and  just  about  when  we  got  to  the  agreement,  Mr.  Langendorf 
would  feel  he  could  do  better.  And  so  he  would  proceed.  While 
it  is  axiomatic  that  a  lawyer  had  to  be  responsible  for  handling 
his  own  client,  Mr.  Langendorf  could  only  be  handled  so  far,  and 
he  would  try  to  make  a  better  deal,  and  one  of  two  results 

either  he  got  the  same  deal  or  one  that  was 
But  he  was  always  content  and  happy  that  he  had 


always  occurred: 
slightly  worse. 


gone  through  it  and  that  he  saw  for  himself  what  the  agreements 
meant,  what  the  results  were,  and  he  always  felt  that  he  had 
gotten  something- -if  not  for  that  particular  agreement,  for  the 
next  agreement. 

At  least  he  hadn't  left  any  money  on  the  table. 
Well,  that's  right. 

What  did  you  do  when  you  would  give  him  some  advice  and  he 
wouldn't  take  it? 


139 


Heilbron:   Veil,  mostly  he  took  the  advice.   The  lapse  period  of  time 
between  his  efforts  to  improve  the  situation  and  a  final 
agreement  was  not  great.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  union  was 
quite  aware  of  the  pattern  and  knew  pretty  well  how  it  was  going 
to  cone  out  anyway. 

Hicke:     Let  me  just  ask  you  one  more  question  about  the  Langendorf 

negotiations:  did  anyone  else  in  the  firm  work  on  that  with  you? 

Heilbron:  No.  Not  with  Langendorf. 


The  Art  of  Neaotiatina 


Hicke:     Veil,  let  me  ask  you  a  little  bit  about  negotiating:  what  kinds 
of  things  did  you  find  were  successful? 

Heilbron:   Negotiating  labor  agreements  meant  a  great  deal  of  patience. 
You  were  always  hopeful  of  success  if  you  just  came  to  the 
bargaining  table  and  had  all  of  your  points  in  a  row  and  knew 
just  what  you  could  do  and  said,  "Now  this  is  the  situation,  we 
don't  want  to  go  up  by  stages,  we  want  to  lay  the  thing  right  on 
the  table." 

Generally,  it  wouldn't  work.   There  was  a  certain  pattern 
of  a  minuet  that  had  to  be  gone  through,  and  the  employers 
usually  began  by  not  wanting  to  give  anything  or  very  little, 
and  the  union  began  with  an  impossible  demand,  and  so  you  had  to 
work  up  by  stages  to  an  agreement,  and  one  provision  frequently 
had  to  be  traded  for  another.   The  objective  might  be  for  the 
higher  wage,  but  by  putting  in  an  extravagant  demand,  the  union 
would  try  to  get  the  wage  raised  if  they  withdrew  that  demand. 
So  as  I  say,  it  was  a  question  of  patience  and  also  of  being 
able  to  make  clear  when  firmness  had  to  be  understood  and  that 
there  was  not  going  to  be  any  further  adjustment,  and  that  point 
is  always  a  psychologically  difficult  one  for  both  sides  to 
know. 

Hicke:     So  I  would  say  an  astute  judge  of  character  is  a  requirement. 
Heilbron:   Yes,  I  think  that  goes  for  both  sides, 
[tape  interruption] 

Hicke:     We  were  talking  about  what  was  needed  for  negotiation.   I  wanted 
just  to  ask  you:  when  you  are  handed  a  list  of  demands,  would 
your  first  thought  then  be  which  ones  are  negotiable  or  which 


140 


are  most  negotiable,  which  ones  of  these  have  they  put  in  as 
aere  troublesome  negotiating  items? 

Heilbron:   That'*  correct  for  analysis,  although  you  usually  answer  almost 
any  demand,  making  it  clear  what  your  position  is.  A  lot 
depends  upon  the  people  that  you're  dealing  with,  and  in  many 
negotiations,  one  side  or  the  other  starts  with  a  statement  of 
how  ridiculous  the  other  demand  is  or  the  position  is,  and  you 
have  to  get  over  the  frigidity,  you  have  to  know  what  words  mean 
something  and  what  words  really  don't  mean  very  much. 

Hicke:     Well,  that's  interesting. 

Heilbron:   It's  a  little  difficult  to  state  general  principles  for  all 

negotiations  with  different  kinds  of  unions,  different  kinds  of 
people.   There  are  unions  who  desire  to  come  to  the  issues 
rather  quickly  and  who  don't,  well  who  don't  scatter  their 
demands  over  a  great  territory.   They  know  what  they  want,  and 
they  make  it  clear  what  they  consider  to  be  important,  and 
sometimes  that's  an  easier  group  to  deal  with. 

At  this  point  I  would  like  to  insert  an  additional  note  on 
negotiation. 


Notes  Re  Negotiation  in  Labor  Agreements 

[this  section  was  inserted  during  the  editorial  process] 


Heilbron:   I  have  said  in  my  interview  that  in  labor  negotiations  there 

usually  is  an  expectation  that  the  parties  will  participate  in  a 
minuet.   Agreement  at  a  first  session  of  negotiators  is  close  to 
impossible.   The  union  leadership  wants  its  constituencies  to 
know  that  it  is  representing  their  cause  and  an  immediate 
settlement  would  indicate  that  they  surrendered.   Thus  the  first 
meeting  is  usually  exploratory,  an  exchange  of  demands,  some 
joking  discussion,  and  occasionally  a  time  for  some  shots  across 
the  bow,  such  as  a  union  leader  saying,  "No  matter  what  our 
demand,  you  look  at  it  seriously  because,  by  God,  we  mean  it." 

Actually  in  labor  negotiations,  as  well  as  in  other  types 
of  negotiations,  it  is  best  to  seek  objective  standards  that 
will  produce  results  as  much  as  possible  to  the  advantage  of 
both  sides.   Therefore,  it  is  not  advisable  for  either  side  to 
dig  in  with  their  demands  and  say,  "This  is  the  best.   Take  it 
or  leave  it."  There  are  situations  where  ultimately  that 
statement  may  be  made.   But  in  the  vast  number  of  cases  options 


141 


can  be  developed,  trade-offs  proposed,  that  will  satisfy  both 
management  and  labor  that  they  have  obtained  a  good  agreement  on 
settlement.   Indeed  if  each  side  can  feel  that  it  has  "von*  on 
what  it  deemed  essential,  then  the  best  and  most  lasting  result 
will  have  been  achieved.   Of  course,  there  are  egos  involved.   A 
labor  leader  Bay  pride  himself  on  his  aggressiveness  and  support 
of  his  Members,  knowing  that  he  will  always  fight  for  their 
benefits.  Thus  you  rarely  want  to  defeat  or  humiliate  such  a 
leader;  it  is  better  that  he  can  recommend  an  agreement  that  he 
deems  to  be  a  "victory." 

Of  course,  there  are  limits  to  such  adjustments.   A 
negotiator  cannot  give  in  to  demands  just  to  make  the  other 
negotiator  more  friendly.   Both  employer  and  union  must  know 
what,  respectively,  they  will  do  in  the  event  that  no  agreement 
is  reached,  and  be  prepared  to  do  it.  Management  should  try  to 
deal  fairly  and  on  the  merits,  but  if  the  other  side  is 
intransigent  and  adamantly  refuses  a  reasonable  solution,  the 
employer  will  have  to  be  prepared  to  act  on  other  options. 
These  may  be  to  face  a  strike  and  shutdown,  or  to  be  able  to 
invoke,  with  other  employers,  the  position  that  the  strike 
against  him  is  a  strike  against  all  in  an  association  of 
employers  or  to  keep  the  business  going  through  the  use  of 
management  and  substitute  employees,  et  cetera. 

There  are  times  even  when  there  can't  be  a  minuet  because 
there  is  no  room  to  dance.   Economic  circumstances  may  not 
permit- -no  area  may  be  available- -for  significant  change. 

During  the  heyday  of  union  organization  and  fifties 
prosperity,  unions  were  in  a  better  position  to  strike  than  they 
are  today.   Their  strike  funds  could  carry  their  employees  for 
an  extended  period  of  time  and  cause  the  employing  company 
considerable  damage  and  loss.   These  days,  however,  of  high 
expense,  of  living  comfortably  and  saving  little,  make  it 
difficult  for  a  union  to  sustain  a  long  strike.   There  are 
exceptions,  for  example  in  the  health  field.   With  the  scarcity 
of  nurses,  their  bargaining  power  against  health  agencies  and 
hospitals  is  considerable.   In  this  kind  of  situation,  employers 
are  hard  put  to  find  solutions  because  of  financial  costs, 
especially  when  most  of  them  are  nonprofit  institutions.  A 
large  element  in  effecting  settlements  is  public  opinion:  the 
wrath  of  the  public  on  seeing  pictures  of  children  dead 
allegedly  because  of  lack  of  care  will  bring  the  parties  to  an 
agreement  more  speedily  than  negotiators  or  mediators.   Public 
opinion  also  may  be  decisive  in  the  case  of  teacher  strikes, 
although  parental  opinion  seems  usually  to  support  the  teachers' 
position  so  that  a  walkout  will  be  settled  and  the  children  be 


142 


returned  to  school  from  home  or  the  streets, 
notes] 


[end  of  inserted 


I  wanted  to  add  a  little  note  to  the  memorandum  I  have  just 
given  you  on  negotiation. 

Hicke:     Okay. 

Heilbron:  And  that  is  that  the  principles  of  negotiation  not  only  apply  to 
the  labor  field  but  there  is  negotiation  for  almost  everything 
else --in  the  real  estate  field;  when  you  try  to  collect  on  an 
insurance  policy;  when  you  are  working  on  a  divorce  settlement 
or  when  you  are  working  on  a  merger  or  acquisition.   So  I  just 
wanted  to  make  clear  that  the  elements  of  negotiation, 
successful  negotiation,  apply  to  all  fields  as  well  as  labor. 
But  there  is  a  difference  in  the  process  when  there  is  more  of 
an  urgency.   In  most  cases,  when  a  person  wants  to  buy  a  piece 
of  real  estate  and  another  person  wants  to  sell  it,  they  don't 
have  to  exercise  either  the  patience  or  go  through  the  maneuvers 
that  a  labor  agreement  would  involve. 

As  for  other  clients,  in  the  labor  field  they  included 
Hiram  Walker  in  their  western  headquarters,  and  a  number  of 
retail  stores  such  as  1.  Magnin,  Roos  Bros.,  Gump's,  Sherman 
Clay.   We  did  a  good  deal  for  Sherman  Clay,  just  occasional 
issues  with  the  other  stores.  There  was  a  considerable  amount 
of  work  for  Hyatt  in  San  Mateo  and  Amfax,  mostly  in  the  pension 
area,  but  the  usual  kind  of  collective  bargaining  counsel  and 
engagement  for  labor  disputes  were  with  Pacific  Mountain 
Express,  Pacific  Cement  Aggregates,  and  the  Frank  Food  Company. 
We  negotiated  all  the  labor  contracts  for  KQED  for  a  good  many 
years- -up  to  the  early  seventies.   This  is  a  partial  listing. 

Hicke :     Are  you  saying  that  they  would  go  to  you  for  some  labor  matters 
and  somebody  else  for  other  labor  matters? 

Heilbron:   In  certain  cases  that  was  true,  especially  when  the  company  was 
a  member  of  an  association  that  we  did  not  represent. 

Hicke:     So  belonging  to  an  association  would  have  some  effect? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  and  I  noted  our  representation  of  the  San  Francisco  Bakery 
Association.   But  even  if  a  client  joined  an  association  we  did 
not  represent,  the  company  would  often  come  to  us  to  protect 
their  objectives  in  relation  to  the  association.  After  a  while, 
Hiram  Walker  joined  the  Distributors'  Association  in  San 
Francisco,  and  the  Association  represented  them  in  their 
citywide  industrial  contracts,  but  they  often  had  special 


143 


problems  which  they  asked  us  to  take  care  of  and  which  the 
Association  did  not  wish  to  get  mixed  up  in. 

I  worked  rather  closely  with  the  Distributors'  and  that  was 
important  to  Hiram  Walker,  because  they  did  not  wish  certain 
general  programs,  definitions,  or  classifications  of  employees 
to  be  applicable  to  them  and  sought  exceptions  because  of  the 
nature  of  their  work.   So  it  was  important  that  the  Hiram  Walker 
interests  with  respect  to  the  kinds  of  employees  they  had  and 
their  particular  problems  which  were  different  from  many  of  the 
other  people  in  the  Distributors'  came  to  the  notice  of  the 
executive  of  the  Distributors'  Association  and  their  president, 
Hart  Clinton,  whom  1  knew  quite  well.   It  was  a  very  good 
relationship. 

Hicke:  San  Francisco,  as  you  alluded  to  before,  has  always  been  known 
as  a  labor  town.  Did  that  affect  your  work?  Did  that  context 
make  it  more  difficult  for  you? 

Heilbron:   No,  I  don't  think  so,  because  the  employers  were  used  to  labor 
being  a  very  potent  force  in  the  economy  of  San  Francisco. 
Employers  would  like  to  have  their  employees  outside  of  the 
union  when  they  could,  and  so  we  would  be  instructed  to  oppose 
recognition  where  the  employer  felt  and  believed  that  the 
majority  of  his  workers  did  not  want  to  belong  to  the  union. 
But,  by  and  large,  employers  in  San  Francisco  had  a  much  longer 
experience  of  adjusting  to  union  relations  than  the  south. 

Hicke :     Yes . 

Heilbron:   They  came  in  much  later  in  the  picture. 

Hicke:  Yes.  I  think  we  stopped  with  the  Hiram  Walker;  let's  see  what 
else  there  is. 


ERISA 


Heilbron:  Well,  finally  on  the  labor  side,  maybe  I  should  call  attention 
to  the  new  laws  which  set  up  ERISA  [Employee  Retirement  Income 
Security  Act],  the  program  for  profit-sharing  and  pension 
trusts.  At  the  beginning  I  got  into  that  picture  too.   I  guess 
that  was  in  1974.   I'm  not  sure  when  that  program  was  recognized 
nationally  or  even  created  nationally.   Then  of  course  it  opened 
up  really  a  new  vista  for  employee  relations  with  their 
employers ,  and  much  of  organized  labor  and  many  employers  saw 
that  the  provision  for  retirement  was  as  important  as  the  old 


144 


wage  considerations  were- -in  fact,  possibly  more  important,  and 
so  that  was  a  developing  field. 

Hicke:     Do  you  recall  any  particularly  interesting  challenges  along  that 
line? 

Heilbron:   I  know  that  one  of  the  questions  was  at  what  time  would  the 

contributions  of  the  employer  be  vested  in  the  employees,  and 
naturally  the  employees  wanted  the  vesting  to  occur  as  early  as 
possible,  and  the  employer  usually  wanted  it  to  be  later  so  that 
the  funds  would  not  become  available  if  the  employee  left  at  an 
earlier  time. 

Hicke:     Could  you  just  give  me  a  sense  of  how  these  problems  would 

arrive  on  your  desk?   For  instance,  in  contract  renegotiation 
and  the  employees  would  bring  this  up,  or  was  it  after  the  law 
was  passed,  the  employers -- 

Heilbron:   Well,  after  the  law  was  passed  a  number  of  employers  who  had  no 
union  problems  at  all  would  establish  a  plan,  and  if  they 
established  a  plan  that  the  employees  liked,  it  had  a  very 
favorable  impact  on  employees  and  in  some  situations,  I  believe, 
actually  deterred  union  organization.   So  employers  were  quite 
conscious  of  this.   And  enormous  amounts  of  money  and  funding 
are  involved  in  these  pension  and  profit-sharing  plans.   This 
fact  is  reflected  in  the  power  of  these  plans  to  affect  the 
value  of  securities  by  their  investment  policies. 

It  began  as  a  kind  of  improved  relationship  between 
employees  and  employers,  mainly  initiated  by  employers.   It  has 
become  a  great  economic  factor  in  the  country;  and  in  ERISA 
negotiated  plans,  the  really  sophisticated  unions  preferred  that 
an  employers'  committee  attend  to  the  investments.   They  didn't 
want  to  get  into  managing  the  funds.   When  you  deal  with  the 
amount  of  funding  necessary  for  a  substantial  pension  and 
profit-sharing  plan,  you  need  very  experienced  and  stable 
investors.  And,  as  1  say,  the  larger  unions  understood  this 
very  well . 

In  short,  in  the  beginning  ERISA  plans  were  established  on 
the  initiative  of  employers  and  they  sought  investment  counsel. 
Subsequently,  the  plans  became  a  subject  for  negotiation- -to 
maintain  or  enhance  benefits. 

Hicke:     And  did  the  firm  establish  a  program  for  its  employees? 

Heilbron:   Oh,  yes,  yes. 

Hicke:     And  did  you  handle  that? 


145 


Heilbron:  Ve  had  two  or  three  people  working  on  it  here,  including  myself. 

Hicke:     That  suns  it  up  in  a  nutshell,  I  think.   Or  a  watermelon,  as  you 
just  said  off  tape!  Yes,  you're  right,  they  are  important. 


Chang* s  in  Offices 


Heilbron:  Now,  of  course,  there  were  other  matters,  both  from  the 
standpoint  of  practice  and  pro  bono  that  I  engaged  in. 

Hicke:     Yes,  you  skipped  over  a  lot  of  years  there  without  telling  me 
much,  so  let's-- 

Heilbron:   Well,  most  of  these  things  occurred  after  our  move  from  14 
Montgomery  Street  to  44  Montgomery. 

Hicke:     Why  don't  you  tell  me  about  that,  since  we're  on  it? 

Heilbron:   We  have  to  go  back  a  little  bit.   Our  office  expanded  at  14 

Montgomery.   We  took  a  couple  of  floors  in  the  Hobart  Building, 
which  adjoined  the  14  Montgomery  Street  building.   Because  we 
had  the  seventh  floor  and  we  took  the  Hobart' s  eighth,  the 
adjoining  gap  had  to  be  adjusted  by  a  little  bridge.   1  moved 
into  the  Hobart  Building  at  the  end  of  '58,  around  there.   I  had 
an  office  in  the  Hobart  Building,  and  when  it  was  decided  to 
build  a  highrise  plus  a  new  bank  building  for  Wells  Fargo,  all 
of  the  property  on  Montgomery  up  to  Sutter  Street  was  purchased 
in  order  to  accomplish  these  purposes.   Some  landmarks 
disappeared,  like  that  Fly  Trap  Restaurant  that  I  mentioned  to 
you  the  other  day.  And  all  of  the  property  to  the  north  of  our 
14  Montgomery  Street  was  razed,  first  to  establish  the  vacant 
lot  on  which  the  highrise  would  be  built,  and  I  could  see  this 
work  being  done  from  my  window  in  the  Hobart  Building. 

Hicke:     And  hear  it? 

Heilbron:   And  hear  it  hit  by  hit.   Some  New  York  firms  were  building 

highrises  out  here  and  everything  had  to  be  put  on  piling,  steel 
piling,  because  of  the  earthquake  risks,  real  and  imagined,  and 
the  need  to  have  an  ultra- firm  foundation.   And  they  had  a  pile 
driver  that  was  nicknamed  Alfred  the  Monster  that  knocked  in  the 
piles. 


Hicke: 


Nicknamed  by  you? 


146 


Heilbron:   No,  no.   I  don't  know  who  labeled  it.   It  Bade  so  much  noise 

that  they  had  to  dismiss  employees  on  the  other  side  of  Sutter 
Street  at  four  o'clock.   Office  workers  couldn't  take  a  whole 
day.   And  it  was  pounding  all  the  time.   I  believe  it  went  into 
night  work  at  a  fairly  early  period  in  order  to  try  to  reduce 
the  daytime  use,  but  in  any  event  it  made  such  a  racket  and  was 
so  disconcerting  that  when  its  work  was  done,  there  was  a  great 
celebration  at  the  intersection. 

Hicke:  [laughter)   Outside? 

Heilbron:  Outside  I 

Hicke:  Oh,  wonderful. 

Heilbron:  To  celebrate  the  death  of  Alfred  the  Monster. 

Hicke:  Beowulf  rides  again! 

Heilbron:   That's  right.   So  then  that  building  went  up,  and  we  moved  into 
44  Montgomery  Street.   The  precise  dates  you'll  have  to  get 
elsewhere . 

Hicke:     I  have  that.   I  think  there  were  two  moves.   You  moved  in  1966. 

Heilbron:   Ve  moved  to  the  fifth  floor  first  and  then  we  moved  to  the 
thirtieth  and  thirty- first  floors.   We  eventually  had  three 
floors  in  44  Montgomery  Street.   Then  old  14  Montgomery  was 
destroyed,  and  a  bank  building  at  just  a  three -floor  level  or 
something  like  that  was  built. 

Hicke:     Did  Alfred-- 

Heilbron:   No,  no!   Alfred  was  innocent  regarding  this  construction.   This 
is  the  new,  low-level  building  at  Market  Street  and  Montgomery. 

Hicke:     Right- -big,  heavy  curtain  around  the  window- - 

Heilbron:   That's  right,  and  it  continued  to  be  the  main  branch  of  Wells 

Fargo  until  Wells  Fargo  Bank  acquired  Crocker,  on  the  other  side 
of  the  street;  then  that  low- level  bank  was  vacated  and  is  now 
otherwise  used,  and  the  big  branch  is  over  at  the  Crocker,  which 
is  a  very  beautiful  building.  The  headquarters  were  moved  to  a 
highrise  on  California  Street  with  part  on  Montgomery  and  part 
on  Sansome . 


Hicke : 


And  so  the  firm  still  was  renting  space  from  Wells  Fargo  Bank? 


147 


Heilbron: 


Hlcke : 


Heilbron: 


No,  the  owners  of  44  Montgomery  were  independent  of  the  bank. 
However,  the  bank  occupied  several  of  the  lower  floors.   So  a 
good  deal  of  the  work  I've  been  talking  about  was  simply 
continued  at  44  Montgomery. 


What  happened  when  clients  came  in  and  Alfred  was  at  work? 
you  remove  to  the  library  or--? 


Did 


Well,  I  think  we  endured.   We  just  endured.   There  was  not  much 
chance  of  escaping  Alfred.   People  would  commiserate.   Now, 
interestingly  enough,  there  were  some  offices  in  14  that  did  not 
hear  Alfred  too  much.   But  most  of  the  offices  had  a  temporary 
problem. 

In  the  long  run,  something  very  important  had  happened, 
driving  much  of  the  building  and  office  changes.  American 
Trust,  with  its  many  branches,  had  merged  with  Wells  Fargo  Bank, 
a  regional  bank  with  national  status.   The  name  of  the  merged 
firm  was  Wells  Fargo  Bank,  continuing  the  image  of  the  pioneer 
and  stagecoach. 


World  Trade  Center 


Heilbron:   One  interesting  thing  that  occurred--!  guess  it  was  the  late 
forties,  after  I  got  back- -was  the  concept  of  a  World  Trade 
Center  at  the  Ferry  Building.   At  the  time  the  Port  of  San 
Francisco  was  operated  by  the  State  of  California,  and  Mr.  Lee 
Cutler,  who  had  been  president  of  the  1939-40  Fair,  now  had 
something  else  to  do  for  the  benefit  of  the  community.   And  he 
felt  the  time  had  come,  particularly  after  the  end  of  the  war, 
when  there  was  a  good  deal  of  talk  about  the  new  global 
community,  that  we  should  share  in  it  with  a  World  Trade  Center. 

He  also  thought  that  the  Ferry  Building  should  have  a  use 
and  proposed  that  the  center  go  there.  The  question  was,  "How 
do  you  get  a  private  center  in  the  Ferry  Building?"  Yes,  one 
that  could  rent  to  import-exporters,  to  foreign  consulates,  and 
to  make  it  like  other  world  trade  centers  are  in  New  York  and 
Chicago. 

So  I  guess  it  was  McAuliffe  who  gave  the  job  to  me  to  work 
out  some  solution.   I  found  that  a  district  was  created  within 
the  state  called  the  San  Jacinto  District,  near  Palm  Springs -- 
which  is  a  mountain  district  with  a  funicular  and  gives  access 
from  desert  to  mountain  top  and  rents  out  certain  of  its 
facilities. 


148 


H 

Hicke:     We  were  talking  about  San  Jacinto. 

Heilbron:  And  using  that  as  a  aodel,  1  developed  a  statute  that  created 

the  World  Trade  Center  and  provided  for  a  facility  that  could  be 
used  for  a  trade  center,  consular  offices,  and  club  with  a 
restaurant. 

Hicke:     So  it's  a  special  state  district? 

Heilbron:   It  Wj0j|  a  special  state  district  or  authority,  and  leases  were 
than  made  by  the  state  to  the  occupants.   Only  one  part  of  the 
Ferry  Building  was  developed  as  a  world  trade  center.   The  other 
part  of  it  has  been  rented  for  professional  (law  firm)  and 
commercial  uses.   But  the  north  wing  is  all  the  World  Trade 
Center. 

Hicke:     Did  that  require  legislation? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  sure. 

Hicke:     So,  you  had  to  go  to  Sacramento  and--? 

Heilbron:   We  had  to  go  to  Sacramento.   Mr.  Dinkelspiel  and  I  went  to 
Sacramento  to  support  the  bill  that  created  the  district  or 
authority  that  created  the  center. 

Hicke:     Did  you  write  the  bill? 

Heilbron:   I  wrote  the  bill,  yes,  but  as  customary  the  state  legislative 
counsel  put  it  in  final  form. 

And  the  state  then  operated  the  Center  and  the  World  Trade 
Club  was  established.   It  has  flourished  ever  since,  but  the 
state  then  transferred  its  functions  to  the  Port  of  San 
Francisco,  so  it's  the  Port  of  San  Francisco  that's  succeeded  to 
the  lease  and  has  thereafter  been  the  lessor. 

But  it  was  an  interesting  and,  I  think,  very  worthwhile 
project. 

Hicke:     Who  was  the  lessee?  Is  there  a  World  Trade  Center  organization? 

Heilbron:   The  Port  of  San  Francisco  is  now  the  lessor  and  the  World  Trade 
Club,  the  import -exports  and  others  are  the  lessees. 


Hicke: 


Was  renovation  involved? 


149 


Heilbron: 
HIcke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 
Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Oh,  yes. 

Vere  you  involved  in  that? 

No,  no.   It's  rather  interesting,  when  you  ask  were  we  involved 
in  that—because  it  was  going  to  be  a  state  district  or 
authority  operating  the  Ferry  Building  that  was  to  be  devoted  to 
a  world  trade  center.   A  district  (authority)  was  created,  and  I 
remember  the  state  legislative  counsel  asked  us  whether  we 
didn't  want  to  have  it  written  in  that  the  district  (authority) 
could  employ  its  own  counsel.   And  we  were  concerned  that  we 
didn't  want  any  idea  floating  around  that  there  was  any  private 
benefit  to  be  obtained  by  people  interested  in  this  bill.  Mr. 
Cutler  wasn't  going  to  be  a  paid  official  or  executive  of  the 
center,  and  we  did  not  want  to  be  written  in  as  or  regarded  as 
potential  counsel.   Because  we  wanted  to  be  sure  that  the  bill 
went  through  without  any  political  ramifications. 

And  so  then  you  did  write  those  provisions  in? 

No,  it  wasn't  necessary. 

Oh,  I  see.   You  didn't  care. 

We  cared  that  the  bill  would  pass. 


Golden  Gateway 


Heilbron:   Then  I  got  involved  with  the  Golden  Gateway  project.   This  was  a 
matter  of  competitive  bids  to  build  the  Golden  Gateway 
residential  area,  a  program  for  redevelopment  near  the 
Embarcadero  in  downtown  San  Francisco.   A  number  of  top 
development  teams  entered  the  competition.   I  represented  a 
group  led  by  James  H.  Scheuer  of  New  York,  who  assembled  a  team 
of  the  Tishman  Realty  organization,  the  Cahill  Construction 
Company,  John  Uarnecke,  the  architect,  landscaping  specialists, 
and  others  under  the  rubric  of  Tishman  Cahill  Renewal 
Associates.   Scheuer  was  really  the  moving  party,  as  an 
authority  on  housing  and  an  experienced  developer  in  the  field. 
He  later  became  a  congressman,  an  office,  I  believe,  he  still 
holds . 

In  any  event,  he  engaged  me  and  the  Renewal  Associates 
competed. 


Hicke : 


You  put  in  a  bid  for-- 


150 


Heilbron:   I  was  the  counsel  for  this  joint  venture;  later  Cap  Weinberger 
joined  me.   And  this  was  the  time  when  Justin  Herman  was  the 
development  director  in  San  Francisco. 

Hicke:     And  it  was  the  city  that  was  putting  out  the  bids? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  the  city  had  condemned  the  old  produce  district  and  the 
land  thus  acquired  was  put  out  for  purchase  and  redevelopment. 
It  took  a  good  deal  of  money  just  to  enter  this  competition, 
because  designs  and  models  had  to  be  made,  costs  and  finances 
projected,  and  so  on.   Over  sixteen  acres  were  involved  in  this 
planned  residential  area. 

Front-runners  in  the  competition  were  Kern  County  Land 
Company  and  Del  E.  Webb  Construction  Company,  Perini-San 
Francisco  Associates  (including  Perini  Land  and  Development 
Company,  Fleishhacker  Company,  architects  Wurster,  Bernard! ,  and 
Emmons,  among  others),  and  our  team. 

There  were  written  proposals,  a  formal  public  presentation, 
negotiations  on  the  financial  aspects.   Design  was  a  primary 
factor,  but  the  financial  consideration  was  also  very  important. 

The  design  competition  was  very  close  between  the  Perini 
Associates  and  the  Tishman  Cahill  Associates- -their  respective 
combinations  of  highrises,  range  of  apartments,  town  houses,  and 
landscaping.   Finally,  the  award  was  made  to  Perini  and 
Associates. 

Hicke:     The  award  was  primarily  on  the  design? 

Heilbron:  Well,  yes,  though  someone  said  they  took  our  buildings  and  put 
in  their  landscaping  or  took  our  landscaping  and  put  in  their 
buildings . 

Hicke:     [laughing] 

Heilbron:   That,  I'm  sure,  is  exaggerated,  but  I  do  believe  some  of  our 
architectural  elements  were  ultimately  incorporated.   I  know 
they  added  architects  after  the  award.   But  that  is  not  the 
whole  of  the  story. 

Hicke:     What  remains? 

Heilbron:   The  financial  aspect,  which  the  Redevelopment  Agency  admitted 

did  pose  some  issues .   Scheuer  had  proposed  a  scheme  of  reverter 
in  favor  of  the  city:  that  is,  after  forty  years,  the  land  and 
improvements  (after  development)  would  revert  to  the  city, 
subject  to  an  option  to  the  developer  to  repurchase  the  land  at 


151 


the  then-market  value  for  a  new  holding  for  thirty- five  to 
fifty-nine  years,  at  the  expiration  of  which  the  land  and 
inprovenents  would  finally  revert  to  the  city  for  further  sale 
or  disposition.   It  was  quite  an  innovative  proposal,  with  a  lot 
of  built-in  gain  for  San  Francisco,  both  at  the  end  of  forty 
years  and  later. 

But  the  agency  stated  that  it  could  not  consider  the 
proposal  because  it  was  outside  the  ground  rules,  though  the 
concept  was  worth  study  for  some  future  competition.  Yet  the 
ground  rules  listed  the  financial  or  business  consideration  as 
one  of  the  criteria. 

Hicke:     Mr.  [Art]  Agnos  might  not  have  some  of  the  problems  he  has  now 
if  that  had  been-- 

Heilbron:   I'm  afraid  he  would  not  have  been  helped,  because  the 

competition  was  in  1960  and  forty  years  reach  into  2000.   But 
some  future  mayor  and  the  city  might  have  been  made  very  happy. 
One  of  the  agency  commissioners  told  me  that  he  was  very  much 
upset  at  not  giving  the  Scheuer  proposal  full  consideration 
since  he  felt  the  design  competition  was  so  close. 

Hicke:     What  was  the  attitude  of  the  Scheuer,  Tishman,  et  cetera,  team? 

Heilbron:   Even  if  there  was  a  legal  issue,  they  did  not  wish  to  contest. 
They  had  national  reputations  and  did  not  want  to  be  seen  as 
protesting  losers. 


1200  California  Street 


Heilbron:   I  got  involved  with  1200  California  Street- -you  know  that  large 
apartment  house?  Tishman  as  developer  employed  us,  established 
the  cooperative  that  was  going  to  be  developed  to  operate  the 
apartment  house. 

It  was  an  interesting  project  with  1200  California  Street. 
The  Tishmans  were  used  to  cooperative  programs,  that  is, 
cooperative  apartment  houses.  New  York,  of  course,  is  full  of 
them.   San  Francisco  has  some  too.  And  we  had  two  big  problems. 

One  of  them,  after  we  got  started,  was  when  an  act  was 
passed  by  the  State  of  California  authorizing  condominiums  for 
apartment  developments.   The  question  was  whether  to  turn  over 
the  project  to  condominiums  or  to  continue  as  a  cooperative. 
The  determination  was  made  to  continue  as  a  cooperative. 


Hlcke: 


152 


The  other  problem  was  that  in  the  old  Hillcrest  apartment 
house  that  had  to  be  torn  down  to  make  way  for  the  highrise, 
Alexis  Tangiers  had  a  three -year  lease.   Nevertheless  the 
property  was  purchased,  and  it  was  decided  to  proceed.   There 
were  three  tenants,  three  big  tenants  still  remaining,  of  this 
apartment  house.   I  think  all  the  other  leases  were  terminable 
without  a  problem,  but  these  people  had  term  leases.   And  two  of 
them  we  were  able  to  negotiate  and  pay  off  on  fair  terms.   But 
Alexis  wanted  a  lot  of  money.   We  had  quite  a  time  with  him,  but 
we  finally  paid  a  sufficient  amount  for  him  to  go  into  that 
fancy  restaurant  property  opposite  the  Mark  Hopkins  Hotel,  which 
was  prime  restaurant  property  on  Nob  Hill,  and  we  paid  for  the 
whole  remodeling  and  putting  that  restaurant  into  shape. 

I  hope  you  got  a  chance  to  eat  there  occasionally! 


Heilbron:  We  had  one  celebration!  Alexis  gave  us  a  celebration  dinner 
after  he  opened  his  new  restaurant. 

Hicke:     With  him  was  it  just  a  matter  of  talking  and  trying  out 
different  ideas? 

Heilbron:   He  had  a  going  restaurant  in  the  basement  in  the  old  Hillcrest 
apartment  house,  and  it  was  far  better  for  him  to  get  this  new 
place.   It  was  necessary  for  us  to  build  1200  and  begin  selling 
as  soon  as  possible.   So,  as  always,  when  there's  enlightened 
self-interest  on  both  sides,  you  can  come  to  a  deal. 

Hicke:     That's  an  interesting  thing  to  remember. 


Petrillo:  Educating  the  Client 


Heilbron:   So  I  don't  know  what  other  things  might  be  of  interest.   I  had  a 
client  who  was  a  very  well-known  musician.   Internationally.   He 
had  a  problem  with  Petrillo,  who  was  the  czar  of  the  music 
union.   It  had  to  do  with  the  interpretation  and  application  of 
one  of  the  provisions  in  the  union  rules,  which  applied  to  this 
client.   And  it  was  a  provision  affecting  the  obligation  to  use 
union  orchestras  in  recording. 

I  had  heard  on  good  authority  that  Petrillo  hated  attorneys 
and  if  he  [the  musician]  came  in  with  his  attorney,  we  were 
through.  He  wouldn't  give  in.  He  wouldn't. 

There  were  two  interpretations  possible  with  this  rule. 
And  also  particularly  as  applied  to  this  client,  because  of 


153 


arrangements  that  had  been  made  long  before  the  rules  had  been 
adopted  by  the  union,  there  was  a  good  defense;  but  it  was  an 
arguable  proposition  both  ways.   If  Petrillo  felt  that  it  was 
worth  disciplining  a  well-known  man  and  it  would  yield  a  good 
deal  of  publicity  in  a  lawsuit,  he  would  have  been  willing  to  do 
it. 

I  realized  there  was  nothing  to  be  gained  by  my  going  with 
the  musician  to  New  York.   So  for  one  hour  and  a  half  over  the 
phone,  I  explored  every  possible  question  Petrillo  could 
possibly  ask  and  groomed  the  client  to  be  in  effect  his  own 
amiable  lawyer.  And  it  worked! 

An  exemption  was  granted.   And  one  of  the  reasons,  I  felt, 
was  that  Petrillo,  particularly  if  a  person  was  well  known, 
wanted  that  person  to  meet  with  him  on  equal  terms.   And  if  he 
did  that  and  was  cooperative,  that  would  satisfy  him.   And  it 
was  probably  the  right  way  to  handle  the  particular  situation. 

Hicke:     As  you  were  saying  before,  "Know  your  opponent." 

Heilbron:   Some  administrative  agencies  don't  want  to  deal  with  attorneys, 
and  sometimes  if  you've  got  the  right  client,  you  can,  through 
the  process  of  education,  help  that  client  to  deal  directly  with 
the  agency  and  come  out  better  than  if  an  attorney  were  present 
at  a  hearing. 

Now  this  next  situation  occurred  during  the  [Senator 
Joseph]  McCarthy  period.   I  represented  a  doctor  who  was  a 
liberal  and  contributed  to  liberal  causes  and  so  on,  but  somehow 
the  medical  administration- -what  is  it,  the  California  Medical 
Association,  I  guess?- -got  complaints  and  they  were  citing  him. 

I  think  the  only  way  they  could  get  at  him  was  to  effect 
withdrawal  of  his  veteran's  hospital  privileges,  in  other  words, 
payment  for  his  services  would  cease. 

But  professional  authorities  and  government  people  were 
Just  as  much  under  the  climate  of  fear  as  the  people  who  were 
appearing  before  them- -they  wanted  to  show  that  they  were  100 
percent  patriotic  Americans  in  judging  people  who  came  before 
them- -and  it  took  people  of  real  character  to  stand  up  and  be 
counted. 

• 

A  lot  of  the  action  or  decision  depended  on  the  evidence 
that  was  submitted  before  them,  and  so  if  a  client  was  careful 
in  presenting  his  testimony --sure,  truthful  testimony  it  had  to 
be ,  but  he  should  answer  the  questions  and  not  go  into  a  long 
dissertation  of  his  philosophic  beliefs  if  they  weren't  asked 


154 


for- -he  had  a  much  better  chance  than  the  person  who  was  going 
to  talk  too  much. 

And  that  was  another  situation  where  consulting  with  and 
educating  the  client  benefited  bin  when  he  made  his  appearance. 
And  he  was  adjudged  not  guilty,  if  that's  the  phrase  to  use,  or 
not  in  violation  of  some  ethical  or  loyalty  program  that  had 
been  developed  during  that  period.  Not  that  he  should  have  been 
up  there  at  all.   It  was  a  disgrace  that  he  was  up  there. 

I  guess  what  I'm  saying  is  that  there  are  times  when  a 
client  can  benefit  from  a  lawyer's  counsel  and  in  effect  appear 
without  counsel  and  be  successful. 

Hicke:     That's  really  interesting.   Educating  the  client  is  one  of  the 
aspects  of  law  practice  that  is  lesser  known,  perhaps,  but 
surely  important. 

Heilbron:   I  would  say  that  when  a  person  comes  to  a  lawyer,  ordinarily  he 
needs  the  services,  the  professional  services,  of  a  lawyer.   The 
usual  procedure  of  an  attorney  at  a  hearing  involving  his  or  her 
client  is  to  see  to  it  that  unfair  questions  are  not  asked  or 
the  client  is  not  compelled  to  answer  them  and  mainly  that  the 
client  present  his  own  case  in  a  simple,  direct  manner. 

But  when  you've  got  a  situation  at  an  informal 
administrative  hearing,  where  the  directness  of  the  client  is 
respected  and  where  the  legal  issue  is  not  complex,  and  where 
the  client  can  express  himself  graciously  and  will,  maybe  you 
should  let  him  do  it  without  your  presence. 

Hicke:     Did  you  ever  have  cases  where- -matters,  1  should  say- -where  some 
preliminary  advice  or  research  or  knowledge  on  your  part 
prevented  a  problem,  headed  off  trouble? 

Heilbron:   Oh,  I  think  that  consultation  with  lawyers  results  in  the 

prevention  of  as  many  problems  as  are  litigated  or  where  there 
is  controversy.   Yes,  I  think  that  one  of  the  biggest  duties  of 
a  lawyer  is  to  guide  his  client  into  paths  that  will  not  lead 
him  into  unnecessary  controversy. 

Hicke:     Do  you  recall  any  specific  examples  of  that? 

Heilbron:   Oh,  it  happens  so  often  that  a  person  is  unhappy  with  an 

employee,  and  he's  going  to  discharge  this  person  and  then  finds 
out  that,  no  matter  what  he  says,  he  hasn't  got  a  record  to 
justify  it. 


155 


By  so  advising  him,  you  have  prevented  an  unnecessary  and 
costly  act.   Sometimes  partners  may  have  a  falling  out.   And  one 
will  come  to  his  lawyer  and  in  the  end,  he'll  get  in  touch  with 
the  other  lawyer  and  solve  that  situation  before  it  breaks  out. 
So  I  think  that  certainly  a  good  deal  of  law  prevents 
unnecessary  controversy. 


A  Settlement .  a  Development .  and  the  Prime 


Heilbron:   I  had  a  number  of  divorce  settlements  during  the  early  practice 
of  the  law,  and  one  of  them  involved  a  prominent  doctor  and  his 
wife  who  was  also  a  doctor.   It  wasn't  so  much  the  grounds  for 
divorce  which  we  were  certainly  able  to  prove,  but  the  division 
of  the  community  property  that  took  the  time  and  the  trouble. 

Hicke:     Which  one  did  you  represent? 

Heilbron:   I  represented  the  wife.   I  had  represented  both  of  them  prior  to 
their  divorce,  but  he  got  his  own  attorney  in  this  matter.   And 
they  were  splendid  people. 

Hicke:     Did  you  take  the  case  because  you  had  represented  them  before  in 
other  matters? 

Heilbron:   Well,  when  the  unhappiness  developed,  the  wife  came  to  me  and 

asked  if  I  would  take  it.  And  I  did.   For  a  time,  I  think  they 
wanted  me  to  represent  both  of  them,  which  was  impossible.   The 
interesting  part  of  that  settlement  was  the  wine  cellar.   The 
husband,  who  was  a  wine  expert,  had  a  cellar  that  was  equal  to 
the  best  in  the  city.   It  probably  was  the  second  best  in  the 
city,  after  the  Bohemian  Club.   The  question  was  dividing  it. 
Of  course  I  enjoyed  a  little  wine,  but  I  was  not  expert. 

The  other  attorney  and  I  and  the  doctor  went  down  to  the 
cellar  in  his  home.   I  suggested,  "Let's  begin  by  dividing  the 
labels.   If  the  labels  are  identical,  I'll  take  my  chances  that 
they  are  both  getting  equal  values."   So  a  great  deal  was 
transferred  in  that  way.   But  then  we  got  to  a  number  of  bottles 
where  there  were  not  two  of  a  kind,  and  it  was  not  going  to  be  a 
case  of  Noah's  Ark  anymore,  and  we  had  to  decide  on  equal 
values.   There  were  some  stray  bottles  of  fine  wine  that  came 
within  that  category. 

So  there  was  a  long  aisle  in  this  wine  cellar,  and  I  asked 
the  husband  if  he  would  be  able  to  arrange  the  bottles  in  two 


156 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


equal-valued  lines.   He  said,  of  course!   So  he  vent  to  the 
trouble  of  moving  the  wine  bottles,  and  incidentally  this  had  to 
be  done  two  or  three  times  because  of  the  number  of  bottles  in 
the  length  of  the  aisle.   And  he  said,  "That's  about  it."  And  I 
said,  "Now,  would  you  be  willing  to  take  either  line?" 

Oh,  very  good! 

And  he  said,  "Veil,  now,  wait  a  minute!"  He  changed  some 
bottles,  and  then  I  said,  "Now  do  you  think  they  are  equal?" 
And  he  said,  "Well,  I  think  they  are  about  as  equal  as  I  can 
possibly  make  them."   1  said,  "Now  would  you  be  willing  to  throw 
a  coin  to  see  who  gets  which  line?" 


Oh,  terrific! 

He  said  yes  he  would, 
cellar. 


And  that's  the  way  we  divided  the  wine 


It's  too  bad  they  didn't  ask  you  to  taste  some  of  it  to  check  it 
out. 

Veil,  after  the  wine  cellar  was  divided,  the  wife  very  kindly 
gave  me  a  pretty  good  box  of  the  better  wines  that  had  been 
agreed  upon  as  going  to  her. 

I  told  you  about  the  Alexis  transaction? 
Right. 

An  interesting  law  suit  that  Mr.  Tenney  and  1  had  relates  to  a 
restaurant  in  San  Francisco  that  is  called  the  House  of  Prime 
Rib.   A  distant  cousin  by  marriage  owned  Lawry's  in  Los  Angeles. 
And  Lawry's  owned  the  place  called  The  Prime  Rib.   The  Prime  Rib 
was  derived  from  Simpson's  of  London.   That  is,  Mr.  Frank, 
Lawrence  Frank,  owner  of  Lawry's,  had  gone  over  to  London  on 
vacation  and  had  eaten  at  Simpson's  and  was  fascinated  by  the 
way  they  served  their  roast  beef  from  the  carts.   So  he  adapted 
this  kind  of  arrangement  for  Los  Angeles ,  and  it  for  years  has 
been  one  of  the  leading  restaurants  there. 

Veil,  one  of  his  employees  left  him  and  came  up  here  and 
developed  a  relationship  with  some  very  good  people  whom  I  knew 
personally,  and  they  put  up  a  restaurant  on  Van  Ness  Avenue  and 
called  It  The  Prime  Rib. 

This  is  The  House  of  Prime  Rib? 
"THE"  Prime  Rib. 


157 


Hlcke:     Oh,  they  called  It  The  Prime  Rib? 

Heilbron:   And  the  menus  were  taken  from,  practically  copied  in  substance 

and  fora  fron,  the  Los  Angeles  operation  on  the  same  kind  of  big 
wooden  board  menus.  And  even  the  little  greenery  outside  of  the 
restaurant,  the  hedges,  were  arranged  like  the  ones  down  there. 

The  food  was  good.   It  was  pretty  well  copied.   But  the  Los 
Angeles  people,  who  had  spent  a  great  deal  of  money  in 
advertising  their  operations,  did  not  feel  this  was  a  fair 
matter,  and  they  wanted  to  enjoin  the  operation  or  at  least  the 
name  of  the  place.   They  couldn't  enjoin  cooking  of  prime  rib  or 
anything  of  that  kind. 

So  we  went  to  court  on  it.   Our  big  precedent  was  one  that 
was  decided  several  years  before:  the  Stork  Club  in  New  York, 
which  also  did  a  lot  of  advertising  and,  as  you  know,  was  a 
primary  entertainment  center  in  New  York,  found  out  that  a 
little  bistro  on  Fillmore  Street  was  calling  itself  the  Stork 
Club,  and  they  felt  that  if  the  cat  got  on  the  chair,  it  might 
get  on  the  table;  they  were  going  after  this  little  operation. 
They  brought  an  injunction  suit  against  this  little  bistro,  the 
Stork  Club  in  San  Francisco,  lest  their  wonderful  operation  in 
New  York  should  be  misconstrued  as  having  a  partner  in  San 
Francisco  of  such  a  low  caliber,  and  they  won  their  suit. 

Well,  we  had  a  better  case  than  that!   This  was  no  bistro 
on  Van  Ness  Avenue,  this  was  a  restaurant  seeking  wide 
patronage.   People  did  think  that  the  Los  Angeles  operation  had 
simply  established  another  branch  here  and  that  they  were 
advertising  for  their  own  branch  restaurant.   Therefore,  Los 
Angeles  wanted  to  enjoin  the  use  of  the  name. 

Hicke:     Now,  you  were  representing  the  Los  Angeles  restaurant? 
Heilbron:   Oh,  yes.   After  all  it  was  an  extended  part  of  my  family. 
Hicke:     Yes. 

Heilbron:  And  so  we  went  to  court.   I  think  Judge  Milton  Sapiro  was  our 
judge.   Both  sides  put  in  evidence.   The  argument  against  us 
was:  how  could  you  do  anything  with  "Prime  Rib"?   It's  a  phrase, 
it's  a  description;  you  can't  have  an  ownership  of  that  kind  of 
a  phrase  or  title.   But  there  was  that  little  big  article, 
"The."  The  judge  suggested  that  word,  in  the  context,  stood  for 
something  and  could  be  protected.  And  he  expressed  having 
trouble  with  the  copying  pattern.   So  the  defendants  proposed  a 
settlement  that  would  involve  changing  their  name  to  House  of 
Prime  Rib.   The  "The"  would  remain  proud  and  alone  with  Los 


Hlcke : 


158 


Angeles.   Also,  new  and  distinctive  measures  of  operation  would 
be  adopted  In  San  Francisco.   Our  client  accepted. 

Louis,  those  two  last  cases  would  have  made  a  nice  combination, 
a  little  prime  rib  with  your  bottles  of  wine!   [laughter] 


Hellbron:   Right! 


KOED  and  th«  Tc 


Hellbron:   Now  about  KQED  and  the  sky-piercing  TV  tower.   KQED  and  other 
stations  had  their  broadcasting  apparatus  on  Mount  San  Bruno 
which  Is,  I  presume,  In  Daly  City  and  Is  a  small  mountain,  but 
of  sufficient  size  to  have  enabled  them  to  broadcast 
successfully  for  a  number  of  years.   But  to  take  advantage  of  a 
greatly  expanded  area  of  reception,  the  large  broadcasting 
organizations  wanted  a  better  facility,  and  they  settled  on 
Mount  Sutro.   So  a  corporation  was  formed  to  develop  and  own  the 
facility  and  then  lease  the  arms  on  which  the  broadcasting 
apparatus  was  hung,  and  the  big  stations  agreed.   But  in  order 
for  the  project  to  be  approved  from  a  federal  communications 
standpoint,  they  needed  one  or  two  additional  hang-ons.   Public 
television  was  considered  to  be  the  key  to  this  arrangement. 
KQED,  at  first,  opposed  the  whole  concept.   It  felt  that  Mt. 
Sutro  should  be  left  in  Its  natural  state,  and  there  was 
considerable  feeling  that  it  was  on  the  "right  side"  of  civic 
pride  and  the  environment. 

But  it  looked  rather  clearly  that  this  tower  was  going  to 
be  built.   I  advised  the  president  to  make  an  issue  of  this 
matter. 

Hicke:     The  president  of  KQED? 

Heilbron:   KQED.   His  name  was  Dick  [Richard]  Moore.   We  brought  It  before 
the  board  of  directors,  pointing  out  that  everybody's  antenna 
was  going  to  be  pointed  in  certain  directions  from  the  high 
tower,  and  ours  would  be  going  in  another  direction  If  we  didn't 
change.  At  least  it  appeared  that  it  would  be  much  more 
difficult  to  receive  KQED  on  an  ordinary  set  after  the  tower  was 
built  and  functioning  if  KQED  still  maintained  the  San  Bruno 
broadcasting  facility.  And  that  it  was  important  for  the 
survival  of  this  station  to  make  the  transfer.   The  project  was 
going  to  be  completed  irrespective  of  KQED,  some  acceptable 
broadcaster  would  be  found,  and  there  was  no  use  tilting  at 
windmills;  in  particular,  we  had  better  get  our  own  windmill 


159 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke : 


going  to  be  sure  that  we  had  the  benefit  of  not  only  the  high 
tower  but  of  the  much  larger  area  for  communication  that  the 
high  tower  would  make  possible.  The  name  of  the  law  firm 
representing  the  tower  was  Cooper,  White  &  Cooper,  located  in 
the  SUM  building  that  we  occupied.  There  was  a  time  pressure 
too  on  the  whole  thing.   I  can't  give  you  the  details  on  the 
negotiations  for  our  going  on  the  tower,  but  we  were  quite 
important  at  the  time,  and  we  got  the  most  phenomenal  deal  with 
respect  to  rental,  compared  with  what  commercial  television  had 
to  pay,  and  all  the  other  commercial  people  agreed  to  it,  which 
was  good  for  the  city. 

Because  it  was  a  public  station? 

Yes.   As  a  public  station,  we  were  important  for  them  to  have, 
but  we  didn't  have  the  money  to  pay  the  same  competitive  price, 
and  our  percentage  was  pretty  low  for  both  Channel  9  and  Channel 
32  as  well.   And  we  had  a  long-term  lease.   What  the  situation 
now  is,  I  don't  know,  because  the  lease  probably  has  come  up  for 
renewal  in  recent  years.   But  there  was  no  doubt  the  station 
gained  a  great  deal  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  don't  think  it 
would  be  near  the  station  that  it  now  is  if  it  had  remained  on 
San  Bruno.   I  wonder  whether  it  could  have  been  financially 
maintained.   Well! 


What  were  the  other  stations  paying?  Do  you  have  any  idea? 
also  can  you  tell  me  approximately  when  it  all  took  place? 


And 


The  commercial  stations  were  paying  a  great  deal  more  than  KQED, 
but  I  can't  give  you  the  figures.   The  agreement  to  go  on  the 
tower  was  made  in  1970.   The  tower  was  almost  finished  when  Dick 
Moore  came  up  to  my  office  for  some  other  legal  advice ,  and  my 
office  in  44  Montgomery  had  somewhat  the  same  view  that  you  are 
looking  out  on  now. 

We  are  looking  out  now  with  a  nice  view  of  the  Sutro  Tower. 

That's  right,  but  ours  was  over  farther  and  so  the  tower  was 
more  in  evidence  from  my  window.   And  we  looked  at  that,  and 
there  was  the  rest  of  the  city  with  its  contours  still  intact, 
and  there  was  this  tower,  and  I  said  to  Dick,  "My  God,  did  we  do 
that?"   [laughter]   Because  it  doesn't  add  too  much 
architecturally  to  the  skyline,  though  sometimes  it  seems  to 
disappear.  And  of  course,  on  foggy  nights,  you  can't  see  it  at 
all. 

Well,  I  find  it  an  intriguing  part  of  the  skyline,  because  very 
often  the  fog  comes  in  and  you  can  see  the  tip  of  it  above  the 
fog.   Or  sometimes  you  can  see  the  tip  of  it  and  part  way  down 


160 


and  then  the  rest  of  the  whole  hill  is  covered,  so  you  just  get 
this  view  of  the  top  of  the  tower. 

Heilbron:   But  not  as  mysterious  as  the  Golden  Gate  Bridge  partially  hidden 
by  fog! 

Veil,  in  ay  past,  among  other  things  I  did  for  the  Vorld 
Affair*  Council,  one  was  to  moderate  a  program  on  international 
relation*  for  them- -I  guess  it  was  the  late  fifties- -and  at  that 
time  there  were  no  panel  discussions  on  international  relations 
from  the  networks.   There  were  none  in  the  city  sponsored  by 
anyone.   KQED  gave  us  free  time.  We  broadcast  at  6:00  on 
Sundays  and  7:00  prime  time.   It  shows  what  the  difference  is, 
in  the  growth  of  public  interest  in  international  affairs,  in 
the  following  that  top  panelists  have  developed  in  such  programs 
as  Washington  Week  in  Review.   Not  that  our  programs  were 
comparable,  although  we  did  try  to  get  the  most  important 
international  visitors  passing  through  the  city  and  interview 
them  with  the  panel.  And  1  would  go  up  there  to  Mt.  Sutro  on 
nights  when  I  couldn't  find  my  way  on  the  streets,  let  alone  see 
where  the  station  was. 

Hicke:  [laughter] 

Heilbron:  So  1  know  what  it  is  to  get  there  on  a  foggy  night. 

Hicke :  Sure . 

Heilbron:  But  of  course   it  worked  very  well. 

Hicke:  Then  they  abandoned  their  San  Bruno  Mountain- - 

Heilbron:  Oh,   yes. 

Hicke:     There  is  something  still  up  there.   Some  other  television 

station  took  it  over  for  a  while,  I  guess.   And  now  1  think  the 
whole  thing  is  empty,  but-- 

Heilbron:  Well,  what  they  did  with  it,  whether  they  sold  it  or  how  they 
transferred  it,  I  don't  know,  that  went  into  the  past. 


Power  in  Bureaucracy 


Heilbron:   I  don't  know  whether  this  is  of  interest  or  not,  but  I  refer  to 
my  interest  in  ER1SA,  the  act  under  which  profit-sharing  and 
pension  plans  were  authorized  and  established  when  you  had  to 


161 


apply  and  Beet  the  conditions  of  the  federal  government.   I  was 
quite  active  in  this  field  in  the  early  1970s.   I've  touched 
upon  that. 

But  a  person  by  the  name  of  Goodman,  can't  remember  his 
first  name,  was  the  head  of  a  minor  agency  in  the  federal 
government  that  was  created  to  handle  all  of  these  applications 
for  profit  sharing  and  pensions.   And  he  would  give  speeches 
around  the  country  when  new  regulations  were  issued.  His 
speeches  were  most  technical,  occupying  maybe  ten  to  twelve 
pages  of  print.   You  could,  by  studying  them,  understand  him, 
but  when  you  heard  them  you  took  notes  as  well  as  you  could  and 
then  you  just  waited  for  the  publication  to  come  out.   1  went 
back  to  meet  Mr.  Goodman  in  Washington  about  one  of  our  pending 
plans,  and  he  had  a  very  modest  office.   He  put  out,  oh  I  don't 
know,  he  must  have  given  close  to  thirty  major  speeches  which 
encompassed  the  major  regulations.   It  suddenly  dawned  upon  some 
of  us  that  this  unknown  man  was  dealing  in  operations  involving 
millions  and  millions --perhaps  billions- -of  dollars  in  the  set 
up  of  all  these  pension  plans  throughout  the  United  States  and 
this  was  a  hardly  known  bureaucrat. 

Hicke:     Talk  about  power! 

Heilbron:   I  believe  someone  picked  up  the  story  and  wrote  a  magazine 
article  about  it.   But  it  amazed  me. 

Well,  finally  I  may  refer  to  a  recollection  I  have  in  labor 
negotiations.   It  was  when  the  Teamsters  and  the  big  trucking 
industries- -and  we  represented  P. I.E.  (Pacific  Intermountain 
Express) - -wanted  a  certain  amendment  to  a  statute  that  clarified 
the  extent  of  a  permissible  trucking  route,  that  is  how  long  a 
route  you  could  give  an  individual  driver  or  drivers.   I  was  to 
go  up  to  the  Fairmont  Hotel  where  the  Teamsters  were  staying, 
and  the  Fairmont  Tower  was  fairly  new  at  the  time .   I  went  up 
almost  to  the  top  floor  in  the  tower  and  knocked  on  the  door 
number  I  was  given.   That  opened  up  into  just  a  magnificent 
suite ,  and  there  were  all  kinds  of  goodies  around  in  the  way  of 
hors  d'oeuvres,  liquor,  and  so  forth.  It  was  a  most  enjoyable 
conference.   I  was  so  struck  by  the  room,  I  think  they  had  two 
rooms  together,  that  I  think  I  found  out  that  that  suite  then 
cost  $38.00.   Now- - 

Hicke:     Oh  no!   Now  this  must  have  been  in  the  early  seventies,  because 
Pacific  Intermountain  Express  came  with  Paul  Wolf-- 

Heilbron:   That's  right. 

Hicke:     And  didn't  he  come  back  to  the  firm  in  1959  maybe? 


162 


Heilbron:   Yes,  because  Mr.  Dinkelspiel  was  alive  when  he  cane  back. 
Hicke:     So  maybe  this  was  the  sixties? 

Heilbron:   Now  of  course  I  would  have  to  check  on  that  dollar  price  if  that 
ever  became  an  important  item! 

Hicke:     That's  truly  amazing. 

Heilbron:   I  think  those  are  the  items  that  would  be  anecdotal  that  you 
might  be  interested  in. 


Legal  Work  Over  the  Years 


Hicke:     Tell  me  how  your  work  with  the  firm  evolved  over  the  years. 
Heilbron:   I  am  afraid  that  this  may  involve  some  repetition. 

Hicke:     That's  okay,  especially  if  you  include  a  comparison  of  the 
modern  firm  with  the  firm  you  entered. 

Heilbron:   I  think  I  mentioned  that  in  the  1930s,  the  associates  did  a  bit 
of  everything.   There  were  wills  and  trusts,  bank  problems, 
contracts,  occasional  trials,  foreclosures  unfortunately  on 
mortgage -secured  loans.   And  incidentally,  at  that  time  Eleanor 
Roosevelt  would  write  letters  to  either  the  bank  or  the 
attorneys  if  she  had  received  appeals  from  people  whose  land  was 
at  risk  and  the  mortgage  was  about  to  be  foreclosed,  and  for 
some  of  these,  when  you  referred  to  the  letter,  the  bank  would 
give  further  time  to  look  at  the  situation  again,  and  Mrs. 
Roosevelt's  intervention  was  interesting,  unusual,  and 
frequently  effective. 

The  trust  department  of  Wells  Fargo  was  very  strong--! 
think  the  best  of  any  of  the  banks  in  San  Francisco.   But  I 
believe  I  mentioned  that  during  the  Lipman  era,  they  had  to  take 
up  anything  involving  a  possible  legal  question  with  their 
attorneys .   So  we  saw  a  great  deal  of  the  trust  officers  in 
important  and  unimportant  matters. 

We  had  occasional  claims  in  bankruptcy.   There  was  a  great 
amount  of  legal  research.   I  talked  about  the  government 
alphabet  agencies  and  the  Japanese  situation.   Ue  organized 
corporations  and  partnerships  and  we  were  very  active  in  the 
probate  of  estates,  because  almost  every  step  in  probate  in 
those  days  had  to  be  taken  before  the  court,  even  if  the  matters 


163 


were  uncontested.  There  were  occasional  divorces  and 
settlements.   We  did  not  take  divorces  even  then  that  were 
contested  divorces,  except  possibly  for  a  long-term  client,  but 
we  did  negotiate  property  settlements.   There  was  a  certain 
amount  of  litigation  to  which  I  alluded  before;  there  was  a  good 
deal  of  business  counseling. 

Hicke:     When  did  you  make  partner? 

Heilbron:   I  made  partner  in  1948.   Of  course  I  had  gone  through  a  time  in 
the  1930s  when  I  had  a  part-time  arrangement  with  the  Relief 
Administration  and  Department  of  Social  Welfare,  which  the  firm 
was  kind  enough  to  allow  me  to  keep.   When  I  came  back  from 
World  War  II,  I  gave  up  everything  outside. 

Hicke:     I  see. 

Heilbron:   And  so  I  was  made  a  partner  within  a  couple  of  years,  January  of 
1948.   Of  course  in  those  days  partnership  was  a  seven-  to  ten- 
year  proposition,  and  in  my  case  much  of  my  work  in  the  thirties 
allowed  for  my  consulting  position  with  the  state. 


Other  Legal  Matters## 


Heilbron:   I  gave  you  an  idea  of  the  people  for  whom  I  had  done  labor  work. 
Now,  during  the  1960s  and  until  my  retirement,  I  think  my  own 
practice  changed  considerably.   I  would  say  that  the  labor 
matters  took  about  a  third  of  the  time.   Other  matters  like  the 
acquisition  of  the  land  and  the  building  and  development  of  a 
cooperative  apartment  house,  and  the  competition  for  the 
Gateway,  and  the  purchase  and  sale  of  businesses,  and  a 
miscellany  of  client  interests  took  the  balance.   I  represented 
Mrs.  Neustadter,  who  had  quite  a  bit  of  real  property  in  San 
Francisco  and  Oakland  that  involved  a  number  of  leases.   In  one 
large  warehouse  lease,  I  fought  quite  hard  to  get  her  the  most 
revenue  I  could  and  to  limit  the  amount  of  construction  work 
required  of  her  to  put  the  premises  in  order,  and  after  the 
lease  was  agreed  upon  with  John  Morrell,  the  president  of  John 
Morrell  said,  "Well,  if  you  can  fight  that  hard  for  that  lady, 
you  can  fight  that  hard  for  us . "  And  so  I  became  the  counsel 
for  John  Morell  in  California. 

Hicke:     Oh,  very  good. 


164 


Hellbron:   Then  there  was  a  New  York  lawyer  by  the  name  of  Feldstein  who 
referred  me  to  a  man  by  the  name  of  Arthur  Laskin,  who  owned 
substantial  properties  here.   I  handled  the  leasing  and  the  sale 
of  those  properties  and-- 


Hicke : 


Commercial  property? 


Heilbron:  Yes,  commercial  properties,  including  a  large  building  on  Market 
Street.  Various  unrelated  matters:  I  got  involved  in  selling  a 
book  to  Walt  Disney  Studios  that  never  was  produced  into  a 
picture,  but  we  certainly  had  a  rather  interesting  negotiation 
with  respect  to  the  terms.   So  it  was  a  varied  practice,  and  of 
course  the  sale  of  Gump's  was  an  important  transaction  involving 
negotiations  with  various  prospective  buyers,  and  the  final  sale 
contract  and  lease  of  the  building  to  the  successful  buyer,  and 
there  were  Richard  Gump's  family  matters.   Mr.  [Yehudi]  Menuhin 
had  professional  property  and  family  matters  that  called  for  a 
good  deal  of  attention  from  the  beginning  of  the  1960s  to 
retirement.   So  about  two  thirds  of  my  time  was  in  what  you 
might  call  "general  practice,"  though  largely  in  real  property 
matters. 

Hicke:     And  was  that  because  of  the  something  of  decline  in  labor 
practice  that  you  were  telling  me  about? 

Heilbron:   In  a  way  that  was.   It  became  clear  that  for  contract 

negotiations,  except  in  the  most  unusual  case,  it  was  better  to 
have  your  relationship  to  the  union  on  as  large  a  scale  of 
representation  as  possible.   So  I  encouraged  clients  to  join 
associations,  and  let  the  association  bargain  for  them.   It  was 
much  less  expensive  for  the  individual  client,  and  the  middle- 
class  client  really  could  not  afford  the  cost  of  a  lawyer's 
negotiation.   Because  as  I  told  you,  they  frequently  were 
dragged  out.   Negotiations  were  dragged  out,  and  if  the  lawyer 
was  going  to  represent  the  client's  interest  properly,  he'd  have 
to  stay  there  until  the  wee  hours,  until  the  agreement  was 
reached.   That  was  one  factor. 

Then  employers  became  more  educated  and  sophisticated  about 
how  to  deal  with  their  personnel.   They  employed  personnel 
directors.   The  personnel  directors  would  tell  them,  "Now  if  you 
are  going  to  have  a  good  work  force  and  one  that  is  not  likely 
to  sign  up  with  the  union,  you'd  better  pay  them  according  to 
what  the  appropriate  scale  should  be."  The  result  was  that  the 
unions  found  it  rather  difficult  in  the  private  area  to  get  a 
majority  of  the  employees  to  join  them.   There  was  a  falling  off 
of  unions  controlling  private  industry.   So  what  developed,  I 
think  after  1974,  was  a  new  area  of  negotiation  in  the 
retirement  programs.   But  many  of  the  employers  had  already 


165 


Hicke: 


installed  retirement  programs,  and  even  that  didn't  succeed  too 
well  from  the  union  standpoint.   In  many  cases,  the  retirement 
program  was  confirmed  in  negotiations ,  but  the  union  wanted  to 
have  the  right  to  negotiate  amendments  to  the  retirement  plan. 
If  they  could  get  the  plan  within  the  collective  bargaining 
agreement,  they  would  be  in  a  better  position  to  do  so. 

I  think  that  in  the  early  1970s ,  the  energies  of  unions 
were  turned  to  public  employees.  Now  they  still  hold  a  number 
of  important  contracts  in  San  Francisco  in  the  retail  industry, 
and  transportation,  hotel,  and  culinary  services  are  very 
important  since  San  Francisco  is  such  a  tourist  city.   My  own 
view  is  that  employers  came  to  the  conclusion  that  maybe  if  they 
paid  higher  wages  and  benefits  and  had  a  relatively  contented 
work  force,  they  could  pass  these  increases  on  to  the  consumer. 
The  consumer  has  solved  many  labor/management  difficulties. 
Instead  of  trying  to  hold  the  price  as  low  as  possible  by  reason 
of  cutting  down  on  labor  costs,  the  employer  said,  "Oh  well." 

Rube  Goldberg,  the  cartoonist,  used  to  draw  a  number  of 
cartoons  where  the  poor  consumer  was  a  little  man  down  in  the 
corner.   And  they  said,  "The  consumer  always  pays."  Well,  that 
idea  has  probably  resulted  in  the  by-pass  of  more  union 
organization  than  any  other  factor. 

Now,  I  mentioned  the  profit-sharing  and  pension  plans. 
Those  really  started  out  as  part  of  labor  work  because  they 
provided  benefits  that  went  to  the  employees.   I  guess  when  I 
started  out,  I  must  have  drawn  about  twenty  plans  for  Ampex, 
Hyatt,  and  others.   I  don't  know  whether  Hyatt  still  uses  it 
nationally,  but  that's  the  way  it  started.   I  guess  all  of  these 
plans  have  undergone  considerable  revision. 

This  would  have  been  after  ERISA? 


Heilbron:   After  ERISA. 
Hicke:     Okay,  1973. 

Heilbron:  As  the  plans  became  more  and  more  technical,  and  as  Mr.  Goodman 
gave  more  and  more  speeches,  it  was  quite  obvious  that  legally 
it  was  more  of  a  tax  matter  than  it  was  a  labor  matter.   While 
Mr.  [Keith]  Betzina  and  I  worked  on  some  together,  ultimately, 
Mr.  Betzina  took  over  that  work,  and  he  had  been  in  the  tax 
department . 

Hicke:     Oh,  I  see. 


166 


Hellbron:   And  so  he  has  handled  those  matters  since.   Let  me  see:  I'll 
finish  with  this  observation.   In  the  labor  field  and  in  the 
department  store  field,  we  sometimes  received  what  would  be 
rather  minor  problems,  and  I  would  give  these  to  associates  to 
work  on.   I  assume  that  some  of  the  associates  would  feel,  "What 
am  I  working  on  this  problem  for?" --some  problem  relating  to 
returned  merchandise,  and  whether  Gump's  should  reimburse  the 
purchase.   But  what  was  not  realized  was  that  Mr.  Gump  had 
called  about  this  question.   He  was  most  interested  in  this 
question. 

Hicke:     This  individual  item  that  was  referred  or  something? 

Heilbron:   This  individual  item  came  to  his  attention,  and  he  considered  it 
to  be  a  policy  matter  with  respect  to  the  firm.   Or  there  had 
been  some  representation  the  salesperson  made,  and  what  really 
was  the  responsibility  of  the  firm  in  connection  with  that 
representation?  Maybe  it  was  outside  that  person's  scope  of 
selling.   In  any  event,  the  individual  item  would  not  be  too 
important.   But  when  the  president  of  the  company  sees  that  his 
law  firm  will  handle  a  minor  matter  and  give  him  an  answer 
within  a  day  or  two,  he  is  inclined  to  continue  his  relationship 
with  that  firm.   And  that  is  something  that  some  of  the  younger 
people  didn't  understand. 


Growth  of  Heller.  Ehrman 


Heilbron:   In  your  other  interviews  of  Heller,  Ehrman  partners,  one  of  them 
said  that  it's  not  the  same  old  firm  of  the  1960s,  and  of  course 
that  is  true.   But  I  think  you'll  find  that  enough  of  it 
survived  to  make  it  a  friendly  and  distinctive  firm.   I'll 
comment  on  this  later.   Then  there  was  some  comment  about  the 
rivalry  between  the  litigators  and  the  corporate  group  and 
whether  if  Lloyd  Dinkelspiel,  Jr.,  had  lived,  the  firm  would  be 
an  entirely  different  operation.   He  and  Julian  Stern  envisioned 
a  greatly  expanded  practice  in  connection  with  the  financing  of 
acquisitions,  joint  ventures,  and  other  enterprises.   I  believe 
that  he  too  had  to  adjust  to  the  trend  or  the  push  of 
litigation.   But  his  view  of  the  importance  of  corporate  and 
nonlitigation  counsel  has  had  a  lasting  effect.   I  think  there 
is  respect  between  the  two  groups.   The  main  point  is  that  you 
have  to  recognize  reality,  and  every  firm  in  San  Francisco  that 
has  a  large  office  has  had  a  tremendous  increase  in  its 
litigation  department.  You  couldn't  resist  that  tide. 


167 


Great  credit  must  be  given  to  M.  Laurence  Popofsky,  Steve 
Bouse,  Curtis  Caton,  and  Weyman  Lundquist  for  building  the 
litigation  department.   Popofsky  has  been  the  clearly 
acknowledged  leader. 

Hicke:     Yes.  An  article  in  one  of  the  legal  newspapers  called  this  firm 
a  litigation-driven  firm.   Which  as  you  said,  probably  most 
firms  are  now.  Would  you  say  that  characterizes  the  firm? 

Heilbron:   Well,  I  think  litigation-driven  suggests  that  is  the  engine  that 
runs  the  automobile.   But  a  tremendous  amount  of  corporate 
counsel  work  goes  on  day  by  day.  And  corporate  relationships 
are  a  source  of  litigation  referrals. 

Hicke:     But  I  think  that  is  a  good  point  that  you  brought  up:  perhaps 
this  mutual  respect  is  left  from  Lloyd  Jr.'s  ideas. 

Heilbron:   It  may  well  be.   It  may  well  be. 

Hicke:     Okay,  that  is  a  good  way  to  look  at  that. 

Heilbron:   Cap  Weinberger  was  in  charge  of  litigation  in  the  early  sixties 
just  prior  to  the  expansion  drive  of  the  new,  young  associates. 
He  was  a  lawyer  of  remarkable  fluency- -even  when  briefed  in  a 
taxicab  on  the  way  to  court.   Though  a  nondr inker,  he  handled 
many  matters  in  the  Alcohol  Beverage  Control  field  for  the 
liquor  interests  the  firm  represented,  such  as  Hiram  Walker. 

He  was  and  is  a  man  of  many  talents .   Cap  moderated  a  TV 
program  on  local  issues  for  KQED  titled  Profile  Bay  Area.   He 
wrote  book  reviews  for  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle.  And  he 
began  his  political  career  in  the  California  State  Assembly  with 
the  support  and  encouragement  of  his  colleagues  in  Heller, 
Ehrman  and  his  able  wife,  Jane. 

Public  service  was  the  life  he  mainly  wanted  to  pursue  and 
ultimately  it  led  to  the  directorship  of  the  California  State 
Department  of  Finance  and  several  positions  of  cabinet  rank 
under  the  Nixon,  Ford,  and  Reagan  administrations,  ending  with 
an  extended,  well-known  period  as  secretary  of  Defense. 
Currently  he  is  publisher  of  Forbes  magazine.  His  national 
status  is  unique  among  those  who  have  been  or  are  members  of  the 
firm. 

Now  let's  get  back  to  other  things.   Oh,  did  you  want  me  to 
indicate  the  people,  the  associates  who  worked  with  me? 

Hicke:     Well,  yes.   I  think  that  would  be  helpful. 


168 


Heilbron:  Well,  some  of  the  associates  who  worked  with  me  on  labor  matters 
were  George  Clyde,  Nancy  Lenvin,  Alvin  Baum,  Von  Eckhart,  even 
Bill  Coblentz  for  a  short  period.  Kit  Kaufman  did  some  work. 
And  there  were  several  others.   Some  became  partners.   Others 
left  for  independent  careers,  Bill  Coblentz  being  specially 
distinguished  in  his  own  firm  and  as  a  regent  of  the  University 
of  California. 

As  I  mentioned  previously,  the  labor  field  interested  all 
of  them.   They  liked  occasionally  to  get  problems  in  this  area, 
although  they  gave  no  indication  that  they  wanted  to  have  a 
complete  practice  in  it.   It  was  very  easy  to  recruit  and  get 
assistance  on  labor  problems. 

Hicke:     Maybe  that  had  something  to  do  with  working  with  Louis? 

Heilbron:   No,  I  think  the  field  was  the  interesting  part.   It  also  arose 
from  the  fact  that  we  were  then  a  smaller  firm.   For  quite  some 
time  if  you  had  a  problem  where  you  needed  assistance,  it  was 
possible  simply  to  recruit  someone  you  thought  would  be 
interested,  and  if  he  or  she  had  time,  you  would  take  him  or  her 
on.   You  did  that  on  an  individual  basis,  and  people  collared 
people  in  the  hall  who  would  be  interested  in  working  on  their 
problems . 

Hicke:      [laughter] 

Heilbron:   And  so  that  is  the  way  a  lot  of  it  was  done.   However,  where  an 
associate  was  pretty  much  within  the  supervision  of  a  particular 
partner,  and  reputed  to  be  doing  his  work,  I  would  ask  that 
partner  if  he  could  spare  him  for  a  particular  job. 

Hicke:     So  some  associates  worked  fairly  closely  with  a  partner,  and 
others  were  sort  of-- 

Heilbron:  And  others  had  more  of  a  general  relationship  with  various 

partners.   I  think  the  effort  was  made  after  maybe  the  latter 
part  of  the  1950s  to  have  supervision  over  particular 
associates . 

Hicke:     Have  we  omitted  any  social  aspect  of  the  early  days  it  would  be 
well  to  cover- -wasn' t  there  a  story  of  "Brockway  to  Sugar  Pine 
Point,"  where  the  Ehrmans  had  a  house  on  Lake  Tahoe?' 

Heilbron:  Oh!  Well,  there  isn't  too  much  of  a  story  here.  My  wife  and  I 
took  a  vacation  in  Lake  Tahoe  and  went  to  Brockway.   I  am  quite 
sure  this  was  in  the  1930s.  We  were  told  by  Mr.  Ehrman  that 
when  we  did  come  up  there,  I  should  communicate  with  him  or  Mrs. 
Ehrman.   So  I  gave  him  a  call  and  immediately  received  an 


169 


invitation  to  come  there  for  lunch.   I  said,  "I  don't  know  how 
we'll  get  over  there  unless  there  is  some  kind  of  service  around 
the  lake.*  Ve  didn't  have  a  car  up  there.   Mr.  Ehrman  said  that 
was  no  problem  at  all . 

## 

Heilbron:   They  would  send  us  a  boat.  They  gave  me  the  approximate  time 
when  it  would  arrive,  and  also  he  said,  "Not  to  worry,  you  can 
spend  a  nice  afternoon  with  us  and  we'll  send  you  back  by  boat!" 
So  that  was  pretty  much  the  story  of  it. 

Hicke:     I  think  that  you  said  that  the  boat  had  a  uniformed  captain,  or 
something? 

Heilbron:   Sure.   It  was  a  speed  boat,  of  course.   It  was  a  perfectly 

lovely  ride  across  the  lake.  We  felt  rather  upset  causing  so 
much  trouble.  There  were  quite  a  few  others  at  the  luncheon. 
And  so  here  we  were  with  our  own  boat  to  take  us  forth  and  back. 

It  was  always  quite  interesting  going  to  the  Ehrmans ' , 
whether  in  Tahoe  or  in  San  Francisco,  with  respect  to  the 
cocktails.   The  cocktails  would  come  prepared  beautifully.   But 
there  was  an  even  number  of  Manhattans  and  martinis!   And  that 
was  really  the  choice.   Now  if  you  were  a  naive  associate,  you 
might  ask  for  a  Scotch. 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


[laughter] 

I  don't  know  where  that  put  you  on  Mrs.  Ehrman' s  list. 
expected  that  you  take  one  or  the  other. 


It  was 


And  what  was  the  luncheon  like? 

Well,  I  can't  remember  what  the  luncheon  was  like.   But  I  can 
remember  one  of  the  dinners  they  had. 

This  was  in  San  Francisco? 

This  was  in  San  Francisco.  The  first  course  was  an  oyster 
course,  with  Olympia  oysters.   They  were  arranged  on  a  fairly 
large  plate  in  concentric  circles  so  that  you  had  this  beautiful 
you  might  say,  oyster  target! 

[laughter] 

I  don't  know  how  many  you  can  get  on  a  plate  in  such  a  manner. 
It  was  memorable.   I  can't  remember  anything  else  about  the 
dinner,  but  that  I  remember. 


170 


Hicke:     Would  they  just  have  oembers  of  the  firm  out  to  dinner,  or  the 
whole  firm,  or  associates,  or-- 

Hellbron:  Well,  I  don't  know.   I  really  don't  know  the  extent  they  had 
firm  members.   I  know  that  Whit  Tenney  and  Martin  Mlnney  went 
out  there.  And,  of  course,  Dick  Guggenhime.   The  senior 
partners  certainly.   But  I  don't  know  the  extent  to  which  they-- 
They  did  not  have,  at  least  In  San  Francisco,  they  did  not  have 
parties  where  all  of  the  attorneys  assembled.   They  did  it  on  a 
basis  of  mixing  his  legal  partners  with  their  other  guests. 

Hicke:     Oh,  1  see. 
Heilbron:   As  far  as  I  know. 

Hicke:     Yes.   When  you  were  there,  there  was  nobody  else  from  the  firm 
there? 

Heilbron:   No.   I  sat  next  to  one  of  the  leading  (I  guess)  socialites  in 
San  Francisco,  a  lady  with  whom  1  had  had  some  difficulty 
sharing  experiences.   [laughter] 

I  don't  know  what  part  of  the  family  to  identify  as  the 
hosts,  but  I  guess  it  was  the  Dinkelspiels  in  the  Hayward/ 
Dunsmuir  situation  who  invited  all  of  the  partners  and 
associates  once  a  year  to  their  summer  party,  and  that  was 
entirely  a  firm  party  with  occasional  friends.   For  example,  1 
remember  Sam  Glikbarg,  who  was  the  president  of  Pacific 
Intermountain  Express,  who  had  been  Paul  Wolf's  partner,  being 
there,  and  maybe  there  would  be  a  few  outside.   It  was 
definitely  a  party  for  the  firm.   Now  Mrs.  Hellman,  Sr. ,  had  her 
big  house  on  the  grounds.   We  all  went  to  pay  her  a  courtesy 
visit.   But  the  Dinkelspiels  had  a  home  there  too.   So  1  believe 
that  the  Dinkelspiels  were  the  real  hosts,  rather  than  any  part 
of  the  Hellman  family. 

Hicke:     Somebody  told  me  that  Mr.  Dinkelspiel  was  barbecuing  in  shorts 
and-- 

Heilbron:   I  did  that. 

Hicke:     Oh  yes.   Okay,  you  did  that  story. 

Heilbron:   Yes.   And  the  butlers  would  seat  you  at  the  table. 

Hicke:     Yes.   [laughter]   Okay,  well  I  don't  need  to  pass  your  own  story 
back  to  you. 


171 


Outside  and  Inside  Activities 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Now  tell 


about  the  firm's  view  toward  outside  activities. 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


First  of  all,  I  should  tell  you  that  when  in  the  early  part  of 
ay  association  and  even  later  on,  an  offer  of  major 
responsibility  from  a  community  activity  was  made  to  me,  1  would 
ask  Mr.  Dinkelspiel  or  Mr.  Ehrman  whether  I  should  accept  it. 
It  was  bound  to  mean  time  outside  of  the  office. 

But  this  was  your  own  time ,  this  was  not  work  pro  bono  for  the 
firm  we  are  talking  about. 

Well,  it  was  mostly  my  own  time,  but  it  did  involve  time  away 
from  the  office.   I'm  talking  about  pro  bono  work  in 
relationship- - 

With  the  firm  sponsoring  it? 

The  firm  encouraged  participation  in  community  work.   They  felt 
that  there  was  a  certain  amount  of  identification  of  the  firm 
with  that  kind  of  service  and  that  it  was  good  for  the  firm  to 
be  known  in  the  city  for  that  kind  of  participation.   So,  that 
was  our  construction  of  pro  bono.   Now  as  the  years  have  gone  by 
to  the  present,  the  kind  of  activity  which  several  of  us  engaged 
in,  in  those  days,  seems  to  be  hard  for  many  to  achieve  now. 
The  pro  bono  work  is  mostly  within  the  legal  field.   It's  in  the 
legal  aid  field. 

Yes. 

It's  in  the  public  defender's  office  giving  supplementary 
assistance.   And  with  the  Urban  Committee  of  the  San  Francisco 
Bar  Association.   Now  all  of  this  is  fine  work  but  probably  is 
more  easily  fitted  into  the  work  of  a  given  lawyer  than  work 
that  is  completely  outside  of  the  firm. 

I  see. 

Not  that  it's  entirely  been  given  up  in  the  way  we  used  to  do 
it,  but  there  are  other  considerations  that  come  into  the 
picture.   That  is,  directors  of  nonprofit  associations  are 
subject  to  lawsuits,  and  it  means  that  the  firm  has  to  be 
careful  to  cover  Itself  for  possible  malpractice  actions.   It's 
much  more  of  a  problem  to  do  this  kind  of  thing  than  it  was.   In 
a  way,  I  think  it's  too  bad.   Because  the  analytical  abilities 
of  a  lawyer,  the  way  usually  he  tries  to  clarify  issues  and  keep 
matters  on  a  board  [of  directors]  to  some  kind  of  point  is  a 


172 


valuable  service.  Also,  to  note  a  legal  problem  when  he  sees  it 
that  other  people  may  not. 

Hicke:     Before  the  fire  catches  on. 

Heilbron:   That's  right.   So  there  seems  to  be  a  little  change  there.   I 

went  to  Mr.  Ehraan  on  the  first  one,  I  know.  And  he  said,  "Why, 
by  all  means,  take  it.   We  encourage  it,  we  think  it's  a  good 
thing."  So  I  continued  to  do  this,  not  with  every  assignment 
that  I  felt  that  I  could  handle,  but  anything  that  was  major. 

For  example,  by  the  time  that  Dick  Guggenhime  succeeded 
Lloyd  Dinkelspiel  as  the  senior  partner  of  the  firm  and  in 
charge  of  the  firm,  we  had  a  talk,  because  I  knew  I  was  to  be 
nominated  as  president  of  the  State  Board  of  Education,  and  we 
were  going  through  some  difficult  times.   I  asked  whether  I 
should  accept.   If  he  wanted  me  to  be  more  in  the  operation  side 
of  the  firm,  I  would  simply  decline.   Dick  said  no.   In  fact,  it 
was  probably  more  important  that  I  continue  with  outside 
interests  and  activities  then  than  it  was  previously.   Because 
Mr.  McAuliffe  we'd  lost,  Mr.  Dinkelspiel,  Sr. ,  we  had  lost.   So 
I  went  on  accepting  assignments  as  they  came  along.   Although  I 
can  honestly  say  that  I  did  not  seek  them.   However,  I  would  get 
on  a  board  [of  directors]  and  sooner  or  later  I  found  that  I  was 
leading  it.   But  Dick  did  say  this,  and  he  kept  his  word  on  it, 
he  said,  "If  there  are  major  questions  that  come  up,  I  will  talk 
to  you."  And  he  did. 

I  remember  we  sometimes  went  home  together  in  his  car 
taking  me  or  my  car  taking  him,  and  we  used  these  opportunities 
for  discussion  of  office  matters --whether  to  retain  or  to  sever 
a  relationship  with  someone,  there  was  a  difficult  case 
involving  dishonesty,  a  client's  problem  with  respect  to  an 
illegitimate  child,  and  how  to  manage  that  problem  in  fairness 
to  all  of  the  parties.   There  was  a  question  of  expansion.   Dick 
was  not  for  quick  expansion.   He  was  concerned  about  expansion. 

I  know  that  he  talked  to  me  about  whether  we  should  go  to 
Hong  Kong,  and  he  said,  "Well,  anyway,  they  tell  me  that  they 
are  going  to  go  for  a  trial  period  of  two  years . "  And  I 
remember  telling  him,  "It  will  never  be  two  years;  in  two  years 
they  will  say,  'We're  just  getting  going  and  now  you've  got  to 
give  us  a  chance  to  prove  it.'"  That  is  subsequently  what 
happened.  Although  Hong  Kong  was  a  good  experience  for  all 
involved,  it  was  never  what  I  would  call  a  big  money  maker. 

I  remember  saying  that  I  thought  that  you  never  get 
anywhere  in  expansion  where  you  don't  have  local  roots.   It 
wasn't  enough  to  send  someone  from  here.   He  had  to  become  part 


173 


Hlcke: 


of  that  community  and  build  up  relationships  of  trust  in  the 
cooBunity.   I  think  he  felt  that  way  too.   So  expansion,  I  guess 
great  expansion,  occurred  after  his  time. 

It  also  had  to  do  with  our  own  recruiting.  When  we  talked 
about  how  nany  of  each  class  should  cone  to  the  firm,  1  felt 
that  we  were  not  a  university  that  graduated  people  every  four 
years  and  therefore  needed  to  have  a  complete  replenishment. 
What  we  got,  we  took  for  a  long  time  and  there  should  be  some 
limit  somewhere.   I  think  he  felt  strongly  about  that  too.   So  I 
guess  what  I  am  saying  is,  1  did  have  opportunities  to 
participate  in  what  the  firm  was  doing  but  not  too  much  in  any 
formal  way  with  two  exceptions.   One  of  them,  I  was  made  the 
first  chairman  of  the  Happiness  Committee. 

Oh,  I've  been  wanting  to  hear  about  that. 


Heilbron:   Which  committee,  whose  name  I  loathed,  and  I  almost  didn't 
accept  on  account  of  that  name . 

Hicke:     Because  it  sounds  frivolous? 

Heilbron:   Well,  it  sounds  as  though  it  was  a  rah-rah  committee,  a  rally 

committee  for  law  professionals,  and  I  thought  that  was  not  too 
dignified.   But  actually  what  it  amounted  to  was  an  attempt, 
certainly  at  the  beginning,  to  involve  associates  in  the  firm, 
to  make  them  feel  like  they  had  a  voice,  that  if  they  had 
problems  they  could  bring  them  to  the  attention  of  the  firm's 
partners ;  that  they  were  very  much  a  part  of  the  firm  in  the 
sense  that  all  of  them  had  the  opportunity  to  look  forward  to 
possible  partnership.   I  know  that  [George]  Clyde  was  an  early 
member,  and  he  had  some  definite  ideas. 

As  a  result  of  the  organization  of  the  committee,  the 
partners  saw  associates  more  often,  and  there  was  a  social  side, 
definitely.   There  was  an  encouragement  to  go  to  a  coffee  room 
in  the  Hobart  Building.   There  were  many  more  social  events 
where  associates  and  partners  mingled.   Then  once  a  year,  the 
wives  of  the  partners  and  the  associates,  or  as  they  say,  the 
"significant  others"  attended.   So  that  we  developed  at  an  early 
point,  a  more  extensive  set  of  social  relationships,  which  still 
continue.   I  notice  that  they  have  extended  that  area,  the  fun 
recreation  area,  to  a  fairly  large  field.   I  note  one  thing  I 
thought  I  would  show  you  here:  there  is  a  Rock  'n  Bowl 
[newsletter]  update.   That  I  don't  think  would  have  been  thought 
of  in  our  day  when  it  began.   The  matter  of  forming  a  Happiness 
Committee  was  widely  discussed  before  it  was  authorized,  and 
someone  said,  "What  is  this  idea  of  making  everybody  feel  good-- 


174 


if  you  want  to  make  the  people  happy,  call  It  the  Happiness 
Committee."  So  it  was  almost  named  derisively. 

Hicke:     Was  it  mainly  social  activities  or  entirely  social  activities? 

Heilbron:   Oh  no,  I  think  that  it  was  half  the  kind  of  morale  building  that 
I  talked  about.   It  really  was  a  congeniality  committee. 

Hicke:     Can  you  give  me  some  examples  of  some  things  that  were  done  for 
that  half? 

Heilbron:   One  example  was  that  an  associate  who  had  anything  that  was  on 
his  mind,  whether  he  didn't  have  enough  secretarial  help,  or 
perhaps  he  didn't  have  enough  opportunity  to  get  exposure  to 
different  types  of  practice,  he  would  come  to  some  member  of  the 
Happiness  Committee  who  would  look  into  the  matter  and  try  to 
get  the  problem  solved. 

Hicke:     So  he  would  write  a  memo  to  the  head  of  the  Happiness  Committee? 

Heilbron:   No,  well,  there  may  have  been  memos  (Clyde  wrote  one),  but  I 
think  that  it  was  primarily  a  word- of -mouth  kind  of  thing. 

Hicke:     Okay,  he  might  just  drop  in  and  tell  some  member  of  the 
Happiness  Committee- - 

Heilbron:   That's  right.   That's  right. 

Hicke:     Okay,  that's  what  I  was  trying  to  work  out,  as  to  exactly  how 
this  works . 

Heilbron:   That's  right.   But  I  do  not  know  how  it  operates  at  present. 

Another  interesting  custom.   In  the  old  days,  when  a 
litigator  won,  even  a  demurrer,  he'd  come  home  with  a  carnation 
in  his  buttonhole.   There  would  be  some  kind  of  small 
celebration.   Or  if  he  won  a  trial  court  judgment.   That  was 
when  the  firm  was  small. 


Hicke:     So  people  would  gather  somewhere?  Or  just  in  the  hall? 

Heilbron:   It  was  like  the  pitcher  who  had  pitched  a  successful  game- -a 
mini  - celebration . 

Now  the  other  committee  that  I  worked  on  was  the  Pension 
Committee.   I  told  you  about  establishing  the  firm's  pension 
plan.   The  Pension  Committee  had  to  make  evaluations  on  the 
appropriate  funding  of  the  employee  plan  and  be  responsible  for 


175 


investing  the  funds  of  that  plan  and  the  partners'  plan.   Of 
course,  we  used  outside  investment  counsel. 

Hicke:     On  investing  the  funds? 

Heilbron:   On  investing  the  funds.   That  got  to  be  something  of  an 

Important  problem,  because  it  starts  out  modestly  but  soon  it 
gets  to  be  a  major  responsibility. 

Hicke :     Sure . 

Heilbron:   There  were  three  of  us  on  that  committee.   Ed  Rosston,  Dick 

Guggenhime,  and  I  constituted  the  original  committee.   After  a 
while,  Dick  and  I  bowed  out. 


Overview 


Hicke:     Now  about  the  overview- -the  comparison  of  the  modern  firm  with 
the  one  you  entered. 

Heilbron:   Yes.   At  almost  every  annual  meeting  of  the  firm,  one  of  my 

partners  will  ask,  "You've  seen  Heller,  Ehrman  over  almost  fifty 
years,  with  all  the  developments  and  changes.   How  do  we  compare 
with  the  firm  of  the  early  days?"   The  answer  can  be  short  or 
long.   A  brief  reply  is  that  the  partnership  in  most  aspects  is 
entirely  different.   An  association  of  thirteen  with  offices  on 
one  floor  of  a  small  building  with  essentially  a  local  practice 
is  bound  to  be  different  in  kind  as  well  as  degree  from  an 
association  of  close  to  four  hundred  spread  over  four  states, 
with  175  lawyers  located  on  nine  floors  in  San  Francisco  alone. 

Hicke:     That's  quite  a  change,  I  would  say. 

Heilbron:   Fortunately,  two  constants  remain:  the  quality  of  legal 

performance  continues  to  be  very  high,  probably  better  than 
ever,  and  the  spirit  of  collegiality,  of  friendliness  among 
colleagues,  generally  continues  to  prevail. 

Hicke:     That's  hard  to  keep  in  an  organization  of  that  size. 

Heilbron:   Yes.   I'll  perhaps  make  mention  of  it  in  the  course  of  these 
remarks . 

Size  in  itself  brings  about  changes.   In  the  small  firm, 
everyone  pretty  much  knew  each  other,  the  business,  and  what  was 
happening  throughout  the  firm.   You  dropped  in  on  your  partner 


176 


Hlcke : 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


or  associate  casually  for  help  or  a  chat,  you  bumped  into  them 
in  the  hallways,  you  had  exchanges  in  social  life  outside  the 
office.   You  knew  where  and  how  long  he  was  going  to  spend  his 
vacations.   I  recall  that  even  Sidney  Ehman,  the  head  of  the 
firm,  when  he  was  going  on  a  vacation,  would  come  to  every 
partner  and  associate  and  tell  them  where  he  was  going,  and 
possibly  what  he  expected  to  see.   And  if  I  went  on  a  vacation, 
I  told  most  of  my  partners  when  I  was  going  and  what  kind  of 
interesting  trip  it  might  be. 

The  practice  was  largely  in  the  area  of  personal  service : 
estates,  trusts,  divorces,  property  settlements,  with  a  single 
major  long-term  corporate  client,  the  old  Veils  Fargo  Bank, 
whose  departments  and  personnel  you  knew  well.   Of  course,  there 
were  occasional  other  important  corporate  or  public  interests, 
such  as  representation  of  the  Six  Companies  that  built  the 
Hoover  Dam,  and  the  Bridge  Authorities  that  built  our  bay 
bridges,  and  including  some  trial  and  appellate  work  for  various 
clients.   But  the  bread-and-butter  services  were  as  generally 
described. 

In  contrast,  the  firm  now  is  specially  known  for  its 
litigation  practice.   It  has  expertise  in  our  interstate 
business  and  environmental  law.   As  a  comprehensive  law  firm,  it 
has  a  large  corporate  division,  and  tax,  and  labor  law,  and 
intellectual  property  departments.   And  among  the  more 
interesting  developments  is  that  the  Bank  of  America  has  become 
a  very  important  client.   The  scope  of  the  practice  has  been 
widely  extended. 

In  subject  matter? 

Yes,  and  this  situation  has  to  be  reflected  organizationally. 
Instead  of  one  or  two  partners  taking  the  burden  of  directing 
and  managing  the  firm,  there  is  a  general  chairman,  a  kind  of 
CEO,  managing  the  firm.   There  are  policy  and  group  practice 
committees,  administrative  managing  partners  for  regional 
offices,  compensation  and  hiring  committees,  a  panoply  of 
authorities  that  must  be  shown  on  a  chart  to  be  understood.   And 
understandably,  the  whole  organization,  instead  of  being  an 
association  of  individuals,  is  a  corporate  association  of 
individual  corporations. 

Oh  yes,  that's  right. 

In  earlier  days,  one  climbed  up  the  ladder  of  service  to 
partnership  and  no  one  transferred  to  partnership  from  the 
outside.   Now  it  is  not  unusual  to  gain  leadership  and  authority 
in  a  field  by  admitting  a  lateral  partner.   Occasionally,  the 


177 


firm  loses  a  partner  in  a  reverse  process  to  another  firm. 
Collegiality  does  not  inhibit  ambition. 

With  the  increase  in  numbers ,  there  has  been  improvement  in 
opportunity  for  women  and  minorities .   Fifty  percent  of  our 
associates  in  the  San  Francisco  office  are  women.   A  woman  was 
managing  partner  for  all  our  offices  in  the  last  two  years, 
Jessica  Pers. 

This  contrasts  with  the  all-male  lawyers  during  most  of  my 
day.   Heller,  Ehrman  led  the  city's  legal  firms  in  disregarding 
religious  affiliation  from  the  date  of  its  first  partnership,  so 
it  is  no  surprise  to  note  that  its  minority  employment  record  of 
attorneys  has  been  exceeding  bar  association  goals.   However, 
despite  strenuous  efforts,  the  firm  has  encountered  difficulties 
in  employing  and  retaining  blacks  and  Hispanic  lawyers  because 
of  the  fierce  competition  to  recruit  and  retain  the  best  and  the 
brightest  from  a  limited  pool  of  achievers. 

Hicke:     They  also  like  to  go  as  solo  practitioners  sometimes. 

Heilbron:   Sometimes  they  like  to  form  their  own  firms,  and  they  go  into 
industry.   They  like  to  become  vice  presidents  of  banks  and 
insurance  companies . 

Hicke:     They're  after  them,  too. 

Heilbron:  They're  after  them,  too,  so  that  it  is  difficult  to  meet  your 
objectives,  even  though  you  try  to,  and  even  though  you  could 
get  criticized  for  not  doing  as  well  as  you  wanted  to. 

Many  firms  throughout  the  country  have  evolved  in  the  same 
way  through  the  last  half  of  this  century  as  we  have- -I  mean,  a 
concentration  on  litigation,  where  they  didn't  have  that 
concentration  before,  and  when  they  grow,  they  grow  into 
comprehensive  law  firms. 

Another  feature,  characteristic  of  the  changes  in  legal 
practice,  has  been  the  use  of  vastly  improved  technological 
equipment.   The  basic  typewriter  and  electric  typewriter  have 
been  superseded  by  the  word  processor.   The  writer  of  a  brief  no 
longer  has  to  agonize  over  whether  changing  two  or  three  pages 
will  burden  his  secretary  to  work  all  night  to  produce  a  revised 
brief  with  its  necessary  carbons.   Research  has  been  made  more 
accurate  and  comprehensive  by  the  availability  of  computer 
resource  services. 


178 


Hicke:     But  somebody  also  told  me  that  a  fax  machine,  for  instance,  has 
changed  practices  because  people  now  expect  instantaneous 
replies  and  solutions  to  their  problems. 

Heilbron:   You  can't  tell  them  that  it's  in  the  mail.   [laughter] 
Hicke:     Yes,  exactly. 
Heilbron:   That's  quite  true. 

Hicke:     And  you  can't  tell  them,  "I  need  a  week  or  two  to  do  this 

research  and  have  it  written  out  and  typed  up,"  and  so  forth. 

Heilbron:   Well,  you  can  tell  them,  but  they're  not  likely  to  accept  that 
as  a  valid  excuse. 

No  case  needs  to  be  missed  these  days  because  of  a  failure 
to  find  authority.   The  computer  service  will  put  you  in  touch 
with  yesterday's  decision  in  a  faraway  jurisdiction.   Something 
might  happen  just  in  your  field  in  Indiana  and,  while  that's  not 
necessarily  the  commanding  authority  in  California,  it's 
persuasive  authority,  if  it's  the  only  case  you've  got  and  a 
court  has  considered  it  and  determined  a  principle  with  respect 
to  it.1 

II 

Heilbron:   That's  why  I  say  that  the  quality  of  practice  is  probably  better 
than  it  ever  was,  if  you  have  enough  people  to  man  the  fax 
machines  and  enough  librarians  to  help  you  in  the  library. 

Hicke:     Well,  that's  probably  another  change,  isn't  it? 

Heilbron:   Oh  yes,  we've  got  librarians,  whereas  we  did  not  have  staff  to 
help  us  in  our  research  in  the  earlier  days. 

Heller,  Ehrman  has  always  been  proud  of  its  pro  bono  work. 
But  in  the  earlier  days,  it  was  evidenced  by  activity  in 
educational  or  charitable  and  cultural  programs  on  university, 
opera,  symphony,  United  Way,  and  community  center  boards  and  in 
various  bar  associations.   Currently,  pro  bono  is  concentrated 
in  legal  services  for  the  poor  and  the  disadvantaged.   Both 
kinds  of  services  are  needed  and  benefit  the  community,  but  I 
believe  it  is  a  mistake  to  forego  the  organizational  side  of  pro 
bono.   The  firm  is  engaged  in  reviewing  this  matter,  that  is,  to 
encourage  its  partners  and  associates  to  do  a  little  more  in  the 
community  field. 


'End  of  interviews  done  for  Heller,  Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe. 


179 


Hlcke:     I  think  the  firm  itself  supports  cultural  activities,  doesn't 
it? 

Heilbron:  On  a  contribution  basis. 
Hicke:      I  see. 

Heilbron:   But  we're  talking  now  about  individuals.   The  individual  lawyer, 
through  his  ability  to  analyze  issues,  can  contribute  a  good 
deal  to  an  organization  that  others  may  not  be  able  to  do. 

Hicke:     Well,  part  of  this  perhaps  came  about  because  it  became 

increasingly  difficult  for  members  of  a  firm  to  serve  on  a  board 
of  a  corporate  client,  for  instance.   Is  that  part  of  the  same 
thing? 

Heilbron:   Well,  that's  a  little  different.   That's  a  little  different, 

because  serving  on  the  board  of  a  corporate  client  does  put  you 
into  an  exposure  of  liability.  And  secondly,  it  might  put  you 
into  a  conflict  relationship  with  respect  to  other  potential 
clients  who  are  competing  with  that  corporation.   But  still, 
there  are  some  cases  where  being  on  a  corporation  board  is  an 
advisable  status  for  the  good  of  the  firm,  including  taking  on 
the  risk  of  liability. 

Hicke:     In  the  case  of  a  nonprofit  corporation,  would  that  make  a 
difference? 

Heilbron:   Well,  in  the  case  of  a  nonprofit  corporation,  it  doesn't  make 
much  difference  in  the  way  of  conflict  of  interest,  but  the 
liability  potential  is  still  there.   Now,  for  example,  I  doubt 
whether  we  would  encourage  or  accept  a  person  going  on  a 
hospital  board,  where  the  exposure  is  considerable.   On  a 
cultural  board,  the  symphony,  I  don't  know  that  you  can  do  much 
damage  or  they  can  do  much  damage  to  you.   There  can  be 
negligence,  I  guess,  in  board  management,  but  it's  a  rather 
remote  possibility. 

Hicke:     What  about  some  changes  in  the  techniques  of  practicing  law,  or 
have  we  finished  with  pro  bono? 

Heilbron:  No,  I  think  we've  said  enough  on  the  pro  bono  situation. 

Yes,  there  is  an  interesting  development  of  practice  in 
both  the  litigation  and  the  corporate  fields  in  the  use  of  a 
team  of  lawyers  to  attack  a  complex  case;  for  example,  a  trial 
expert,  an  environmentalist,  a  tax  specialist  in  a  matter 
involving  contested  insurance  coverage.   Team  service  costs  a 
good  deal  of  money,  and  clients  are  more  and  more  inclined  to 


180 


Hicke : 


take  a  hard  look  at  the  extent  to  which  the  practice  is 
employed,  because  it's  got  to  pay  for  all  these  people,  and  are 
they  always  necessary? 

That's  a  change,  too.   Clients  never  used  to  take  a  hard  look  at 
all  of  that,  1  have  been  told. 


Heilbron:   Clients  are  taking  an  increasingly  hard  look  at  the  procedures 
and  the  billing  practices  of  their  counsel,  and  the  larger 
clients  do  this  through  their  corporate  counsel.   Their  general 
corporate  counsel  controls  the  referrals  to  outside  attorneys. 
They  are  interested  both  in  the  quality  of  the  work  of  the 
outside  attorney,  but  they're  also  interested  in  how  much  it's 
going  to  cost  so  that  you  are  getting  competition  between  large 
law  firms,  almost  like  advertising  agencies  going  after  a 
particular  account.   It's  not  that,  oh  I  don't  know,  it's  not 
that  common.   I  mean,  you're  not  after,  you're  not  a  firm 
making  a  presentation  with  a  whole  plan  of  operation  against 
another  plan  of  operation,  as  advertising  agencies  do,  but  you 
are  exposing  yourself  to  general  discussions. 

And  the  future  of  legal  practice  is  more  and  more  tied  to 
the  attitude  of  general  corporate  counsel.   [Let's  say]  there's 
a  woman  who's  the  head  of  the  corporate  counsel  for  a 
corporation,  and  you  don't  have  any  women  on  your  staff.   Do  you 
think  you're  going  to  get  that  account?  That  kind  of 
consideration  is  also  present  with  respect  to  minority 
employment.   Billing  policies  are  compared  and  also  your  firm's 
use  of  team  practice.   So  the  competitive  element  in  legal 
practice  is  evident  in  a  way  that  it  wasn't  before.   Of  course, 
there  has  always  been  competition  for  clients  between  legal 
firms,  but  the  line  it  now  takes  is  harder. 

Compensation  for  lawyers,  which  is  tied  to  the  costs,  in 
large  offices  is  very  high.  When  I  started  practice,  a  new 
associate  in  San  Francisco  was  paid  around  $150  per  month,  and 
now  it  is  close  to  $5,500  per  month. 

Hicke:     Certainly  in  New  York  they  are  even  higher. 

Heilbron:  Well,  this  is  in  San  Francisco.   Now  it  is  about  $67,000  per 
year.   A  new  partner,  usually  after  seven  years'  services, 
receives  $165,000;  mid- senior  partners  $300,000  to  $350,000;  and 
more  senior  partners  from  $600,000  to  $1,100,000  a  year.   That 
kind  of  a  financial  reward  represents  increases  far  beyond 
inflation  from  the  1930s  to  the  1990s.   This  is  what  the  market 
requires  for  talent. 

Hicke:     Yes,  I  was  going  to  ask  how  you  account  for  that. 


181 


Heilbron:  Viewed  from  the  perspective  of  a  star  baseball  or  football 
player,  this  compensation  seems  not  significant,  unless  one 
takes  into  consideration  the  comparative  short- time  big  earnings 
of  the  players,  their  risks  and  the  comparative  paucity  of  their 
members . 

The  criticism  that  too  many  lawyers  are  overpaid  for  the 
work  they  do  has  justification,  in  my  mind.   Clients  are 
protesting.   Discounts  are  getting  to  be  more  and  more  common. 
House  counsels,  as  I've  suggested,  are  beginning  to  control 
outside  employment  in  a  very  effective  way.   The  market  may  be 
righting  itself  and  lawyers  may  have  passed  their  peak  period  of 
earnings.  A  good  development  for  the  benefit  of  clients, 
lawyers,  and  the  community,  is  the  increasing  use  of  Alternate 
Dispute  Resolutions. 

Hicke:     Good,  I'm  glad  you  brought  that  up,  because  I  had  that  on  my 
list  to  ask  you  about. 

Heilbron:   Through  mediation  or  arbitration,  these  procedures  are  less 
costly  and  bring  about  decisions  much  more  quickly  than  the 
established  court  process.   The  arbitrator  selected  is  usually 
an  attorney,  but  can  be  a  retired  judge.   Hiring  a  judge  to  hear 
and  decide  is  not  an  unusual  situation- -that  is,  of  course,  a 
retired  judge.   That  is  in  civil  matters. 

Hicke:     As  a  longtime  negotiator,  how  do  you  view  this? 

Heilbron:   I  think  it  is  a  welcomed  procedure.   Court  congestion  is 

relieved,  which  is  another  plus,  and  disputes  are  resolved  and 
don't  take  forever.   If  you've  got  a  long-shot  case,  you'll 
never  go  to  arbitration.   If  there  is  a  reasonable  contest  and 
it's  a  matter  of  judgment  on  damages,  if  any,  and  one  side  wants 
too  much  in  the  honest  opinion  of  his  opponent,  and  they  want  to 
get  the  dispute  over  with,  they'll  go  to  arbitration. 

Hicke:     I  read,  I  think  it  was  in  the  Wall  Street  Journal  not  too  long 
ago,  that  more  and  more  companies  are  now  putting  a  clause  in 
their  hiring  contracts,  saying  if  there's  a  dispute  you  have  to 
go  to  arbitration. 

Heilbron:   Oh  yes,  yes. 
Hicke:     That's  not  new? 

Heilbron:   Well,  it's  relatively  new.   You  take  your  ordinary  real  estate 
leases,  they  provide  that  in  the  case  of  a  dispute  between 
landlord  and  tenant  it  must  be  taken  to  arbitration.   The  same 


182 


is  true  of  insurance  policies  (as  between  insured  and  insurer) 
and  many  other  kinds  of  contracts . 

The  reason  is  that  juries  are  unpredictable,  and  verdicts 
seen  to  based  on  the  idea  that  the  jury  feels,  "Now,  if  I  were 
in  the  shoes  of  the  plaintiff,  how  much  would  I  want?" 
[laughter]   I  don't  know,  that  may  be  unfair.   The  jury  system 
works  pretty  well,  but  I  think- -and  we've  been  over  this  before 
--it's  not  the  Jury  system  that  was  envisioned  originally,  and 
the  very  unpredictability  of  juries  makes  it  kind  of  hazardous 
to  go  to  trial.   The  result  is  that  most  cases  get  settled 
before  they  get  to  trial  before  a  jury. 

Maybe  I  should  Just  say  that  what  it  comes  down  to  is  that 
the  practice  of  the  law  has  become  more  of  a  business  than  a 
profession.   As  in  medicine,  it  has  become  largely  a  practice  of 
specialties.   Career  or  lifetime  association  with  a  single  firm 
is  not  as  common  as  it  used  to  be.   Lawyers  sue  other  lawyers 
for  malpractice.   That's  not  the  way  gentlemen  used  to  behave, 
but  nevertheless  I  think  it's  a  legitimate  procedure.   I  don't 
think  that  a  lawyer  committing  fraud  should  be  spared  any  more 
than  anybody  else  committing  fraud.   Suits  for  alleged 
malpractice  can  be  overdone,  however. 

The  young  lawyer  has  a  hard  time  going  it  alone;  just 
putting  out  a  shingle  will  not  do  these  days.   He  has  to  procure 
or  have  easy  access  to  library  facilities  and  expensive 
technology  and  equipment.   Notwithstanding  all  these 
considerations,  in  a  recent  poll,  Heller,  Ehrman  attorneys,  by  a 
majority  vote,  held  that  the  element  of  most  importance  to  them 
in  their  practice  was  the  association  and  friendship  with  their 
colleagues.   So  something  of  the  old  collegiality  remains  and  is 
the  tie  that  binds,  a  little  loosely,  but  effectively.   So 
that's  what  I  wanted  to  add. 

Hicke:     Thank  you  very  much,  that's  an  excellent  overview. 

a 

Heilbron:   I  am  not  going  to  give  any  further  details  of  the  firm's  history 
because  they  are  well  and  interestingly  covered  in  your  book 
entitled  Heller,  Ehrman,  White  &  HcAullffe--A  Century  of  Service 
to  Clients  and  Community.   However,  I  do  call  attention  to  the 
contents  of  the  book  dealing  with  the  growth  of  the  litigation 
department,  the  development  of  Heller,  Ehrman  into  a 
comprehensive  law  firm  and  its  expansion  on  the  Pacific  coast 
and  beyond.   I  started  a  list  of  post-Lloyd  Dinkelspiel,  Sr. , 
leadership  of  Richard  Guggenhime,  Robert  Harris,  Lloyd 


183 


Dlnkelspiel,  Jr.,  Julian  Stern,  M.  Laurence  Popofsky,  Victor 
Hebert,  Curtis  Caton,  Jessica  Pers,  Paul  Mundie,  Douglas  Schwab 
--and  then  realized  that  the  roster  of  all  builders  and 
rainaakers  ia  much  better  left  to  your  narrative.   In  this 
account  I  have  limited  myself  to  the  San  Francisco  office. 


Parents  Simon  L.  Heilbron  and  Flora  Karp  Heilbron,  circa 
1900. 


Louis  Heilbron,  editor  of  The  Lowell 
high  school  yearbook,  1923. 

Delphine  Rosenblatt  Heilbron,  1929. 
"The  girl  I  married." 


John  and  David  Heilbron,  1940.   "The  lawyer  (David) 
honors  the  professor  (John)." 


General  Mark  Clark  pins  major's  leaves  on  Louis  Heilbron,  Vienna, 
Austria,  1945. 


Austrian  delegation  to  Industrial  Labor  Organization  Conference  in  San 
Francisco,  July  1948.   Vice  President  Bohm  and  Minister  of  Social 
Administration  Karl  Maisel  in  center. 


Louis  and  Delphine  Heilbron  on  the  Island  Princess  cruise  to  Alaska,  early 
1980s. 


Dean  Jesse  H.  Choper,  Justice  Frank  Newman,  Sam  Kagel,  and  Louis  Heilbron.   Kagel 
and  Heilbron  were  being  honored  as  recipients  of  the  1989-1990  Boalt  Hall 
Citation. 


World  Affairs  Council  event:  Gas 
Yost  (former  president  of  the 
council),  Dr.  Robert  A. 
Scalapino,  and  Louis  Heilbron, 
circa  1987. 

Event  honoring  builders  of  the 
World  Affairs  Council  of 
Northern  California,  1992. 
Council  president  Ambassador 
David  Fischer  is  right,  Louis 
Heilbron  left. 


David,  Louis,  and  John  Heilbron,  1992. 


Lais  and  Delphine  Heilbron  at  their  Silverado 
vcation  home  in  Napa  County,  1992. 

Lais  Heilbron  during  the  interview,  1992. 

Photographs  by  Carole  Hi  eke 


California  Historical  Society  tribute  to  Louis  Heilbron,  October  29, 
1993.   Executive  director  Michael  McCone,  Louis  Heilbron,  and  president 
Edith  Piness. 


Among  those  greeting  Supreme  Court  Justice  Anthony 
Kennedy  at  a  San  Francisco  lawyer's  luncheon, 
Bernard  Witkin  and  Louis  Heilbron,  November  1994. 

Stephen  Swig,  Robert  Rosenfeld  (chairman  of  Heller, 
Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe),  and  Louis  Heilbron  with 
Ambassador  Morris  Abram.   Heilbron  was  given  a 
Distinguished  Service  Award  by  the  American  Jewish 
Committee,  San  Francisco  Bay  Area  Chapter,  1994. 


184 


V  HIGHER  EDUCATION:  MEETING  CHALLENGES  IN  THE  1960s,  1970s, 
AND  1980s 


State  Board  of  Education 


Heilbron:   Now,  returning  to  government  activity  in  the  period  of  1959  in 

January.   Governor  [Edmund  G.  "Pat")  Brown  had  just  been  elected 
and  he  asked  me  to  become  a  member  of  the  State  Board  of 
Education. 

Hicke:     Do  you  know  how  that  appointment  came  about? 

Heilbron:   I  had  known  the  governor  in  high  school,  and  his  wife  and  I  were 
in  the  same  class  at  the  university.   Someone  had  conveyed  my 
possible  qualifications  to  him,  derived,  I  think,  from  the 
Public  Education  Society  work  in  San  Francisco,  and  in  any 
event,  I  received  this  call  and  accepted  it.   Bill  Coblentz, 
then  an  assistant  on  the  governor's  staff,  was  most  helpful  in 
the  process.   The  department,  for  years,  had  been  under  the 
control  of  Roy  Simpson,  the  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction,  an  educator  who  had  come  from  the  Gilroy  public 
schools ,  and  a  board  of  very  good  but  rather  complacent  people 
who  had  permitted  Dr.  Simpson  to  run  the  establishment  pretty 
much  as  he  chose.   They  were  good  people,  though,  and  they  were 
cooperative  with  the  new  administration  when  we  became 
installed. 

In  addition  to  my  appointment,  we  had  Tom  Braden,  who  was 
the  editor  of  a  newspaper  in  southern  California  and  who  was  a 
syndicated  columnist  for  many  years  and  later  became 
headquartered  in  Washington.   He  was  a  good  friend  of  President 
[John  F. ]  Kennedy,  and  his  wife  was  a  good  friend  of  Jacqueline 
Kennedy.   He  was  a  very  public-spirited  and  knowledgeable  young 
man. 


185 


Another  appointee  was  Warren  Christopher,  who  later  became 
the  deputy  secretary  of  state,  also  a  judge  in  the  state  of 
California,  also  president  of  the  Stanford  Board  of  Trustees, 
also  the  head  of  O'Melveny  &  Myers  (and  now  secretary  of 
•tate).   And  a  Mrs.  [Talcott]  Bates  from  Monterey,  who  had  been 
quite  active  in  the  public  school  system  down  there. 

With  this  kind  of  excellent  support,  I  became  the  president 
of  the  board.   I  believe  due  to  the  expiration  of  terms,  as 
•arly  as  March  of  1959  the  new  order  could  become  effective,  and 
we  certainly  turned  the  place  upside-down.   It  became  an 
enquiring  board.  Just  what  was  the  situation  in  teacher 
training?  We  heard  there  was  too  much  concentration  on 
methodology  and  not  as  much  on  substance.   What  about  the 
textbook  procedure?  The  textbooks  were  all  printed  by  the 
superintendent  of  documents  from  plates  made  available  to  them, 
but  the  state  could  not  purchase  any  completed  books.   It  was 
our  understanding  that  the  best  textbooks  for  the  schools  were 
published  by  general  publishers  who  refused  to  lend  their  plates 
for  publication  by  the  superintendent. 

Hicke:     Where  did  their  plates  come  f rom- -California' s  plates? 

Heilbron:   Well,  they  came  from  the  book  people  who  were  willing  to  develop 
the  book  to  the  point  of  the  plates  but  not  do  the  actual 
printing  of  it. 

Hicke:     But  they  weren't  the  best? 

Heilbron:   No,  we  didn't  think  they  were  the  best.   Once  in  a  while  they 
had  a  better  book,  but  we  were  wondering  about  that  situation. 

We  noted  that  there  seemed  to  be  a  tremendous  number  of 
principals  who  came  from  the  physical  education  departments,  and 
we  were  curious  as  to  why  that  should  be  and  whether  the 
academic  structure  wouldn't  be  better  if  more  of  the  principals 
were  drawn  from  the  general  teaching  staff. 

It  appeared  that  teachers  could  be  assigned  to  subjects 
with  which  they  were  not  familiar.   They  weren't,  many  of  them, 
teaching  in  the  major  that  they  had  studied  when  they  were  in 
college . 

Then  one  issue  was  thrust  upon  us  which  we  didn't  expect, 
although  we  wondered  about  what  we  were  doing  in  the  area  of 
state  colleges.   There  we  had  supervision  as  a  matter  of  policy 
over  the  kindergarten  through  the  state  college  system:  all  of 
the  elementary  schools ,  all  of  the  secondary  schools ,  all  of  the 
colleges- -at  that  time  I  think  there  were  thirteen  of  them—and 


186 


what  could  we  do?  Even  though  we  held  three-day  meetings  in  a 
month,  what  could  we  do  adequately  to  cover  all  of  this  ground? 
Were  we  effective  enough  on  policy,  particularly  with  respect  to 
the  colleges,  selection  of  presidents  and  so  on?  Could  we  be, 
with  all  of  the  rest  of  the  things  we  had  to  handle,  could  we  be 
fair  to  our  educational  jurisdiction? 

Well,  these  were  all  issues  that  we  took  very  seriously, 
and  I  think  in  the  press  we  were  reported  as  starting  something 
new  and  different  in  California.  And  we  did  wind  up  with 
legislation  that  did  change  many  of  the  programs. 

Hicke:     Was  this  under  the  Master  Plan? 

Heilbron:   No,  that's  coming.   The  Fisher  Bill,  I  can't  give  you  the  time; 
it  was  passed  either  in  the  '59  or  '60  session,  and  it 
encompassed  a  number  of  the  changes  that  we  thought  were 
necessary.   That  is,  except  under  unusual  and  demanding 
circumstances,  a  teacher  should  be  assigned  to  teach  in  his  or 
her  major  in  the  high  schools;  the  qualifications  for  principals 
were  more  academically  spelled  out. 

Hicke:     Did  you  ever  determine  why  so  many  of  them  came  from-- 

Heilbron:   Yes,  because  they  got  along  with  students.   They  touched 

students  more  than  other  people.   They  had  some  organizational 
experience  with  respect  to  the  athletic  program,  which  they 
could  translate  into  organizational  experience  in  the  schools, 
but  they  could  hardly  ever  be  the  source  of  academic 
inspiration. 

Hicke:     Was  there  some  kind  of  administrative  training  required  of 
principals? 

Heilbron:   I  think  that  one  element  of  teacher  training  for  the  certificate 
involved  administration,  but  I'm  not  sure  that  there  was  a  great 
deal  of  administrative  training.  And  with  respect  to  textbooks, 
we  changed  the  procedure  to  competition.   The  Superintendent  of 
Documents  could  print  if  the  curriculum  committee  chose  the  book 
as  being  superior  over  the  printed  book,  which  they  had  then 
also  the  right  to  choose. 

Now  these  books  were  mandatory  in  elementary  schools .   What 
the  curriculum  committee  recommended,  the  board  approved.   After 
all,  we  couldn't  read  all  of  these  books.  We  sampled  a  few  of 
them  and  we  thought,  in  a  layman's  view,  they  were  bland  and 
were  not  stimulating  and  were  not  what  we  felt  would  interest 
the  children,  but  we  couldn't  exercise  technical  judgment.   The 
curriculum  committee  was  composed  of  experienced  teachers  who 


187 


read  the  books,  they  were  the  people  who  could  determine  the 
books  to  be  recommended  in  a  fairly  solid  way.   But  number  one, 
they  should  have  some  guidelines  on  policy  from  the  board  as  to 
what  we  were  interested  in.   Let's  just  take  the  subject  of 
justice  to  minority  contributions.  That  was,  I  think,  one  of 
the  policies  we  adopted.  And  they  should  have  the  discretion  to 
entertain  reading  of  the  printed  publications  as  well  as  those 
that  could  be  published  from  the  plates. 

Hicke:     Was  this  a  political  problem? 

Heilbron:   It  was  quite  political,  but  the  Superintendent  of  Documents  was 
getting  so  overwhelmed  by  all  of  his  printing  responsibilities 
that  I  think  he  was  slightly  relieved  that  we  relieved  him  of 
some  of  his  function.   The  Department  of  Finance  was  also  very 
suspicious  that  we  were  going  to  let  publishing  companies 
exploit  the  biggest  market  in  the  United  States  with  very  high 
cost  items,  and  price  was  one  of  the  competitive  aspects  of 
choice  which  we  had  to  be  conscious  of.   But  that  was  a  notable 
departure  from  the  past  and  we,  I  think,  achieved  a  few  things 
in  the  course  of  the  two  years,  '59  and  '60.   Of  course  that 
continued  when  I  transferred  over  to  the  newly  created  state 
colleges,  and  I'll  get  to  that  and  the  Master  Plan  shortly. 

Tom  Braden  became  chairman  of  the  board  and  preferred  to 
stay  with  the  state  board  rather  than  transfer- -we  had  to  make 
our  choices  —  and  they  continued  a  program  that  I  think  was 
pretty  well  started  in  those  initial,  fairly  creative  years. 
Warren  Christopher  also  left  the  department,  and  he  became  the 
chairman  of  the  new  Coordinating  Commission  of  Higher  Education 
under  the  Master  Plan,  which  coordinated  the  three  public 
segments  so  that  I  think  the  Education  Board  was  perhaps  a 
little  stronger  in  its  first  two  years  than  it  had  been  before 
and  maybe  for  some  time  after.   In  spite  of  what  I  think  we  did 
accomplish,  I  believe  many  of  the  problems  still  remain. 

Hicke:     Veil,  you  can  always  look  at  it  as,  what  would  they  be  now  if 
you  hadn't  solved  at  least  some  of  them  at  that  point? 

Heilbron:   I  think  we  did  contribute.   There  were  two  things  that  were 

uppermost  in  our  experience,  very  important.   The  first  one  was 
an  accident  caused  by  a  janitor  in  a  warehouse  of  discarded 
textbooks.   Because  of  his  negligence,  the  whole  warehouse 
burned  down  with  all  of  the  books.  Veil,  book  burning  has 
become  a  hateful  symbol  since  the  Nazis  burned  books  in  Berlin, 
and  the  very  idea  was  distasteful. 

Hicke:     Not  to  mention  Savonarola  in  Florence  and  a  few  others. 


188 


Heilbron:   That's  right.   Of  course,  these  books  had  been  by  this  time  not 
used  or  not  subject  to  use,  and  they  were  being  stored  for  no 
understandable  purpose,  but  they  were  books,  and  they  could  have 
their  uses  and  they  did  have  their  uses.  Roy  Simpson,  who  was  a 
conservative  superintendent-- 

ff 

Heilbron:   --but  who  understood  the  concept  of  accountability,  took  the 
bla»e  and  said  he  was  responsible.  Now  I  can't  recall  the 
circumstances  of  why  there  was  insufficient  protection  of  these 
books,  but  there  was  an  element  that  could  have  been  corrected. 
A  lot  of  people  said  Simpson  should  be  recalled,  and  there  were 
heated  meetings  as  to  how  it  came  about,  and  finally  we  put  a 
stop  to  it.   I  got  in  touch  with  the  federal  government --it  was 
the  Kennedy  administration  and  the  guy  who  handled  education- - 
and  I  said,  "Look,  we  discard  a  lot  of  books.  Aren't  there 
people  in  African  and  other  countries  wanting  to  learn  English 
who  could  even  take  discarded  books  and  get  some  benefit  from 
them?"  And  that's  what  then  occurred,  and  we  had  a  procedure 
for  other  books  than  those  that  were  burned.   I  think  some  of 
the  books  went  to  the  wrong  places;  I  believe  little  books  about 
little  children,  all  nice,  little,  blond  children  in  suburban 
gardens,  went  to  Nigeria.   Maybe  some  things  like  that  occurred, 
but  in  general  it  wasn't  a  bad  idea. 

Hicke:     It  sounds  like  a  great  idea, 
[tape  interruption] 

Heilbron:  And  as  long  as  we're  talking  about  Roy  Simpson,  I'd  like  to  say 
a  further  word:  we  put  a  stop  to  continuing  to  blame  him 
publicly  for  all  that  had  gone  wrong  with  the  books  and  turned 
to  the  business  of  operating  the  Department  of  Education.   Roy 
Simpson  was  very  interesting  in  his  relationship  to  the  new 
appointees  on  the  board.   He  had  had  a  long  period  of  doing 
pretty  much  what  he  wanted  to  do  with  people  who  were  interested 
in  education  but  not  prone  to  do  a  great  deal  of  probing  and 
inquiry,  and  here  he  was  confronted  with  people  who  did  nothing 
but  ask  questions  and  who  were  directly  interested  in  policy 
formation,  and  he  turned  out  to  be  quite  cooperative.   This  was 
evident  not  only  at  times  in  somewhat  reluctant  changes  with 
respect  to  teachers,  but  in  his  support  of  the  Master  Plan 
legislation  when  it  was  proposed,  because,  after  all,  the 
creation  of  the  new  State  College  Board  meant  a  truncation  of 
his  department  and  his  functions. 


189 


Master  Plan  for  Education  and  the  California  State  College 


[Interview  7:  May  27,  1992]  ## 


Survey  Committee:  Its  Recommendations  and  Legislation 


Hicke:     Last  time  we  Just  were  talking  about  the  State  Board  of 

Education  and  we  talked  about  Fat  Brown  calling  on  you  to 
contribute  to  the  work  with  the  Master  Plan.   Perhaps  we  should 
talk  a  little  bit  about  how  that  got  started. 

Heilbron:   Well,  Governor  Brown  didn't  ask  me  to  work  with  the  Master  Plan. 
Actually,  that  came  about  because  of  a  great  call  for  the  reform 
of  higher  education  in  the  state  of  California.   What  was 
happening  was  that  the  legislature  was  getting  too  many  requests 
for  new  state  colleges.   For  a  while  it  was  an  advantage  for  a 
legislator  to  bring  a  new  state  college  to  his  district  if  he 
could,  just  as  in  earlier  days  if  you  brought  a  post  office  to 
your  community,  you  could  become  a  distinguished  legislator. 
But  I  think  that  there  were  some  twenty- three  requests  for  new 
state  colleges  or  studies  for  them  by  the  time  we  are  talking 
about- -that  is,  around  1959- -and  it  wasn't  any  fun  anymore  for 
the  legislators.   There  was  too  much  competition  and  it  was  too 
difficult  to  bring  about  the  establishment  of  any  one  particular 
college.   Furthermore,  the  competition  between  the  university 
and  the  state  colleges  for  funds  had  become  a  matter  of  great 
concern. 

Back  in  1945,  the  university  and  the  Department  of 
Education  had  worked  out  a  relationship  through  a  liaison 
committee,  so  that  when  problems  of  jurisdiction  or  curriculum 
or  personnel  came  up,  they  could  meet  together  and  try  to  solve 
them.   But  the  state  colleges  were  emerging  as  liberal  arts 
institutions --they  had  formerly  been  teachers'  colleges- -and 
sought  for  a  more  expanded  program.   They  wanted  to  be  more  like 
the  university,  and  the  university  saw  that  there  was  a  limited 
number  of  dollars,  and  at  some  point  there  had  to  be  some  kind 
of  regulation  between  them. 

I  think  that  the  university  would  have  been  content  to 
continue  with  a  liaison  committee  for  a  time,  because  they  were 
certainly  the  senior  institution  in  that  relationship.   But  the 
legislature  called  for  reform.   They  wanted  higher  education  to 
be  organized  in  a  way  that  the  competition  for  funds  would  be 
controlled. 


190 


Hicke:     Would  be  controlled  by  whom? 

Heilbron:  Would  be  controlled  in  this  way:  there  would  be  a  central 
headquarters  for  budgetary  requests  for  the  state  colleges^ 
instead  of  every  state  college  individually  coming  with  its  own 
budget  and  the  legislature  having  to  decide  specifically  on  that 
budget  without  any  clearance,  without  any  review,  without  any 
effort  to  have  a  rational  relationship  in  budgetary  matters  as 
between  the  colleges . 

So  the  legislature  told  higher  education,  in  effect,  to  put 
its  house  in  order  or  they  would.   They  passed  a  concurrent 
resolution  in  June  of  1959  and  asked  the  higher  education 
establishment,  through  the  liaison  committee,  to  come  back  with 
a  program  in  about  six  months,  and  in  that  way  gave  the 
institutions  the  prior  right  to  recommend  their  own  future. 

Hicke:     To  whom,  specifically,  was  this  addressed- -the  president  of  the 
university  system? 

Heilbron:   It  was  addressed  to  the  liaison  committee  of  the  university  and 
the  Department  of  Education.   A  survey  committee  was  organized 
under  the  authority  of  Arthur  G.  Coons,  who  was  president  of 
Occidental  College.  Advisory  groups  from  the  legislature  and 
interested  state  departments,  such  as  the  State  Department  of 
Finance,  and  public  (four-year  and  junior)  and  private  colleges 
were  assembled  to  investigate  all  aspects  of  the  future  of 
higher  education  in  the  state  as  they  saw  it.   This  meant 
demographic  studies,  it  meant  a  deliberation  about  what  function 
each  segment  of  higher  education  should  have  and  how  the 
relationships  should  be  controlled  and  how  the  whole  operation 
should  be  organized. 

As  to  administrative  organization,  the  survey  committee 
really  reduced  its  investigation  to  three  options.   The  first 
was  to  maintain  the  state  colleges  under  a  strengthened  division 
of  the  Board  of  Education.   The  Board  of  Education  had  a  loose, 
supervisory  relationship  for  many,  many  years,  and  there  were 
certain  people  who  proposed  that  that  relationship  be 
strengthened  and  continue .   The  second  option  was  to  merge  the 
two  institutions,  to  merge  the  segments  —  the  University  of 
California  and  the  state  colleges --into  one  system  under  the 
regents  of  the  university,  perhaps  with  some  additional  members. 


Hicke : 


And  make   them  all  universities? 


Heilbron:      No.      There  would  be  a  division  of  state  colleges. 


191 


The  third  option  was  to  create  an  independent  system  with 
its  own  Board  of  Trustees,  more  or  less  patterned  after  the 
university.   I  don't  think  that  the  continuation  with  the  Board 
of  Education  got  too  much  attention.   Nor  did  a  proposal  to 
create  a  superboard  over  both  the  university  and  the  colleges. 
I  think  it  was  a  question  of  merger  or  the  creation  of  an 
independent  college  entity. 

Hicke:     Were  these  options  thrown  open  to  the  legislature  or  were  they 
debated  within- - 

Heilbron:  They  were  debated  within  the  survey  committee,  because  the 

survey  committee  came  out  with  a  recommendation  that  proved  to 
be  the  recommendation  of  the  Master  Plan. 

The  merger  idea  ran  into  this  difficulty:  many  felt  that  a 
division  or  group  of  the  colleges  would  become  second-class 
citizens.   On  the  other  hand,  if  the  university  tried  to  spread 
equally  all  of  its  benefits  and  authority,  it  might  undermine 
its  quality  as  a  great  research  institution  and  dilute  the 
quality  of  its  graduate  programs.   So  it  finally  resulted  in  a 
Master  Plan  that  contemplated  the  creation  of  a  constitutional 
authority  in  the  state  college  system  patterned  after  the 
university,  with  terms  of  trustees  like  the  university's  and  its 
jurisdiction  determined  by  constitutional  amendment. 

Now  many  in  the  state  colleges  liked  this  idea  for  one 
reason,  and  that  is:  with  constitutional  status,  they  would  have 
far  more  control  of  finances  than  they  ever  would  have  under  a 
statutory  system. 

Hicke:     You  mean  they  had  far  greater  security  about  their  finances? 

Heilbron:  Well,  they  could  allocate  their  funds  in  the  way  that  the 
university  does,  with  a  freedom  of  action  that  legislative 
supervision  and  Department  of  Finance  control  doesn't  permit. 
(Roy  Simpson,  superintendent  of  public  instruction,  was  most 
understanding  and  helpful  regarding  the  creation  of  a  new 
agency,  though  it  meant  a  curtailment  of  his  own  jurisdiction.) 

On  the  other  hand,  the  university  liked  the  constitutional 
idea,  because  once  they  nailed  down  the  jurisdiction, 
academically,  of  the  state  colleges,  they  didn't  have  to  be 
concerned  that  the  colleges  would  then  become  universities  along 
the  same  lines  as  the  University  of  California,  wanting  to  have 
their  own  cyclotrons,  their  own  extensive  research  facilities, 
and  their  own  status  as  full-fledged  research  universities. 


192 


In  short,  the  Master  Plan  asked  to  accomplish  Its  main 
purposes  constitutionally.   But  that  was  not  to  be  the  result. 
I'll  tell  you  that  story  in  a  moment. 

The  survey  committee  made  its  recommendations  to  the 
liaison  committee,  and  they  in  turn  recommended  them  to  the 
regents  and  the  State  Board  of  Education,  and  these  bodies,  in  a 
joint  meeting,  confirmed  them  in  principle  and  referred  them  for 
action  to  the  state  legislature. 

The  substance  of  the  recommendations  was  the  Master  Plan 
representing,  among  other  matters,  several  important  compromises 
between  the  two  major  parties --particularly  in  the  area  of 
expansion  of  campuses  and  the  differentiation  and  definition  of 
functions.   But  a  viable  state  college  system  emerged  from  these 
recommendations  with  a  structure  comparable  to  the  university's. 

During  the  period  of  final  consideration  by  the  Board  of 
Education,  I  was  board  chairman  and  a  de  facto  member  of  the 
liaison  committee.   Before  the  final  meeting  of  the  university 
and  Board  of  Education,  Dr.  [Clark]  Kerr  convened  a  meeting  of 
university  and  board  leadership  in  an  effort  to  resolve  still 
disputed  positions  (for  instance,  would  the  state  colleges  have 
any  participation  in  a  doctoral  program),  and  Dr.  Kerr  proposed 
a  compromise  resolution  (a  joint  grant  under  certain 
circumstances)  which  was  accepted.   I  appreciated  that  the 
doctorate  was  deemed  to  be  the  crown  jewel  of  the  university's 
academic  program  and  to  merit  proper  protection.   Though  Dr. 
Kerr  was  not  on  the  survey  committee,  his  basic  views  as  a 
liaison  committee  member  were  widely  known,  and  he  must  be 
considered  as  the  chief  theoretician  and  creator  of  the  Master 
Plan.   The  plan  was  presented  and  it  was  agreed  upon,  with 
certain  modifications  by  the  legislature. 

The  Master  Plan  has  to  be  viewed  on  three  levels.   First  of 
all,  while  the  junior  colleges  were  not  specifically  provided 
for  as  a  separate  entity  in  the  Master  Plan,  they  were  quite 
definitely  recognized  as  part  of  the  higher  education  system. 
At  that  time,  the  junior  colleges  (more  recently  called 
community  colleges)  were  mostly  supported  by  their  own 
districts,  by  their  own  taxes.   They  had  state  subsidy,  but  not 
to  the  extent  that  later  developed  when  the  state  would  finance 
practically  all  of  the  state  junior  college  program'. 

Hicke:     So  there  were  community  college  districts  that  were  supported  by 
local  taxes? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  close  to  a  hundred  of  them. 


193 


Hicke:     Just  like  a  school  district? 

Heilbron:   Close  to  a  hundred  of  then.   But  they  were  the  open  door  to 
higher  education.   The  whole  idea  was  to  give  every  student 
eighteen  or  over  or  a  high  school  graduate  the  opportunity  to  go 
into  higher  education. 

Then  cane  the  state  colleges .   They  were  to  take  from  the 
upper  third  of  the  high  school  graduates.   That  is,  the  upper 
third  who  demonstrated  academic  ability.   Then  the  University  of 
California  was  to  take  from  the  upper  12H  percent  so  that  all 
students  seeoed  to  be  cared  for  by  this  plan.   It  was  thought 
that  the  junior  colleges  would  take  most  of  the  people  in  the 
lower  division  and  that  even  the  state  colleges  as  well  as  the 
university  would  become  more  of  an  upper-division/graduate 
institution.   This  was  believed  to  be  a  procedure  to  reduce  the 
costs  of  administering  both  university  and  state  colleges. 

Hicke:      So  that  people  would  go  to  the  junior  college  and  then  transfer? 

Heilbron:   That  was  the  idea  that  in  a  short  time,  as  many  as  fifty 

thousand  students  would  be  diverted  to  the  "junior"  colleges. 
They  were  close  to  home,  the  transfers  were  thought  to  be 
feasible,  and  an  interesting  part  of  these  percentages  that  I 
just  indicated  to  you  is  that  they  were  part  of  the  Master  Plan 
that  was  never  enacted  into  statute  or  put  into  any 
constitutional  form.   Yet  they  were  so  embedded  in  the  academic 
structure  of  the  plan  that  they  have  been  followed  diligently 
since  1960,  when  the  plan  became  effective. 

Interestingly  enough,  with  the  budget  crisis  as  it  is  in 
the  state  of  California  at  the  present  time  (1992-93),  the  fact 
that  they  have  not  been  written  into  statute  or  the  constitution 
may  make  some  adjustments  in  these  percentages  possible,  and  are 
being  talked  about.   But  that's  the  present  and  the  future,  not 
the  past,  with  which  we  are  dealing  at  the  moment. 

In  general,  the  Master  Plan  called  for  the  major  research 
facility  to  be  vested  in  the  university,  and  the  state  colleges 
would  be  able  to  perform  research  only  incident  to  instruction. 
A  teacher,  after  all,  had  to  keep  up  with  his  field,  so  he  was 
expected  to  do  a  certain  amount  of  research,  but  as  I  mentioned 
before,  the  cyclotron,  heavy  scientific  equipment,  the  emphasis 
on  the  time  and  scope  of  research,  would  remain  with  the 
university. 

Hicke:     This  was  a  bit  of  a  bone  of  contention,  wasn't  it,  for  a  while 
between  the  colleges  and  the  university? 


194 


Heilbron:   Oh  yes.   The  colleges  always  wanted  to  get  more  for  research, 
and  the  teacher  in  the  state  colleges  was  expected  to  teach 
twelve  units  and  they  wanted  to  teach  less  units  if  possible, 
which  would  give  then  »ore  time  for  independent  research. 

Hicke:     Was  it  a  compromise  that  was  worked  out? 

Heilbron:   No,  there  was  no  compromise  worked  out  on  that  issue.   There  has 
always  been,  in  the  state  colleges,  a  certain  amount  of  release 
time  available  for  counseling  of  students,  for  committee  work, 
for  participating  in  the  various  senates  of  the  state  colleges, 
and  for  some  research  projects.   But  the  assumptions  of  the 
number  of  state  college  faculty  needed  to  meet  projections 
seemed  to  be  based  on  existing  (twelve  unit)  teaching  loads. 

In  the  projection  for  campuses,  it  was  indicated  that  the 
largest  university  campuses  should  be  limited  to  about 
27,000--that  was  for  Berkeley  and  UCLA--and  the  limit  in  the 
state  colleges  was  to  be  about  20,000.   1  believe  because  San 
Francisco  State  was  built  on  about  ninety-nine  acres  that  it  was 
to  have  a  limitation  of  around  15,000.   All  of  these  projections 
have  been  set  aside  due  to  the  pressure  of  students.   I  think 
that  San  Francisco  State  accommodates  somewhere  close  to  24,000 
students,  and  the  University  of  California  has  around  31,000  or 
32,000.   But  that's  due  to  the  pressure  of  the  students. 

Veil,  I  talked  about  the  issue  of  whether  the  Master  Flan 
should  be  embedded  in  the  constitution  or  go  by  way  of  statute. 
The  legislature  saw  this  new  group  of  institutions  as  somewhat 
experimental,  untried.  Why  put  them  in  the  constitution  before 
their  time?  The  university  and  board  were  disappointed  in  this, 
and  we  had,  you  might  call  it,  a  summit  conference  in  the 
governor's  office.   I  remember  Senator  George  Miller  was  there, 
Assembly  Speaker  [Jesse]  Unruh,  the  governor  himself,  President 
Kerr,  Jesse  [Steinhardt]  and  Gerald  Hagar  from  the  regents, 
maybe  Hale  Champion,  the  Director  of  Finance  —  I'm  not  certain 
about  that- -and  myself.   Senator  Miller  and  Unruh  made  it  quite 
clear  that  if  the  functional  aspects  of  the  Master  Plan  were  to 
be  enacted,  it  would  have  to  be  by  statute,  or  else  they  would 
scrap  the  plan  and  have  their  own  education  committees  determine 
what  should  be  done  irrespective  of  what  the  program  might  be  or 
of  what  had  been  recommended  from  the  survey  committee. 

So  the  governor  asked,  after  all  the  work  that  had  been 
done,  that  we  consider  the  legislative  proposals  pretty 
seriously.   For  the  state  colleges,  1  conceded  and  said  that 
it's  better  to  have  it  by  statute  than  not  to  have  it  at  all. 
The  university  was  not  enthusiastic  (because  of  the 
constitutional  issue),  but  the  handwriting  was  on  the  wall,  and 


195 


so  it  was  agreed  that  the  Master  Plan  (except  for  organizational 
structure)  should  be  the  subject  of  a  statute. 

Most  of  what  the  Master  Plan  comnlttee  recommended  was 
embodied  in  the  statute  (the  Donohue  Act).1  The  research  was 
limited  in  the  state  colleges  to  research  incident  to 
instruction.   All  agreed  that  the  top  administrative  staff  at 
the  headquarters  of  the  new  state  college  system  should  be 
exempt  from  civil  service.   It  was  agreed  that  the  trustee 
organization  of  twenty-one  persons  consist- -as  the  regents- -of 
sixteen  appointees  by  the  governor  and  five  ex-officio  members 
from  the  governmental  structure;  that  included  the  lieutenant 
governor,  the  superintendent  of  public  instruction,  and  the 
governor  himself,  and  two  others.   The  terms  of  the  appointees, 
however,  were  to  be  eight  years  instead  of  the  sixteen  years  of 
the  regents.   The  legislative  people  felt  that  the  sixteen-year 
term  in  the  constitution  was  too  long  and  that  there  should  be 
more  of  a  turnover,  as  so  many  people  now  believe  there  should 
be  in  the  legislature.   The  organizational  structure  of  the 
trustees  was  to  be  protected  by  constitutional  amendment. 


Transition  Planning 


Heilbron:   A  transition  period  was  provided  of  one  year  for  the  state 
colleges  for  planning,  to  get  the  operation  started. 

Hicke:     Where  did  Governor  Brown  stand  on  these  issues,  and  what  was  the 
part  that  he  played? 

Heilbron:   Governor  Brown,  at  the  point  where  there  was  a  rather  awkward 
silence,  said  let's  simply  decide  that  it's  going  to  be  by 
statute.   He  definitely  took  that  stand  and  was  quite 
persuasive.   He  was  anxious  that  higher  education  define  its  own 
program. 


Hicke : 


Swung  the  vote? 


Heilbron:   At  least  he  eliminated  any  further  argument  on  the  question  of 
statute  versus  constitution. 

During  this  planning  period,  the  Department  of  Education 
still  operated  in  a  general  supervisory  capacity  over  the  state 
colleges .   A  planning  chief  was  appointed  to  provide  the 


!S.B.  33,  Reg.  Sess.,  Cal.  Stat. ,  ch.  391  (1961). 


196 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


outlines  of  the  new  college  system,  Don  Leiffer  from  the 
political  science  department  of  San  Diego  State  [College].  He 
was  a  dedicated  planner.   (Trustees  had  considerable  input.)   I 
think  he  had  some  reservations.  He  liked  the  idea  of  a  merger 
more  than  the  idea  he  was  implementing,  but  he  never  let  that 
personal  bias  interfere  with  his  planning.   I  continued  as 
president  of  the  Board  of  Education  and  was  elected  first 
chairman  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  for  the  state  colleges.   The 
belief  was  that  this  Joint  status  would  make  the  transition 
easier.   So  I  had  quite  a  bit  to  do  during  this  year. 


Just  as  a  guess, 
or  monthly? 


how  much  time  did  you  spend  on  this ,  say  weekly 


Well,  we  had  two-day  meetings  of  the  State  Board  of  Education 
and  one-day-plus  meetings  of  the  state  college  trustees  per 
month,  so  that  was  three  days.   Then  there  was  the  usual  matter 
of  communication  and  preparation.   But  1  talked  with  the  office 
about  this  and  they  said  for  me  to  proceed. 

Heller,  Ehrman? 

Heller,  Ehrman  did,  just  as  they  did  when  I  had  the  first 
question  of  accepting  the  Board  of  Education  membership.  My 
job,  as  chairman  of  the  trustees,  was  really  to  help  implement 
the  Master  Plan  and  its  principal  newly  created  agency. 

In  the  planning,  certain  questions  immediately  arose:  where 
should  the  central  headquarters  be?  The  legislature  preferred 
them,  wanted  them,  to  be  in  Sacramento,  just  where  the  Board  of 
Education  was. 


Heilbron:   The  legislature  could  keep  a  better  eye  on  developments.   This, 
of  course ,  was  not  the  popular  idea  of  the  colleges  or  even  the 
trustees.   And  actually,  there  was  a  very  good  reason  for  the 
headquarters  to  be  moved  to  the  southern  part  of  the  state.   The 
University  of  California  was  headquartered  in  the  northern  part 
of  the  state.   The  population  growth,  the  demographic 
projections,  the  new  campuses  in  number,  were  to  be  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  state.  There  was  a  very  solid  reason  for 
the  headquarters  to  be  in  the  southern  part  of  the  state.   One 
of  the  benefits,  however,  of  that  arrangement,  was  that  we  would 
not  be  in  Sacramento  under  the  very  close  supervision  of  the 
legislature. 

Hicke:     So  where  were  the  headquarters? 


197 


Heilbron:   They  were  established  in  the  Los  Angeles  area.   I  don't  think 
that  this  occurred  until  close  to  the  beginning  of  our 
operations,  because  we  were  operating  pretty  much  out  of 
Sacraaento  during  the  planning  period,  but  the  first 
headquarters  were  established  in  Los  Angeles  off  the  Imperial 
Highway  not  far  from  the  Los  Angeles  airport.   Later  they  were 
moved  to  Los  Angeles  city  itself,  on  Vilshire  Boulevard,  and 
finally  they  were  given  land  and  the  headquarters  were  built  in 
Long  Beach,  where  they  still  are. 

There  was  the  matter  of  structure.  What  would  the 
headquarters  top  level  consist  of?  It  was  decided  to  begin 
modestly  and  not  have  a  slew  of  vice  presidents.   There  would  be 
an  executive  vice  chancellor,  a  vice  chancellor  for  academic 
affairs,  and  a  vice  chancellor  for  business  affairs,  and  then 
operations  would  be  subordinated  to  those  divisions. 

There  was  the  question  of  faculty  participation  in 
governance ,  which  the  planning  group  did  not  determine  but 
identified  as  a  matter  to  be  considered  and  taken  care  of  at  an 
early  point  in  the  operations. 

There  was  the  question  of  what  the  principle  would  be  for 
expansion,  because  no  sooner  had  we  been  organized  than  we  knew 
that  there  would  be  other  colleges.   On  what  principle  would 
expansion  take  place?   It  was  agreed  that  need  was  the  first 
criterion:  demographically,  was  it  necessary  to  establish  a 
campus  in  a  given  area?  But  second,  when  a  college  was 
established,  it  would  be  decided  what  would  the  program  be,  and 
then  what  the  supporting  funds  would  have  to  be ,  rather  than  to 
establish  an  appropriation  and  then  try  to  fill  it  with  a 
program. 

Hicke:     Were  those  twenty- three  proposed  sites  still  on  the  table?  Had 
some  of  them  been  built? 

Heilbron:   There  were  two  that  had  been  authorized  before  we  began.   One 
was  in  Sonoma  and  one  was  down  in  Turlock.   They  were  to  be 
built. 

Hicke:     The  rest  of  them  were  still  proposals,  or  had  they  been 
withdrawn? 

Heilbron:   Hayward  was  pretty  well  underway,  and  we  approved  that 

implementation  when  we  got  into  the  operating  stage.  I'll  talk 
more  about  that  later.  First,  we  had  to  have  a  head.  This  led 
to  a  search  committee. 


198 


California  State  Colleees 


First  Chair  in  a  New  System 


Heilbron:   The  search  coamlttee  was  appointed.   Three  of  us- -Tom  Braden, 

Ted  Merriaa,  and  myself - -went  on  an  eastern  tour  after  receiving 
a  number  of  applications  and  recommendations  and  suggestions. 
We  relied  quite  a  bit  on  John  Gardner  for  suggestions  and 
evaluations.  And  practically  all  of  the  people  that  we  met  for 
consideration  after  the  resumes  had  been  screened  were  good 
people.  We  had  reduced  it  to  four  or  five  before  we  left  on 
this  tour.   One  we  had  to  take  care  of  for  political  reasons. 
(A  number  of  impressive  recommendations  had  been  received.)  We 
had  to  go  to  Washington,  D.C. ,  to  interview  an  admiral,  and 
while  we  were  doubtful  about  his  qualifications,  we  had  to  do 
this  job. 

Hicke:     Do  you  want  to  say  who? 

Heilbron:   No.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  can't  give  you  his  name;  I  can't 
remember  it.   We  met  him  at  one  of  the  principal  clubs  in 
Washington,  and  his  attitude  was  that  the  navy  had  given  him  a 
great  deal  and  he  wanted  to  give  something  back  to  the 
community,  to  the  public,  and  he  thought  that  education  was  the 
right  channel  for  his  efforts.   But  when  we  found  out  that  he 
didn't  know  what  an  FTE  meant,  we  decided  that  we  probably 
wouldn't  put  him  on  the  final  list. 

We  met  with  a  person  who  was  president  of  the  University  of 
Nebraska,  a  very  competent  man,  who  became  a  cabinet  minister, 
maybe  secretary  of  the  Interior,  in  the  [President  Gerald]  Ford 
administration.   We  met  with  a  man  who  later  on  became  president 
of  the  University  of  Wisconsin.  And  we  met  with  Buell  Gallagher 
of  the  City  College  of  New  York,  who  impressed  us  immediately. 
He  was  a  broad-gauged  man,  he  had  faculty  problems  similar  to 
those  we  expected  to  have  in  California,  he  was  a  very  eloquent 
and  articulate  speaker,  and  he  was  very  much  supported  by  his 
faculty  and  trustees  and  was  able  to  make  peace  with  the 
students,  many  of  whom  had  their  protests  as  we  later  had  in 
California.   So  when  we  came  back,  we  recommended  the 
appointment  of  Chancellor  Gallagher,  and  he  was  duly  appointed. 

Hicke:     As  president? 

Heilbron:  As  chancellor  of  the  state  colleges.  We  had  the  opposite 

nomenclature  of  the  university.   The  chancellor  was  the  head 
instead  of  the  president. 


199 


Hicke:     No  wonder  !'•  confused. 

Hellbron:   And  the  presidents  were  In  the  place  of  the  chancellors. 

Whether  this  was  to  distinguish  the  two  segments,  I  don't  know, 
but  that's  the  way  it  happened.   I  don't  know  whether  Leiffer 
was  responsible  for  this  identification,  but  that's  what  we  did. 

Hicke:     I  have  another  interrupting  question. 
Heilbron:  Oh,  you  should. 

Hicke:     Were  there  any  other  states  that  had  been  looked  at  that  had 
anything  like  this  Master  Plan  that  you  could  use  as  a  gauge? 

Heilbron:   No,  this  was  home  grown  and  home  developed.   And  there  were 

people  who  did  not  believe  that  this  was  the  right  way  to  go. 
We  knew,  for  example,  that  the  State  of  New  York  had  all 
education  of  every  kind—kindergarten,  elementary  schools,  high 
schools,  private  universities,  public  universities- -all  under 
the  aegis  of  the  regents  of  the  State  of  New  York;  they  handled 
all  educational  matters.   But  they  could  only  handle  that,  we 
felt,  through  massive  delegations,  and  we  did  not  think  that  was 
the  way  to  go. 

I  once  met  an  official  from  one  of  the  universities,  I 
don't  know  whether  it  was  Virginia  or  North  Carolina,  but  she 
thought  that  we  ought  to  have  one  state  system  of  higher 
education  and  that  the  Master  Plan  arrangement  was  not  a  good 
one,  that  higher  education  should  be  centralized.   But  it  was  a 
smaller  state  compared  with  the  State  of  California,  and  the 
real  test,  I  think,  is  that  the  Master  Plan  has  been  reviewed 
several  times.   I  was  on  a  review  committee,  I  think  it  was  in 
1973,  and  the  basic  Master  Plan  has  remained  and  it  still  seems 
to  be  the  solution  for  the  State  of  California. 

Hicke:     It  worked. 

Heilbron:   It  worked.   And  there  are  plenty  of  people  who  have  evaluated  it 
and  have  found  it  sound.   Some  changes  have  been  made  widening 
flexibility  in  administering  state  college  financial  affairs, 
providing  a  state  representative  board  for  junior  (community) 
colleges  and  for  transforming  the  coordinating  council  into  a 
public  membership  board,  but  the  essential  Master  Plan  framework 
remains . 

Well,  Chancellor  Gallagher  had  some  troubles.  The 
conservative  members  of  the  legislature  and  many  conservative 
organizations  thought  that  he  was  too  soft  on  leftist  activity. 
One  of  the  big  questions  that  arose,  and  I  don't  know 


200 


specifically  how  it  arose,  was:  should  a  communist  be  able  to 
teach  on  a  faculty?  Now  the  University  of  California  permitted 
this  with  Herbert  Marcuse,  who  was  a  communist  to  the  point  of 
advocating  violence,  I  believe.  Of  course,  he  did  it  all  in 
theory,  but  that's  the  way  the  university  handled  it.   There  was 
concern  that  Chancellor  Gallagher  would  be  too  soft  on  this 
program.  He  felt,  as  most  of  our  trustees  did,  that  if  there 
was  a  communist  who  taught  mathematics  without  somehow  making  it 
a  communist  matter  of  ideology,  that  was  teaching,  and  his 
personal  political  commitment  was  what  it  could  be  in  the  United 
States  of  America. 

Veil,  Gallagher  actually  got  a  military  award  for  his 
services  during  World  War  II,  and  it  hadn't  been  presented  to 
him;  now  Gallagher  thought  this  was  the  time  to  get  the  award, 
[laughter]   We  went  down  to  San  Jose  State  [College]  and  had  a 
great  deal  of  marching  back  and  forth  and  flags  flying  and  so  on 
to  quiet  all  of  this  concern.   In  a  meeting  at  Cal  Poly  the 
matter  was  finally  left  to  the  individual  colleges  to  determine, 
so  that  Gallagher  said,  "You  do  as  you  see  fit." 

In  a  memorandum  to  the  trustees  he  stated  that  after  six 
months  of  study  and  observation,  he  had  come  "to  the  clear 
conclusion  that  subversive  efforts  within  the  campuses  were 
almost  nonexistent,  and  in  the  rare  instances  over  the  years  in 
which  such  efforts  may  have  been  attempted,  the  colleges 
themselves  have  successfully  and  effectively  defeated  these 
efforts." 

One  feature  of  that  Cal  Poly  meeting  proved  to  be  of 
considerable  personal  interest  and  concern.   It  related  to  the 
state  law  which  required  all  board  meetings  to  be  held  in 
public.   The  evening  before  the  Cal  Poly  meeting,  whose  agenda 
had  announced  the  communist- teachers -speaker  issue,  a  number  of 
board  members  (less  than  a  quorum)  had  an  early  dinner  together, 
and  afterward  went  to  our  motel  in  Morro  Bay.   I  suggested  that 
we  shouldn't  all  go  to  one  place  lest  it  have  even  the 
appearance  of  a  meeting  (though  together  we  were  not  a  quorum), 
so  we  divided  up  unequally.   One  of  the  group  I  was  with  told  us 
about  his  recent  trip  to  Russia,  rather  unusual  in  1961  or  1962. 

When  we  were  about  to  break  up,  I  visited  the  other  group, 
Just  in  time  to  hear  Gallagher  say,  "Well,  I  better  leave  you 
because  I  have  to  write  a  recommendation  on  the  communist  matter 
before  turning  in."  He  had  not  discussed  its  content. 

The  next  day,  one  of  the  San  Francisco  newspapers  carried  a 
front  page  story  to  the  effect  that  I  had  held  a  secret  meeting 
to  consider  the  communist  question  in  violation  of  the  open 


201 


Hicke : 


meeting  law  (acting  as  liaison  between  the  groups).   I  was  quite 
upset. 

I  went  up  to  Sacraaento  and  told  the  members  of  the 
Education  Committee,  informally,  of  what  had  happened.   They 
were  satisfied  and  did  not  hold  a  hearing.  Years  later,  Mr. 
Moskowitz,  the  education  editor  and  author  of  the  story  (whose 
source  was  mistaken) ,  told  me  that  the  one  story  in  his 
journalistic  career  that  he  regretted  he  had  written  was  that 
one .   Ve  became  good  friends . 

The  faculty  had  had  practically  no  part  in  the  appointment 
of  Gallagher.   It  was  a  trustee  appointment.   But  after  his 
appointment,  resolutions  came  in  from  almost  every  college 
faculty  approving  and  supporting  his  appointment.   This  will  be 
interesting  later,  because  when  they  had  some  participation  but 
didn't  think  that  it  was  enough,  in  the  case  of  Gallagher's 
successor,  many  expressed  their  discontent;  so  it  seemed  to 
depend  largely  on  the  personality  of  the  person  involved. 

Was  this  after  they  had  met  him,  or  did  they  just  know  about 
him? 


Heilbron:   After  they  had  met  him.   The  first  thing  he  did  was  to  visit 
every  college. 

Gallagher  appointed  Glenn  Dumke,  with  the  trustees' 
consent,  as  his  vice  chancellor  for  academic  affairs.   Dumke  had 
been  president  of  San  Francisco  State,  and  he  had  some  opponents 
on  the  liberal  side  at  San  Francisco  State,  and  they  were  not 
completely  happy  with  Gallagher's  appointment  of  him,  but 
Gallagher  made  it  to  stabilize  the  internal  operations  of  the 
new  state  colleges. 

Before  the  year  was  up- -and  in  the  meantime  Gallagher  had 
made  his  mark  with  reference  to  endorsing  a  liberal  curriculum 
and  implementing,  to  begin  with,  part  of  the  planning  program 
that  we  had  established  before  he  arrived- -he  ran  into  two 
problems  that  were  never  completely  understood.   One  was,  before 
appointment,  when  he  came  and  asked  about  his  pension.  Ve  told 
him  what  the  pension  was  in  California,  but  we  also  told  him 
that  he  had  better  check  with  the  Department  of  Finance  on 
whether  his  credits  in  New  York  were  transferrable  out  here,  and 
he  said  he  would  do  this.   He  told  us  he  had,  and  I  think  he 
believed  that  he  had  done  so,  but  evidently  he  had  misunderstood 
something  very  substantial,  because  they  were  not  transferable. 

His  wife  did  not  like  California  at  all  compared  with  New 
York.   In  New  York  they  had  been  given  a  presidential  house,  and 


202 


we  didn't  have  any  such  house  in  California.  Yet  we  thought  we 
could  solve  that  problem.   I  had  about  raised  $100,000  toward 
that  objective  when  Gallagher  said  that  he  had  to  go  East  to  a 
conference.   He  did  go  East  to  a  conference,  and  he  wired  back 
that  he  was  resigning. 

He  had  had  some  difficulty,  more  than  some  difficulty,  with 
conservative  organizations,  and  I  think  he  was  not  certain  that 
he  would  last  long  enough  to  get  the  full  benefits  of  even  a 
California  retirement  plan  without  considering  the 
transferability  of  credits.  As  he  told  me,  he  had  a  true  and 
important  family  problem.   I  told  him  several  months  before  he 
left  that  he  should  do  what  he  had  to  do  for  himself  and  his 
family  and  that  we  would  meet  the  problem,  if  we  got  a  problem, 
when  it  occurred.  Well,  it  occurred,  and  we  had  to  meet  the 
problem. 

So  we  decided  that  although  we  had  gone  abroad,  gone 
outside  the  state  of  California,  for  our  first  chancellor,  among 
twenty- five  million  or  so  people  in  the  state  of  California,  we 
should  be  able  to  locate  a  person  who  could  run  our  colleges . 
We  had  one  who  was  extremely  familiar  with  our  operations.   He 
was  Gallagher's  choice  for  vice  chancellor  of  academic  affairs, 
and  we  indicated  our  choice  of  Glenn  Dumke,  a  Republican,  and  we 
were  all  Democrats  except  for  one  on  the  board.   Ted  Merriam  was 
the  only  Republican. 

Ue  did  so  because  we  felt  that  was  the  right  thing  for  the 
state  college  system.   Ue  found  that  once  you  had  some  kind  of 
security  of  term  in  education  and  you  were  selected  because  the 
governor  thought  you  would  put  educational  interests  first,  that 
you  could  and  would  choose  the  person  you  felt  would  do  the  job. 

We  had  some  faculty  reaction.   They  had  been  involved,  but 
not  to  any  great  extent,  in  the  selection.   The  governor,  Brown, 
said,  "You  know,  I'm  getting  a  lot  of  flak  on  this  situation. 
Before  you  confirm  this  appointment,  do  further  looking  in 
thirty  days,  and  if  you  finally  decide  to  confirm  that 
appointment"- -he  said  that  he  would  be  satisfied,  but  he  asked 
us  to  do  this . 

Hicke:     Who  was  the  other  vice  chancellor,  the  one  for  business? 

Heilbron:  John  Richardson. 

Hicke:     But  apparently  he  was  not  considered? 


203 


Heilbron:   Oh,  no.   I  don't  believe  he  had  academic  experience.   We  did 

consider  Don  Leiffer  and  Malcoln  Love,  who  was  the  president  of 
San  Diego  State,  with  respect  to  other  state  people. 

And  we  did  locate  and  interview  two  or  three  more 
candidates  out  of  state  with  faculty  participation  during  that 
thirty- day  period,  and  poor  Mr.  Dumke  was  having  a  very  rough 
time  during  this  waiting  period.   But  when  it  was  through,  we 
confirmed  the  appointment. 

Hicke:     The  objections  were  because  he  was  on  the  conservative  side? 

Heilbron:   Yes.   Of  course,  we  extracted  a  commitment  from  him  that  he 
would  engage  in  no  political  activity  whatever.   He  had  been 
somewhat  active  in  the  Republican  party  in  Los  Angeles,  but  he 
lived  up  to  that  commitment  to  his  last  day,  and  we  made  an 
appointment  that  seemed  to  be  a  little  bit  controversial  at  the 
time  but  lasted  for  twenty  years. 


Expansion  and  New  Campus  Sites 


Heilbron:   Well,  I  mentioned  something  about  new  campus  sites  and  the 

problems  we  had  for  expansion.   We  knew  that  the  valley  needed 
another  campus,  that  Fresno  State  [College]  was  getting 
overcrowded.   We  determined  on  Bakersfield.  Ve  knew  that  Los 
Angeles  did  not  have  sufficient  attention.   There  was  the  Los 
Angeles  State  College  on  the  eastern  edge  of  the  city,  there  was 
Northridge,  in  the  San  Fernando  Valley,  but  the  big  expanding 
area  outside  of  central  or  south  Los  Angeles  was  not  covered. 
We  thought  that  the  best  place  for  expansion  would  be  just  south 
of  the  airport,  but  that  was  investigated  and  abandoned.   Then 
we  thought  that  we  had  a  chance  for  a  beautiful  section  of  land 
on  the  Pacific  Palisades,  overlooking  the  Pacific  Ocean,  ideal 
for  Princeton/Yale/Harvard/Berkeley/Stanford,  but  I  think  we  got 
saved  from  ourselves  by  events.   Ve  had  agreed  to  purchase  the 
land  at  a  certain  price,  and  the  legislature  had  appropriated 
for  some  campus  in  southern  California,  and  we  had  the 
jurisdiction  to  select  the  campus  site. 

Then  people  heard  all  about  this  plan,  and  some  property 
increased  in  value  around  there ,  and  our  own  tentative  purchase 
price,  approved  by  the  Department  of  Finance,  was  no  longer 
sufficient.   I  think  because  of  a  differential  of  a  considerable 
amount,  we  had  to  abandon  the  Pacific  Palisades.   Now,  that 
turned  out,  as  I  say,  to  be  a  blessing,  because  our  function  was 
to  take  care  of  the  industrial  area  south  of  Los  Angeles,  a 


204 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


great  minority  population,  and  what  would  have  happened  if  we 
had  to  depend  on  transportation  to  go  from  the  Valley  up  to  the 
Palisades  and  back,  on  a  single  day,  a  commuter  college  up  on 
the  top  of  that  hill?  The  people  didn't  want  it  that  way. 

I  thought,  actually,  it  would  be  a  lovely  idea.  Why  not 
bring  everybody  up  from  the  Valley  to  enjoy  this  site?  But 
there  was  a  great  deal  of  opposition  to  it  among  the  people 
living  there  on  the  Palisades  and  in  the  Valley  itself.   The 
feeling  in  the  Valley  area,  Compton  and  those  Valley  cities, 
was-- 

H 

--that  they  wanted  the  college  closer  to  them.   Eventually  we 
purchased  the  land  that  became  Dominguez  Hills  [State  College] 
in  or  near  Carson. 

Wasn't  this  a  problem  that  occurred  frequently,  that  as  soon  as 
somebody  heard  that  there  was  going  to  be  a  state  school  the 
property  values  would  go  up? 


Heilbron:   Oh,  yes.   Absolutely.   And  that's  why  we  tried  to  get  gifts  of 
the  land  or  negotiate  a  favorable  price.   We  got  a  magnificent 
piece  of  property  in  Contra  Costa  County,  where  I  still  think  we 
should  have  gone.   If  Sonoma  State  [College]  had  not  been  built, 
Contra  Costa  was  the  place  for  that  area.   And  even  with  Sonoma 
State,  the  projection  for  Contra  Costa  County  supported  the  idea 
of  a  college  there.  We  acquired  two  hundred  acres  on  excellent 
terms.   The  Contra  Costa  college  was  never  built.   Finally  the 
state  sold  the  property  for  a  considerable  profit,  but  I  thought 
that  ultimately  it  was  not  profitable  to  sell  that  land,  because 
we  are  confronted  with  population  demands  now  that  could  have 
been  largely  met  by  that  institution  we  had  planned  for  Contra 
Costa  County. 

Dominguez  Hills  was  intended  to  draw  from  a  somewhat  blue- 
collar  and  disadvantaged  population.   There  are  a  lot  of 
minorities  in  that  area,  and  it  has  been  performing  its  function 
pretty  well.   It  started  out  with  an  emphasis  on  liberal 
arts- -it  had  what  was  called  a  college-within-a-college- -and  it 
would  have  been  an  excellent  idea  for  another  institution  in  our 
system.   But  this  "little  college"  did  not  draw  the  interest  of 
the  people  in  the  area,  who  wanted  a  more  practical-oriented 
program.   Not  that  liberal  arts  aren't  still  required  in  the 
core  curriculum,  but  the  upper  division  and  the  balance  of  the 
program  was  one  that  had  to  appeal  to  the  people  in  the  area  for 
whom  the  college  was  being  built. 


205 


Hicke:     So  acre  accounting  or  secretarial  type  skills? 

Heilbron:   Not  secretarial.   I'll  give  you  a  little  rundown  on  that 

curriculum  at  our  next  meeting.   I've  been  down  there.   They've 
had  excellent  presidents  at  Dominguez  Hills.   Leo  Cain  was  the 
first  president.  He  concentrated  on  special  education  programs 
and  was  an  authority  in  that  field.   He  was  followed  by  Don 
Gerth,  who  is  now  president  of  Sacraaento  State  [University] . 
Dominguez  Hills  has  been  an  answer  to  the  needs  of  that  area. 

We  also  had  property  that  we  could  have  purchased  in  San 
Mateo,  a  beautiful  piece  of  property,  and  perhaps  that  should 
have  been  confined,  because  we  could  have  obtained  it  from  the 
City  and  County  of  San  Francisco  that  owned  this  particular 
property  in  the  San  Mateo  area.   But  it  was  regarded  as  not 
necessary  because  of  San  Francisco  State  on  the  one  side  and 
Hayward  State  on  the  other  and  San  Jose  State  in  the  middle. 
Maybe  it  would  have  been  superfluous.   In  any  event,  we  never 
did  acquire  the  property,  so  apart  from  the  expense  of 
investigation,  not  much  was  lost. 

Hicke:     Was  this  routinely  part  of  your  job,  or  were  there  special 
members  of  the  board  who  were-- 

Heilbron:   No,  the  chairman  of  the  campus  facilities  committee  was  Charles 
Luckman.   Luckman  had  been  the  executive  at  Lever  Bros,  in 
England.   After  he  left  there,  he  became  the  head  of  his  own 
nationally  known  architectural  firm,  and  he  was  the  chairman  of 
that  committee.   Another  chairman  was  Victor  Palmieri,  who  has 
had  a  very  extensive  Washington  career  since  he  left  our  board 
and  the  state.   These  people  knew  land. 

What  we  had  to  deal  with  in  architecture  for  the  new 
campuses  was  the  fact  that  the  division  of  architecture  for  the 
state  did  all  of  the  designing  for  our  campuses.   They  had  a 
style  known  as  San  Quentin  Modern  [laughter].   Actually,  they 
took  some  of  the  plans  for  jails  and  converted  them  into 
dormitories  down  in  San  Luis  Obispo.   We  all  wanted,  and  Luckman 
certainly  led  in  this  effort,  to  make  the  architectural  program 
a  competitive  one.   Let  architects  from  the  outside  of  the 
Division  of  Architecture  bid,  and  choose  the  best  design.   If 
the  architectural  division  had  it,  let  them  have  the  award,  but 
we  should  not  automatically  hand  over  this  important  matter  to 
the  state  agency.   Somewhat  similar  to  the  textbook  situation 
which  I  mentioned  with  regard  to  the  Department  of  Education. 
It  produced  like  results;  perhaps  even  better  results.   The  new 
campuses  became  livelier  and  more  attractive  institutions, 
although  they  continued  to  make  some  errors.   In  the  haste  of 
getting  that  Hayward  campus  established,  they  took  plans  from  a 


206 


Northridge  building,  and  they  simply  reversed  the  building.   So 
what  should  have  been  the  front  of  the  building  overlooking  the 
bay  and  an  inspiring  scene  became  more  or  less  the  front  that 
overlooked  other  buildings  and  not  nearly  as  interesting  a 
scene.  Kaybe  that  brings  us  to  a  discussion  of  the  sixties. 


Problems  for  a  California  State  Colleges  Trustee,  1960-1961 


Hicke:     Let  me  just  ask  another  question. 
Heilbron:  Yes,  I'd  like  you  to. 

Hicke:     In  the  discussions  on  these  campuses  and  everything  else,  how 
were  the  decisions  taken? 

Heilbron:   Almost  at  the  start,  we  had  a  rules  committee  that  developed  a 
committee  system.   We  had  an  educational  policy  committee,  we 
had  a  faculty  and  staff  affairs  committee,  a  committee  on  rules, 
a  committee  on  facilities  and  campus  planning.   They  would  hold 
meetings  and  hear  witnesses  in  depth;  they  consulted  with 
administration,  of  course,  with  faculty- -the  recommendations  had 
to  come  from  the  administration  (Chancellor  Dumke)  to  begin 
with.   We  had  an  excellent  person  dealing  with  the  architectural 
program:  Harry  Harmon.   He  was  most  valuable  in  seeing  to  it 
that  we  had  the  benefit  of  experts  in  that  field.   Of  course,  in 
educational  policy,  and  I'll  come  to  that  when  I  deal  with  some 
of  the  problems  we  met  in  the  sixties,  we  had  the  benefit  of  the 
academic  senate  view  as  well  as  the  chancellor's  recommendations 
through  his  vice  chancellor  of  academic  affairs,  so  that  no 
matter  was  considered  by  the  board  that  had  not  been  fully 
considered  and  reported  upon  by  the  appropriate  committee. 

Hicke:     And  then  it  was  voted  on? 

Heilbron:  And  then  it  was  voted  on  in  the  usual  fashion. 

Hicke:     And  were  all  of  the  members  of  the  board  appointed  by  Governor 
Brown? 

Heilbron:   Governor  Brown,  yes,  initially  appointed  all  of  the  members  of 
the  board  (except  the  ex  officio  members) . 

Hicke:     You  said  initially.   Then  what  happened? 

Heilbron:   Well,  ultimately  other  governors  appointed  their  successors. 


207 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Oh,  okay.   But  they  were  all  appointed  by  the  governor. 

Ve  drew  straws  for  our  terms,  because  we  wanted  to  establish 
staggered  terns  so  that  all  of  us  didn't  leave  at  once.   I  drew 
a  one  year  tern,  but  I  got  reappointed  by  Governor  Brown. 

Were  there  any  other  people  on  the  board  who  stand  out  in  your 
mind?  You  don't  have  to  do  a  whole  list,  but  some  of  them  that 
stand  out. 

Oh  yes ,  I ' 11  give  you  soae  of  the  names  that  occur  to  me 
immediately.   I  mentioned  Charles  Luckman.   There  was  Ted 
Merriaa,  who  was  a  department  store  executive  from  Chico.   He 
had  also  been  mayor  of  Chico,  and  he  had  been  president  of  the 
League  of  California  Cities,  so  that  he  had  had  considerable 
experience  with  government.   There  was  Albert  Ruffo,  who  was  the 
mayor  of  San  Jose.   There  was  [William]  Bill  Coblentz ,  who 
became  a  regent  of  the  University  of  California  later.   We  had 
the  head  of  the  CIO  [Congress  of  Industrial  Organizations], 
Thomas  Pitts.   We  had  Don  Hart,  who  had  been  mayor  of 
Bakersfield.   We  had  Phoebe  Conley,  who  was  a  community  leader 
in  Fresno  and  in  the  whole  valley.   Her  sons  were  the  editors  of 
the  Sacramento  Bee. 

So  there  was  a  diversity  geographically? 

Oh  yes .   There  was  a  person  by  the  name  of  Sutherland  who  was 
the  chairman  of  our  finance  committee,  from  San  Diego.   He  was  a 
banker,  I  believe.   And  the  Ridders- -Herman  and  subsequently  his 
son,  Stanley  Ridder,  of  Long  Beach,  owners  of  a  respected 
newspaper  chain.  Also  there  was  Simon  Ramo,  a  well-known 
scientist.   You  can  see  that  this  was  quite  a  responsible  group. 


Lots  of  good  experience  and  skills. 


read 


Experience  and  skills,  and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  as  I 
their  names  to  you  it  sounds  as  though  they  had  not  much 
experience  in  education,  and  to  a  certain  extent  that  may  have 
been  true,  they  were  a  pretty  open-minded  group,  and  they  were 
by- and- large  used  to  administration  and  government.   That  was 
necessary  at  this  early  period.   The  expertise  was  primarily  a 
matter  of  the  staff.  However,  we  did  lack  representatives  of 
minority  groups  and  had  one  lone  woman  fending  for  herself. 

When  we  became  operational,  it  was  a  little  bit  like  the 
time  when  I  was  in  Austria.1  The  planning  period  was  over,  we 


Chapter  III. 


208 


Hlcke : 


Heilbron: 


stepped  into  operation,  and  we  didn't  recognize  that  there  was 
too  much  difference.   We  knew  what  the  program  was  to  be,  but  we 
didn't  anticipate,  by  any  means,  all  of  the  problems. 

The  first  problem,  really,  was  typical  of  all  large, 
central  institutions:  the  headquarters  wanted  to  be  certain  of 
its  control,  certain  that  the  quality  was  evenly  spread  among 
all  of  its  institutions.   The  field  or  the  colleges  wanted  their 
independence.   They  had  all  been  independent  duchies  before;  all 
they  wanted  from  the  headquarters  was  to  give  them  an  allocation 
of  money  [laughter],  and  the  more  we  got  from  the  legislature, 
the  better.   Beyond  that,  they  didn't  want  us  to  do  very  much. 
They  didn't  want  us  to  do  much  master  planning  or  to  approve  the 
procedure  of  master  planning.   I  didn't  mention  in  the 
architectural  program  that  we  insisted  that  every  college  have  a 
master  plan  for  both  its  curriculum  and  for  its  facilities  and 
their  views  were  part  of  the  deliberative  process.  We  had 
something  to  do  with  the  kind  of  personnel  that  occupied  these 
committees.   We,  of  course,  selected  the  presidents  of  these 
institutions,  and  established  local  advisory  committees  for  each 
campus,  the  statute  authorized  us  to  do  this,  so  that  there  were 
advisory  boards  for  us  in  every  institution.   Sometimes  the 
advisory  board  took  the  color  of  their  administrative  staff,  and 
they  wanted  to  be  independent.   In  fact,  some  would  have 
preferred  not  to  be  advisory  but  to  be  the  board  running  that 
particular  institution.   The  presidents  nominated  members  to  be 
appointed  to  the  advisory  committees. 

So  that  was  always  an  undercurrent  that  had  to  be  resolved. 
How  did  you  deal  with  it? 

Well,  we  tried  to  make  general  policies  that  pertained  to  all. 
We  wanted  to  go  through  the  masters  degree,  but  we  wanted  a 
process  in  each  institution  that  assured  that  they  had  the 
personnel  and  the  equipment  to  give  the  masters  in  that 
particular  subject.   In  other  words,  there  was  a  matter  of 
oversight  of  the  process.  Then  again,  we  recognized  our 
colleges  were  to  be  regional  institutions;  to  a  large  degree 
that  was  an  advantage,  economically,  to  the  people  living  in  the 
area,  but  in  most  of  the  situations,  we  also  wanted  them  to  have 
a  statewide  concentration  or  emphasis  so  that  they  didn't  repeat 
each  other.   For  example,  in  Humboldt  [State  College],  we  had  an 
excellent  forestry  department,  but  we  couldn't  see  much  reason 
to  establish  a  forestry  department  in  Los  Angeles.   We  had  an 
excellent  creative  arts  department  in  San  Francisco;  many  well- 
known  writers  were  part  of  that  department.   It  would  not  be 
easy  to  repeat  that  kind  of  arrangement  in  every  college .   San 
Diego  State  had  a  first-rate  political  science  department,  and 


209 


we  wanted  to  maintain  that  emphasis.   Indeed,  we  wanted 
Sacramento  State  to  become  much  more  involved  in  the  training  of 
people  for  state  government,  and  our  trustees  didn't  succeed  in 
doing  that,  but  I  believe  that  since  President  Don  Gerth  has 
taken  over  they  have  become  much  more  involved  in  that  area. 

So  we  wanted  some  attraction  statewide.   Chico  had  long  had 
a  dormitory  system  and  it  was  a  live-in  college.  There  weren't 
enough  people  in  Chico  to  fill  the  college ,  and  people  had  come 
to  Chico  from  all  over  the  state  and  elsewhere.   Some  people 
have  said  that  they  had  too  good  a  time  out  at  Chico,  but  I 
never  was  able  to  verify  that.   [laughter] 

San  Jose  State  had  some  dormitories,  we  authorized  a 
dormitory  there. 

Hicke:     There  is  one  at  San  Francisco,  too. 

Heilbron:   True.  At  San  Jose  State,  we  had  what  may  have  been  the  first 
mixed  dormitory,  coeducational,  in  the  state  for  either  system. 
We  had  one  floor  for  men  and  a  second  floor  for  women  all  the 
way  to  the  top. 

Hicke:     Was  that  a  challenge? 

Heilbron:   That  was  regarded  as  almost  tearing  down  the  moral  fabric  of  the 
country. 

So  we  did  provide  for  these  concentrations,  or  tried  to. 
Then  one  of  the  most  important  areas  was  to  bring  everybody  into 
the  system  for  appropriate  discussion  before  the  trustees  made  a 
decision  on  an  important  matter  of  policy.   We  created  a  program 
where  officers  of  the  state  faculty  senate,  representing  all  of 
the  colleges,  had  a  place  at  our  meetings,  where  the 
administration  (including  the  college  presidents)  had  places, 
and  where  the  students  had  a  representation. 

When  we  finally  got  a  new  [headquarters]  building,  down  in 
Long  Beach,  the  new  building's  assembly  space  was  so  arranged 
that  functionally  it  accommodated  these  interests.   I  don't 
think  that  there  is  any  other  place  in  the  United  States  that 
has  physically  more  evidenced  its  interest  in  having  these 
groups  thus  brought  together  for  discussion  of  policy. 

Hicke:     Can  you  tell  me  exactly  how  you  set  this  up?  Were  there  offices 
for  each  of  these  groups? 

Heilbron:   No,  there  were  a  number  of  seats. 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 
Hicke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


210 

Oh,  at  the  table. 

At  and  around  the  trustees'  table. 

All  in  the  same  room? 

In  the  same  room.   Then,  of  course,  there  was  a  gallery  for  the 
public  to  witness  whatever  was  being  done,  because  higher 
education  in  California  operates  in  a  goldfish  bowl  and 
everybody  has  his  look-in. 


There  is  media  presence? 

Media  presence,  certainly, 
of  the  system. 


So  I  think  that  was  a  contribution 


Now,  about  the  faculty.  They  had  very  little  to  say,  very 
little  representation  during  the  period  when  the  Board  of 
Education  had  its  more  or  less  loose  relationship  with  the 
colleges.   I  say  "loose"  in  the  sense  of  the  board,  but  it 
wasn't  so  loose  in  the  sense  of  Superintendent  Simpson,  who 
appointed  all  of  the  presidents.   Once  he  appointed  them,  he 
felt  that  he  had  sufficient  control. 

How  many  state  colleges  were  there? 

There  were  thirteen  operative  when  we  came  in,  and  I  think  when 
I  left  there  were  nineteen. 

Ve,  the  trustees,  had  representatives  from  the  faculties  of 
the  different  colleges  (selected  by  them)  come  to  establish  the 
state  senate.   Ve  not  only  encouraged  but  required  that  every 
one  of  the  separate  colleges  have  its  own  senate  with-- 


Heilbron:   --with  appropriate  control  over  curriculum  and  appointments, 
promotions  and  tenure,  the  usual  area  of  a  faculty  operation. 
Any  important  policy  affecting  curriculum  or  program  would  be 
reviewed  by  the  senate  and  recommendations  made  to  the 
chancellor,  and  then,  if  the  senate  wished  to  speak  further  upon 
the  matter  after  the  chancellor  had  made  his  recommendation, 
that  was  permitted  and  encouraged,  so  that  the  faculty  did  have 
a  voice.   However,  we  did  not  do  what  the  regents  had  done,  that 
is,  delegate  fully  to  the  faculty  its  areas  of  control.   They 
made  recommendations,  and  the  recommendations  were  rather 
persuasive.  You  don't  say  no  arbitrarily  to  a  faculty 
recommendation  where  the  expertise  should  lie.   But  we  still  had 
some  reserved  area  where,  if  there  was  a  serious  curriculum 


211 


program,  and  I'll  refer  to  this  later,  we  had  the  right  to  make 
the  final  determination. 

Hicke:     IB  this  a  decision  of  the  board  either  to  reserve  this  or  not  to 
delegate  it  specifically? 

Heilbron:   It  was  a  board  decision—ultimate  responsibility  was  on  the 
board. 

Additionally,  the  presidents  of  all  of  the  colleges  formed 
their  own  council,  and  they  had  a  voice,  a  strong  voice,  in 
connection  with  matters  of  policy.  All  of  the  senates  were 
concerned  with  matters  of  academic  freedom,  and  that  was 
certainly  their  province  as  it  was  for  the  system.   But  there 
were  people  on  the  faculty  who  felt  that,  particularly  on  the 
economic  side,  the  faculty  did  not  have  enough  authority,  and  a 
drive  for  unionization  began  in  the  sixties.   I  don't  think  any 
problem  was  more  studied  than  that.   The  first  reaction  of  the 
academic  senates  was  to  oppose  the  idea,  because  the  faculty 
felt  their  professional  status  differentiated  them  from  the 
usual  union  situation.   The  board  initially  felt  that 
unionization  was  not  the  better  course,  because  it  could  not 
commit  the  state  to  a  contract  until  it  got  the  money,  and  so  it 
didn't  feel  that  it  was  in  the  position  of  an  industrial 
employer.   It  wasn't  even  in  the  position  of  a  local  school 
district  that  could  levy  its  own  taxes  and  respond  in  that  way 
to  contracts  which  it  had  negotiated. 

Hicke:     It's  hard  to  bargain  if  you  don't  have  any  authority  for  the 
financial  position. 

Heilbron:   Well,  yes.   You  could  bargain  on  the  basis  that  if  you  got  the 
money,  this  is  the  contract.   But  that's  not  what  any 
legislature  would  want  you  to  do. 

Hicke:     It  wouldn't  be  satisfactory  to  the  union,  either. 

Heilbron:  And  ultimately,  the  faculties  did  vote  for  unionization. 

Selection  of  the  single  union  negotiator  was  a  problem  that  had 
to  be  resolved  between  five  faculty  groups:  the  American 
Federation  of  Teachers  (the  AFT),  which  was  an  off-shoot  of  the 
CIO,  then  the  Association  of  California  Professors,  which  was 
home  grown,  then  the  State  Employees  Association,  and  two 
others.   Finally  the  state  did  enact  a  collective  bargaining 
statute,  after  my  time.  That  put  the  legislature  into  the 
picture  and  made  everything  subject  to  legislative 
appropriation,  made  fact-finding  the  basis  of  legislative 
action,  the  fact-finding  being  done  before  the  matters  went  to 
the  legislature.  Ultimately,  the  legislature  does  have  control. 


212 


Of  course,  in  our  day  it  was  a  sellers'  market.  Ve  needed 
•ore  faculty.  We  had  expansion  and  everything  related.   Today, 
it's  not  the  sane  situation,  and  the  legislative  control  over 
appropriations  is  such  that  all  of  the  people  in  higher 
education  are  very  much  concerned  and  worried. 

I  mentioned  previously  that  the  state  college  trustees  did 
not  have  the  flexibility  that  the  regents  have  regarding  the 
allocation  of  monies  and  the  trans ferab 11 ity  of  funds  between 
one  section  or  center  of  operation  to  another.   The  result  of 
this  lack  of  authority  produced  the  situation  I'm  about  to 
describe. 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


An  appropriation  was  made  that  allowed  for  a  certain 
percentage  of  increase  for  all  faculty  to  be  distributed  in 
accordance  with  the  trustees'  authority.   This  was  done,  and  the 
distribution  was  accepted  and  recognized  by  all  of  the  faculty 
as  being  a  fair  distribution.  Unfortunately,  in  doing  the 
mathematics,  our  fiscal  section,  our  finance  department,  gave 
more  of  a  raise  than  had  been  appropriated.   In  other  words,  it 
would  have  taken  a  larger  appropriation  to  accommodate  the  error 
that  our  fiscal  people  made ,  but  our  fiscal  people  had  reported 
everything  to  the  Department  of  Finance ,  and  they  had  reviewed 
it  and  approved  it.   On  top  of  all  of  this,  we  had  plenty  of 
money  in  several  accounts  where,  if  we  could  have  transferred 
it,  we  would  have  been  perfectly  at  ease.   I  think  also  there  is 
some  general  rule  of  the  Department  of  Finance  that  you  will 
always  hold  back  a  percentage  of  whatever  appropriation  you 
have.   You  never  spend  your  whole  appropriation,  but  there's 
always  that  hold-back  for  contingency.   So  there  was  money  to 
answer  this  question.  Veil,  this  fiscal  error  was  discovered  in 
January  of  a  fiscal  year  ending  in  June ,  and  there  was  no  other 
way  of  correcting  it  except  cutting  1.8  percent  on  salaries  for 
the  rest  of  the  year  since  the  legislature  was  not  prepared  to 
give  special  authority  to  make  any  transfer  of  funds. 

Now  this  meant  that  the  faculty  was  getting  all  of  the 
money  that  had  been  appropriated,  anyway.   They  were  not  losing 
any  money  from  the  appropriation  because  we  had  paid  an  excess 
of  benefit. 

Overpaid? 

Overpaid.   But,  of  course,  family  budgets  had  been  prepared  on 
the  basis  of  what  the  salary  appeared  to  be,  and  the  faculty  was 
furious.   I  remember  that  we  met  down  on  the  Northridge  campus. 
We  went  for  a  while  from  campus  to  campus,  and  I'll  tell  you 
about  that  too- -the  whole  board  would  meet  at  different  campuses 
on  our  monthly  meetings  instead  of  just  meeting  in  one  place 


213 


such  as  Sacramento  or  Los  Angeles  or  San  Francisco,  Ve  met  at 
Northridge,  and  a  professor  of  English  pointed  his  finger  at  us, 
and  he  said  what  we  were  doing  was  absolutely  Immoral,  to  make 
this  cut.   He  said  if  we  wanted  to  prove  ourselves  to  the 
faculty  as  being  really  for  higher  education,  we  would  go  to 
jail  to  prove  our  point.   We  simply  told  him  that  that  was 
carrying  the  excess  too  far  and  we  wouldn't  do  this.   [laughter] 
But  it's  an  illustration  of  what  can  happen  when  there  is  a 
total  lack  of  authority  to  make  a  transfer  of  funds. 

Hicke:     And  also  the  lack  of  control  by  those  responding. 
Heilbron:   That's  right. 

I  said  that  we  had  gone  from  campus  to  campus  to  hold  our 
meetings,  and  that  was  true,  but  we  found  that  this  was  not  an 
efficient  way  to  do  our  business.   We  would  arrive  in  the 
evening  at  the  campus ,  and  they  always  gave  us  a  very  pleasant 
dinner;  then  they  had  their  band  play,  then  they  had  the  school 
choir,  and  they  had  a  welcoming  address  from  the  president.   So 
we  were  pretty  tired  when  we  got  to  bed.   Then  the  next  morning 
there  were  other  introductions  of  the  staff  and  talk  of  what 
people  were  doing  in  the  community.   We  found  that  our  working 
tine  was  seriously  cut.   So  we  decided  that  we  would  meet 
alternately  in  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles,  where  people  could 
cone  rather  easily  to  an  airport  meeting  or  even  when  we 
established  our  own  headquarters,  to  the  headquarters.   I 
believe  at  least  once  a  year  we  met  in  Sacramento.   That  proved 
to  be  a  good  practice. 

Hicke:     More  efficient? 

Heilbron:  More  efficient,  yes. 

Hicke:     Although  there  probably  was  some  value  in  meeting  these  people. 

Heilbron:  There  was  a  great  deal  of  value.  We  really  owed  it  to  ourselves 
and  to  the  college  to  make  these  initial  visits.  It  may  be  that 
one  college  at  a  special  time  is  still  visited  by  the  board  or  a 
committee.  I  don't  know.  But  with  the  headquarters  established 
for  business  in  Long  Beach,  I  assume  that  that  is  where 
practically  all  of  the  meetings  are  held. 


Hicke : 


Okay.   So  this  is  a  good  place  to  stop  for  today. 


214 

Protests  and  Strike  at  San  Francisco  State  College 
[Interview  8:  July  1,  1992]  ## 


Hicke:     Well,  last  time  we  got  pretty  well  into  the  sixties,  actually 
through  the  middle  sixties  and  towards  the  end,  and  covered  a 
lot  of  the  problems  and  impact  of  the  state  college  system.   I 
know  that  San  Francisco  State  was  one  of  the  major  issues  that 
came  up. 

Heilbron:   That's  true,  and  it  had  quite  a  substantial  history  during  the 
last  few  years  of  the  sixties.  You  can't  understand  San 
Francisco  State  without  relating  it  to  the  student  protests  and 
unrest  throughout  the  country.   Perhaps  the  best  analysis  of 
that  protest  problem  was  stated  in  the  government  commission 
report  of  William  W.  Scranton,  who  gave  the  report  on  campus 
unrest  in  1970.   In  general,  the  protest  was  composed  of  a 
number  of  parts.   It  derived  partly  from  the  civil  rights 
movement- - 

Hicke:     Can  I  just  interrupt  to  ask  if  you  are  talking  about  San 
Francisco  or  the  general  countrywide- - 

Heilbron:   I'm  talking  about  throughout  the  country,  because  San  Francisco 
State  was  just  part  of  the  scene.   As  I  say,  it  derived  from  the 
civil  rights  movement,  and  it  was  accelerated  by  the 
assassinations  of  Martin  Luther  King  [Jr.]  and  [Attorney 
General]  Robert  [F.]  Kennedy.   It  moved  onto  the  campus  as  a 
student  expression  of  anxiety,  of  the  determination  to  achieve 
social  justice,  and  produced  the  black  studies  demands  that  were 
familiar  in  most  of  the  universities  and  colleges.   There  was 
also  the  anti- Vietnam  war  sentiment,  deeply  held  by  many 
students  who  felt  that  the  war  was  unjust  and  that  we  were 
violating  our  moral  code  and  principles.   And  there  was  a 
feeling  that  the  university  was  somehow  responsible  for  allowing 
all  of  these  things  to  occur;  that  if  the  universities  assumed 
leadership  of  the  country  and  the  university  was  reconstituted 
as  a  political  instrument  of  social  reform,  some  of  these 
terrible  problems  would  be  answered.   In  the  end,  you  had  a  kind 
of  combination  of  these  resentments ,  so  that  the  protest  was 
against  the  "system":  it  all  should  go;  something  should  take 
its  place  that  was  much  better. 

Various  universities  throughout  the  country  had  to  deal 
with  the  students  and  their  problems.   There  was  also  some  view, 
I  think  particularly  enunciated  by  the  SDS  [Students  for  a 
Democratic  Society]  that  what  was  at  issue  was  a  rebellion 


215 


against  the  conformity  of  the  fifties,  a  rebellion  against 
materialism  and  cold  war  prosperity.   There  were  other 
considerations  of  much  greater  value  to  them  and  to  society. 
But  in  the  end,  as  I  indicated,  it  turns  out  that  many  students 
regarded  the  university  administration  as  part  of  the 
oppressors.   They  were  the  establishment,  and  no  matter  how  you 
attacked  the  establishment,  it  was  in  a  good  cause.   They 
weren't  particularly  interested  in  any  particular  issue;  so  long 
as  the  issue  served  the  protest,  the  protest  was  desirable. 

It  all  began,  however,  in  Berkeley,  like  so  many  things 
have,  with  the  Free  Speech  Movement  in  1964  at  Berkeley. 
Originally  it  was  simply  a  protest  there,  as  I  understand  it,  of 
a  change  in  a  university  rule  that  was  amended  to  prohibit 
political  organization  and  activities  on  campus.   It  started 
with  a  non- threatening  protest  around  Sproul  Plaza.   Then  when 
the  rule  was  not  changed,  there  was  a  sit-in  the  administration 
building,  and  the  sit-in  occurred  over  a  couple  of  days,  and  the 
governor  sent- -this  was  Governor  Pat  Brown- -sent  in  the  police 
to  remove  the  students  who  were  sitting  in. 

Well,  violence  erupted  when  one  of  the  students  was 
arrested  and  placed  in  a  car,  in  an  automobile,  and  was  to  be 
taken  down  to  the  Jail.   Students  surrounded  the  car,  and  the 
car  couldn't  move.   The  pushing  and  the  shoving  was  reported  in 
the  newspapers  and  on  television,  and  pretty  soon  we  had  the 
beginnings  of  the  protest  movement  in  Berkeley.   Now  other 
colleges,  as  I  indicated,  followed  suit.   Perhaps  Columbia 
[University]  was  the  most  violent.   There  five  or  six  buildings 
were  occupied,  and  a  great  deal  of  damage  was  done  and  injuries 
sustained. 

These  protests  came  relatively  late  to  the  state  colleges, 
to  the  campuses  in  California,  perhaps  because  many  served  in 
more  or  less  rural  or  suburban  areas  where  students  reflected  a 
more  conservative  environment.   But  in  varying  degrees  the 
protests  took  place,  in  Los  Angeles  State  [College],  in 
Northridge  at  San  Fernando,  at  San  Jose  State  [College],  Fresno 
State  [College],  and  at  San  Francisco  State,  where  the  heavy 
action  took  place. 

Hicke:     Is  that  chronologically? 
Heilbron:  No,  that  isn't  chronological. 
Hicke:     It  doesn't  matter. 

Heilbron:   I  don't  think  it  matters.   I  think  that  the  Los  Angeles  State 
and  San  Francisco  State  were  more  or  less  contemporaneous. 


216 


Hicke: 


Hlcke: 


I  would  say  that  it  began  at  San  Francisco  State  during  the 
tenure  of  Stanley  Paulsen  as  acting  president.  He  was  also  a 
candidate  to  be  permanent  president,  but  the  faculty  and  the 
trustees  search  committees  determined  to  bring  someone  from  the 
East  who  had  had  soae  experience  in  minority  problems. 
Professor  John  Somerskill  was  a  professor  of  clinical 
psychology,  but  he  had  been  vice  president  at  Cornell 
[University] ,  and  his  many  activities  there  in  the  community 
brought  him  into  contact  with  urban  problems. 

That  this  college  was  going  to  be  in  trouble  was  evidenced 
on  the  day  of  his  inauguration- -President  Somerskill 's 
inauguration- -in  May,  I  believe,  of  1967.   Colorful  ceremonies 
were  held  in  the  stadium.  A  platform  had  been  built  on  the 
stadium  grounds,  the  trustees  were  there  and  many  dignitaries, 
the  usual  customary  academic  parade  and  platform 
representatives . 

You  were  there? 


Heilbron:   I  was  there,  yes.   I  was  one  of  the  trustees  at  the  time.   But 
it  was  beyond  my  chairmanship. 

Before  the  actual  ceremony  began,  an  unusual  incident 
occurred.   A  hippie-clad  young  man,  a  rather  thin  person  but 
with  a  puckish  demeanor,  danced  his  way  around  the  platform  and 
then  onto  the  platform,  went  to  the  microphone,  and  turned 
around  and  pretended  to  be  taking  notes  on  the  trustees  and  the 
dignitaries,  then  danced  up  and  down  the  platform,  and  he 
thumbed  his  nose  at  the  trustees  and  the  dignitaries  and  then  at 
all  of  the  surrounding  audience  of  students  and  faculty  and 
friends.   Chancellor  Dumke  hissed  to  Somerskill,  "Do  something!" 
Somerskill  got  up  and  whispered  something  into  the  ear  of  this 
young  man,  who  suddenly,  as  quickly  as  he  appeared,  disappeared, 
ran  out  of  the  stadium,  ran  off  the  grounds,  and  never  was  heard 
from  again,  as  far  as  I  know.   Somerskill,  who  wrote  a  book 
about  his  stay  at  San  Francisco  State,  said  that  what  he 
whispered  to  the  young  man  was,  "You  are  about  to  be  arrested." 
[laughter] 

Well,  that  accomplished  the  exclusion  of  this  young  fellow 
from  the  proceedings,  but  not  the  disturbance.   The  SDS  had 
picketed  and  boycotted  the  cafeteria  before  the  inaugural  event, 
because  the  cafeteria  had  raised  its  prices. 


When  you  say  "boycotted  it"  you  mean  prevent- - 


Heilbron:   They  prevented  students  from  going  to  the  cafeteria  and  stopped 
the  operations  of  the  cafeteria.   Of  course,  they  had  an  antiwar 


217 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


policy,  which  specifically  asked  that  whether  or  not  students 
wanted  their  grades  sent  to  their  draft  boards,  the  university 
should  not  comply  with  the  draft  regulations  and  the  students' 
requests  to  send  their  grades  to  the  draft  boards.   The 
university  refused,  Soaerskill  refused,  to  honor  that  request  in 
accordance  with  the  policy  of  the  entire  system. 

Veil,  in  front  of  the  platform  and  facing  the  trustees  and 
the  dignitaries  were  about  two  dozen  students,  or  perhaps 
student  invitees,  carrying  signs,  protests  with  respect  to  the 
war  and  the  draft.  These  students  were  noisy  throughout  the 
ceremony,  throughout  Somerskill's  inaugural  address.  He  tried 
to  ignore  them,  but  after  a  plea  for  some  kind  of  fairness, 
there  was  enough  quiet  so  that  at  least  a  good  part  of  his 
address  was  heard  by  those  who  had  come  to  the  inauguration. 
After  this  melancholy  event  was  terminated  and  the  trustees  and 
dignitaries  left  the  platform,  they  were  followed  and  annoyed  by 
students  who  walked  alongside  and  ran  alongside  and  in  one  or 
two  cases  did  a  little  shoving.   Of  course  the  trustees  were 
very  unhappy.   Veil,  that  was  the  inauguration. 

Shortly  afterward,  there  were  two  other  areas  of  activity 
that  came  to  the  attention  of  the  college,  the  headquarters,  the 
trustees,  and  the  legislature.  A  paper  was  published  called 
Open  Process  that  had  a  columnist  who  advocated  all  kinds  of 
activities  that  offended  many  students  and  citizens. 

Vas  this  a  weekly  publication  or  a  one-time  thing? 

No,  I  think  it  was  published  from  time  to  time,  but  not 
regularly.   It  advocated  nude  bathing  and  more.   It  supported 
the  use  of  marijuana,  recommended  free  love,  was  anti-Vietnam 
war.  Just  the  kinds  of  things  that  could  be  expected  to 
irritate  a  great  many  people  in  the  state.   Copies  were  sent  to 
the  trustees  and  to  members  of  the  legislature  by  a  couple  of 
students  who  were  tied  into  some  kind  of  conservative  political 
program  and  somehow  were  financed  to  the  point  where  they  could 
reproduce  the  photos,  the  paper,  and  so  on.   The  president  did 
suspend  this  paper  for  the  kind  of  publication  it  was  and 
established  a  board  to  provide  regulations  with  reference  to  the 
student  press  that  faculty  and  students  contributed  their  ideas 
to,  so  that  there  were  some  guidelines  that  could  be  referred 
to.   Now  the  real  student  newspaper,  published  by  the  students 
association,  was  called  The  Gator,  and  they  had  an  editor. 

As  in  alligator? 

As  in  alligator.   They  had  a  staff  of  about  ten  students,  all 
white,  and  the  black  students  had  found  their  policy,  in  their 


218 


Hlcke : 


Hcilbron: 


Hicke: 


Hellbron: 


opinion,  to  be  racist.   Apparently  they  had  not  reported  black 
news  as  the  black  students  felt  they  should,  they  failed  to 
publish  a  photo  of  a  black  candidate  for  campus  beauty  queen, 
and  a  number  of  blacks  felt  that  this  was  a  white-run  newspaper 
not  recognizing  an  important  minority  in  the  midst  of  the 
campus.   Close  to  ten  of  them  went  into  the  Gator  offices  and 
ransacked  the  offices,  and  also  went  into  the  office  where  the 
editor  sat  and  took  hold  of  him  and  beat  him  up.   The  students 
were  tried  in  a  college  disciplinary  proceeding  according  to 
college  due  process ,  and  four  of  them  were  suspended  and  I 
believe  five  of  them  put  on  warning.   In  addition,  the  student 
editor  filed  complaints  with  the  police,  and  there  were  arrests 
of  the  four  who  had  attacked  the  editor. 

In  view  of  commitments  and  promises,  the  Open  Process  paper 
was  permitted  to  resume  publication,  but  the  columnist  who  had 
promised  that  he  would  reform  revoked  his  promise  and  said  to 
the  paper  that  he  had  decided  to  do  that.   He  was  immediately 
suspended  by  the  president,  but  the  general  counsel  for  the 
state  system  had  to  advise  Somerskill  that  the  suspension  was  a 
penalty  imposed  before  any  process  had  been  followed  and  so,  for 
purposes  of  a  hearing,  he  had  to  revoke  his  suspension. 

"Well,"  said  the  blacks,  "If  you  can  revoke  the  suspension 
of  a  white  person,  you  should  revoke  all  of  the  suspensions  of 
the  students  who  had  attacked  the  student  editor." 

But  they  had  had  a  hearing? 

But  they  had  had  a  hearing.   Nevertheless,  that  was  the  stance 
of  the  black  students.  And  they  stirred  up  the  entire  campus  as 
to  the  question  of  justice  to  blacks.   Overlooking  for  a  moment 
the  clear  violation  implicit  in  the  assault,  what  were  the 
circumstances  that  drove  black  students  to  do  these  things?  A 
big  protest  was  promised  for  some  day  in  the  early  winter;  I 
guess  it  was  now  close  to  December  of  1967. 

Let  me  interrupt.   Were  there  arguments  back  and  forth  among  the 
students,  or  was  this  all  one  big  protest? 

I  think  that  at  this  point  a  great  number  of  students  were 
indifferent,  and  the  more  radical  and  liberal  elements  were 
minded  to  protest.   Later  on,  there  was  a  group  of  about  eighty 
committed  conservative  students  who  opposed  the  radical  students 
in  a  very  clear-cut  fashion,  but  at  this  stage  I  would  say  that 
it  started  out  with  the  December  protest  to  be  some  students 
highly  motivated  and  willing  to  sit  in,  and  most  of  them 
attending  classes  and  wanting  to  escape  the  problem. 


219 


In  any  event,  the  administration  building  was  broken  into. 
There  was  a  window  open,  and  one  of  the  professors  who  was  quite 
sympathetic  to  the  students  went  in  the  open  window  and  led  part 
of  the  charge.  However,  the  students  milled  around  in  the 
hallways  and  in  the  offices  and  did  not  do  much  daaage  .   They 
were  there,  they  were  obstacles  to  any  kind  of  office  operation, 
they  sat  in,  but  they  were  not  violent.   Somerskill  had  made 
arrangements  with  the  police  so  that  the  principal  police  crowd 
control  officer  was  at  his  side  to  advise  him,  because-  - 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hlcke : 
Heilbron: 


Hlcke : 


Heilbron: 


The  expert  on  crowd  control  from  the  police  was  at  Somerskill  's 
side  and  told  him  that  it  would  be  his  decision  as  to  when  to 
call  in  the  police,  whose  attack  force  was  close  by,  a  few 
minutes  away.   But  he  didn't  feel  that  the  situation  had  gotten 
out  of  control. 

Somerskill  didn't  or  the  police? 

The  police  advisor.   So  Somerskill  did  not,  in  spite  of  the  sit- 
in  and  the  milling  around  in  the  administration  building,  call 
the  police.   Finally  the  students  got  tired  and  drifted  away. 
This  situation  was  pretty  much  repeated  the  next  day.   One  of 
the  newspapers  applauded  Somerskill  's  restraint. 

One  of  San  Francisco's? 

Yes.   And  the  other  one  criticized  it  and  said  that  when  there 
is  any  kind  of  trespass,  or  equivalent  In  their  opinion  to  a 
violent  taking,  that  the  police  should  be  called. 

Now  the  reason  that  the  police  were  not  called  by  most 
presidents  of  most  campuses  until  sometimes  the  issue  was  too 
well  drawn  was  that  the  presence  of  police  usually  escalated  the 
violence,  because  the  police  started  arresting,  the  students 
protested  and  resisted  the  arresting,  there  were  struggles  and 
sticks  were  used  and  people  dragged  out,  and  there  was  an 
escalation  of  violence.   So  in  a  special  meeting  by  the  trustees 
called  in  Los  Angeles,  there  was  sufficient  concern  about  what 
was  happening  in  San  Francisco  State,  we  asked  for  a  review  of 
what  was  happening. 


Let  me  ask  how  closely  you  were  following  all  of  this, 
reports  getting  to  you?  Did  you  see  it  as  a  problem? 


Were 


Veil,  the  San  Francisco  trustees  were  more  familiar  with  the 
situation  there  than  other  trustees,  because  some  administrative 


220 


officer  or  faculty  member  might  call  them  up  and  indicate  what 
the  problems  were. 

Hicke:     So  somebody  actually  called  you? 

Heilbron:   I  believe  that  we  had  some  notification.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I 
think  it  was  the  other  way.   If  we  saw  it  in  the  newspaper,  we 
called  the  president  to  see  what  was  happening. 

But  the  governor,  who  was  by  this  time  of  course  Governor 
[Ronald]  Reagan,  was  very  much  upset,  and  a  meeting  was  called 
in  Los  Angeles,  and  the  two  star  performers  would  be  the 
president  of  San  Francisco  State  and  the  president  of  Los 
Angeles  State.   I  haven't  gone  into  the  Los  Angeles  State 
situation,  but  the  Dow  Chemical  Company  was  there  recruiting  for 
employment  on  that  campus ,  and  someone  threw  a  stink  bomb  into 
the  van  that  they  traveled  in  to  the  campus.   That  caused  a  good 
deal  of  protest.   So  President  Greenleigh  of  Los  Angeles  State 
was  also  called  to  appear. 

For  three  hours  on  this  Saturday,  the  trustees  and 
administrators  and,  of  course,  the  political  ex-officio 
trustees,  questioned  these  two  men,  Somerskill  taking  much  more 
questioning  than  the  president  of  Los  Angeles  State. 
Irrespective  of  how  the  situation  came  out,  some  of  the  trustees 
asked  Somerskill  why  he  hadn't  called  the  police.   It  was  his 
decision.   There  could  have  been  grave  damage  instead  of  minor 
damage  to  the  administration  building,  there  could  have  been 
injuries,  hurt.  Max  Rafferty,  at  that  time  superintendent  of 
public  instruction,  was  particularly  sharp  and  hostile  in  his 
questioning.   Everyone  had  a  little  bit  of  a  say.   I  think  in 
the  course  of  the  discussion,  I  pointed  out  that  once  at  Oxford 
[University],  a  great  many  years  ago,  the  mayor  had  called  out 
assistants  to  quell  a  disturbance  on  the  campus  at  Oxford,  and 
for  five  hundred  years  since,  annually,  he  had  come  to  apologize 
to  the  university.   [laughter]   This  was  a  light  moment  in  our 
discussion. 

Hicke:     Trust  you  to  provide  that! 

Heilbron:   In  the  end,  when  it  appeared  that  most  people  seemed  to  agree 
that  Somerskill  had  handled  the  matter  quite  effectively, 
Lieutenant  Governor  [Robert]  Finch,  I  believe,  proposed  that  a 
committee  of  the  trustees  investigate  the  stewardship  of 
President  Somerskill.  This  action,  of  course,  enraged  many 
people  on  campus  and  seemed,  under  the  circumstances,  to  be 
unfair  and  certainly  undermined  the  president's  authority. 

Hicke:     Did  the  trustees  have  to  agree  to  that? 


221 


Heilbron:  Oh,  the  trustees  approved  the  authorization.   There  was  a  vote 
for  and  against  and  the  majority  won.   I  know  I  voted  against 
the  resolution,  as  did  Albert  Ruffo  and  a  number  of  others.   The 
vote  was  reasonably  close,  but  I  think  all  of  the  ex-officio 
members  voted  for  the  authorization. 

I  don't  know  how  many  months  after,  or  whether  it  was  the 
next  meeting  of  the  trustees  or  the  second  meeting  after,  the 
trustees  vindicated  Somerskill  by  unanimous  vote ,  although 
nobody  told  him  about  it,  and  the  way  he  learned  about  it  was 
when  I  asked  him,  "Aren't  you  pleased  with  what  happened  today?" 

Hicke:     Let  me  ask  one  other  thing:  on  this  committee,  was  there  anybody 
who  had  voted  against  the  original- - 

Heilbron:   I  can't  remember  who  was  on  the  committee. 
Hicke:     I  wondered  if  they  made  an  effort  to  balance  it. 

Heilbron:   I  would  think  that  it  was  a  balanced  committee,  and  I  can't  even 
remember  whether  I  was  on  it.   But  after  all  of  this  discussion, 
he  got  their  support.   In  a  book  he  wrote,  he  said  that  Dumke 
phoned  him  and  congratulated  him  and  he  got  a  favorable 
telephone  call  from  Governor  Reagan. 

However,  the  troubles  of  this  campus  continued.   A  Third 
World  Liberation  Front,  which  was  Hispanic -led,  took  over  the 
anti-racist  program,  and  this  front  included,  of  course,  the 
black  students  union.   They  demanded  the  admission  of  hundreds 
of  minority  students  irrespective  of  qualification  and  wanted  a 
black  studies  program  set  up  under  student  control,  student 
direction,  employing  the  administrator  or  director  of  that 
project. 

Hicke:     Sort  of  the  medieval  concept  of  a  university  where  the  students 
hired  the  professors? 

Heilbron:  That's  right.  That  happened  in  Bologna  at  a  very  early  stage. 
Bologna  is  an  old  university,  800  years  old  or  more,  and  the 
students  then,  of  course,  hired  the  professors.   But  they  ran 
out  of  money  and  they  had  to  go  to  whomever  was  the  mayor  or 
prefect  or  the  head  of  the  city  to  restore  the  professors  and 
the  professors'  jobs.   So  this  issue  has  been  pending  for  some 
time. 

Somerskill  felt  that  his  authority  had  been  diminished,  and 
in  fact  he  had  also  faced  the  trouble  with  his  faculty.  One  of 
the  leaders  of  the  student  front  was  a  faculty  member  and 
Somerskill  fired  him  for  his  action.   I  can't  recall  precisely 


222 


Hicke : 


Hellbron: 


what  the  action  was,  but  I  think  the  behavior  warranted 
discipline.   But  it  hadn't  gone  through  the  faculty  due  process, 
and  the  faculty  were  enraged  by  that.   So  he  was  getting  it  from 
all  sides.   He  resigned,  but  he  was  going  to  stay  on  for  a  while 
until  a  new  person  was  procured.   But  a  person  who  resigns  under 
these  circumstances  loses  authority  and  soon  finds  that  he  isn't 
governing.   One  fine  evening,  when  things  looked  pretty  bleak 
for  another  campus  outburst,  he  took  off  for  Ethiopia, 
[laughter] 

Now  this  is  not  quite  as  farfetched  as  it  appears.   He  was 
looking  for  another  position.   The  Ford  Foundation  offered  him 
this  position  as  an  advisor  to  Emperor  Haile  Salassie  for  Haile 
Salassie  University,  and  he  had  a  rather  brief  period  when  he 
had  to  accept  or  refuse,  and  unless  he  accepted,  he  may  not  have 
had  any  office  to  look  to.   But  it  was  a  sudden  departure,  and 
the  campus  was  not  only  ungovernable  but  ungoverned. 

So  another  acting  president  comes  into  play,  Robert  Smith, 
who  had  great  support  from  the  faculty  and  whom  a  great  many 
students  respected.   He  had  a  long  experience  with  the 
university.   I  believe  he  was  dean  of  the  School  of  Education. 
He  answered  the  call  to  do  what  he  could  to  deal  with  a  much- 
wounded  college. 

What  did  he  think  he  could  do? 

He  felt  that  if  there  were  enough  discussions  with  all  parties 
and  they  had  their  talk -outs  and  teach -ins --maybe  1  should  say 
talk -ins- -that  in  the  end  reason  would  prevail  and  that  order 
would  be  restored,  but  that  the  militants  would  have  to  have 
their  day  in  court,  and  I  don't  mean  judicial  court,  but  their 
day  in  the  sun  rather  than  just  in  the  administration  building. 

Problems  and  protests  still  continued.   He  was  a  target  of 
protest,  notwithstanding  his  liberal  attitudes  and  perspectives. 
He  felt  that  he  could  not  continue  and  keep  the  university  under 
control  unless  he  was  assured  of  the  support,  the  clear  support, 
of  the  trustees.   The  trustees  were  still  divided  on  many 
protest  issues.   That  is,  there  was  the  law-and-order  group,  who 
felt  that  you  had  to  be  firm,  you  had  to  call  the  police,  you 
had  to  show  who  was  in  authority,  and  you  could  not  appear  to  be 
weak  under  pressure.   There  was  a  minority- -well,  I  don't  know 
whether  it  even  was  a  minority- -there  was  the  other  side,  who 
recognized  that  you  could  not  dictate  conduct  from  headquarters 
in  Los  Angeles,  that  each  college  was  an  institution  on  its  own, 
that  it  had  its  particular  problems,  that  all  of  them  weren't 
the  same,  that  some  of  them  could  be  dealt  with  in  one  way  and 
others  in  another  way,  that  there  were  differences  in 


223 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


demeanor- -  it  was  different  when  a  senior  protested  and  did  more 
than  protest,  got  into  some  kind  of  violent  conduct,  than  when  a 
freshman  whose  hero  was  a  senior  was  also  involved  because  of 
being  brought  into  the  fray.   So  there  were  questions  of  why  the 
behavior  was  brought  about,  what  motivated  the  person,  and  there 
were  adjustments  that  had  to  be  made  in  the  structure  of  the 
colleges  to  accommodate,  for  example,  the  black  studies  program. 
So  the  difference  was  really  one  of  giving  the  college 
presidents  some  flexibility  in  meeting  their  particular  problems 
or  having  automatic  responses  more  or  less  dictated  from  the 
top. 

Veil,  Smith  resigned  because  he  could  not  get  the  support 
that  he  felt  that  he  deserved  or  had  to  have,  and  the  new  acting 
president  was  Sam  [S.  I.]  Hayakava.   Now  Hayakawa  had  been 
pretty  much  the  representative  of  that  part  of  the  faculty  that 
was  conservative,  more  or  less  establishment,  more  or  less  of 
the  older  group  on  the  campus  that  wanted  a  quiet  campus  where 
studies  could  be  pursued,  and  he  wanted  to  get  rid  of  all  of 
these  protest  problems.   He  had  declared  himself  to  be  for  law 
and  order  and  had,  I  believe,  written  statements  that  had  been 
circulated  on  the  campus,  stating  that  if  there  were  going  to  be 
illegal  acts,  they  had  to  be  punished,  and  the  proper  people  to 
come  on  the  campus  to  do  it  were  the  police.   But  he  said  that 
he  felt  that  he  could  speak  to  the  students.   He  was,  of  course, 
a  well-known  semanticist,  and  he  thought  that  if  the  proper 
words  were  used,  the  proper  results  would  follow  and  he  would 
try  to  go  softly  at  first.   Softly  meant  that  he  distributed 
flower  petals  all  over  the  campus  to  show  that  there  was  a  soft 
side  to  the  campus  and  that  people  should  more  or  less  feel  that 
there  was  going  to  be  a  spring  renaissance,  a  resurgence  of 
civility.   That  didn't  last  very  long.  All  of  the  protests  for 
the  same  reasons  continued. 

Are  we  in  the  midst  of  1968  now? 

Ve  are  in  the  midst  of  1968  and  the  latter  part  of  1968.   The 
demonstrations  took  a  very- -well,  they  went  to  a  pattern.   The 
campus  was  absolutely  quiet  until  close  to  noon.   The  television 
cameras  would  be  set  up  around  noon  and  the  students  appeared, 
[laughter]  And  many  of  the  faculty  now  appeared  in  support  of 
the  students  and  particularly  in  support  of  the  black  studies 
program. 

Now  the  faculty  here  were  quite  divided.   Some  supported 
the  idea  that  there  had  to  be  a  pretty  independent  black  studies 
school  or  department.   Others  said  that  the  curriculum  of  such  a 
program,  its  administration,  would  have  to  go  through  the  same 
deliberation  for  quality  as  any  other  curriculum  program.   The 


224 


trustees  had  agreed  to  this  black  studies  program  provided  the 
procedure  that  I  just  outlined  for  quality  control,  let's  call 
it,  was  followed.  That  didn't  satisfy  many  of  the  others  of  the 
faculty,  and  as  I  indicated,  there  was  this  feeling  that  when 
the  problems  arose  at  San  Francisco  State,  they  would  be  going 
to  headquarters  450  Biles  away  for  solution,  that  the  system  was 
wrong.   Smith,  actually,  had  risen  to  prominence 
administratively  quite  a  long  time  before  he  became  acting 
president,  maybe  a  year  or  two  before  that,  when  he  led  a 
protest  calling  for  decentralization  of  operations. 

Hicke:     In  the  system? 

Heilbron:   Of  the  colleges  in  the  system.   Of  course,  there  were  answers  to 
that  from  the  system  point  of  view,  but  I'll  not  go  into  those 
answers  at  this  time.   It  was  the  whole  idea  of  getting  a  system 
together  and  of  being  able  to  finance  the  system  and  being  able 
to  support  the  very  colleges.   They  wanted  all  of  the  money  but 
none  of  the  controls,  but  that's  a  separate  question.   The 
system  meant  not  only  the  system,  but  the  college;  it  meant  the 
system  in  the  country,  it  meant  the  social  system,  it  meant  the 
justice  system,  it  meant  the-- 

ff 

Hicke:     You  just  said  it  meant  the  racial  relationships? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  and  the  faculty  were  joining  the  students  in  their 

protests- -the  white  students  who  had  all  of  these  social  issues, 
the  black  students  and  minorities  who  wanted  the  minority 
programs  and  admissions  almost  uncontrolled.  And  we  had,  by  the 
time  of  the  so-called  strike  in  San  Francisco,  close  to  300 
faculty  supporting  the  students. 

Hicke:     It  sounds  like  the  original  Pandora's  Box. 

Heilbron:   So  in  the  meantime,  the  trustees  in  some  effort  at  relating  to 
the  college  but  recognizing  the  fact  that  it  was  located  many 
miles  away  from  headquarters,  appointed  a  regional  committee  of 
trustees  from  the  bay  area  to  relate  and  work  with  the  college 
administration  and  faculty  if  necessary  to  bring  about  some  kind 
of  peace.   It  was  recognized  that  if  we  could  solve  the  faculty 
problem,  the  student  problem  would  be  solved  with  it. 

Hicke:     Did  you  head  that  committee? 

Heilbron:  I  headed  the  committee  relating  to  the  faculty.  There  was  a 
community  committee  that  was  dealing  with  the  students.  The 
students,  however,  were  getting  tired  of  the  struggle.  Now  I  am 


225 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Hlcke : 


referring  to  a  period  of  time  somewhat,  I  believe,  around 
November  of  '68  through  January  of  '69.   Our  committee  met  with 
the  leaders  of  organized  labor  in  San  Francisco  whose  children 
were  attending  San  Francisco  State,  and  with  some  of  the 
administrative  and  faculty  leadership,  to  determine  what  could 
be  done.  The  faculty  dissidents  had  employed  a  labor  attorney 
by  the  name  of  Van  Borg  to  represent  them,  and  we  had  to  meet 
with  him  from  time  to  time. 

There  was  no  authority  in  the  statutes  for  negotiating  with 
faculty.   There  was  only  a  requirement  that  we  meet  and  confer. 
Now  if  you  meet  and  confer  with  a  person  and  have  a  discussion 
with  him,  sooner  or  later  you  will  find  that  you  are  in 
agreement  with  some  of  the  things  that  he  says  or  in 
disagreement  with  some  of  these  things.   The  exchange  of  views 
in  themselves  may  produce  results,  but  these  results  would  have 
to  be  unilateral  and  declared  and  could  not  be  the  results,  so 
it  appeared,  from  negotiation.   So  it  was  a  narrow  line  that  we 
had  to  walk.   And  a  good  deal  of  sympathy  was  developing,  for 
various  reasons,  for  the  students. 

As  they  protested  and  demonstrated,  Hayakawa  did  call  in 
the  police,  the  tactical  squad,  and  he  regarded  the  way  that 
they  circled  around  the  students  and  narrowed  the  grip  on 
student  protests  and  finally  made  their  specific  arrests  as  a 
beautiful  ceremony!   [laughter]   But  it  didn't  help  provide 
peace  to  the  campus.   We  met  mostly  off -campus,  although  we  had 
a  couple  of  meetings  on-campus  with  faculty  and  wound  up  with 
midnight  meetings  at  my  house  with  faculty. 

Were  there  some  members  of  the  faculty  that  you  met  with 
particularly,  or  how  did  that  work? 

I'm  going  to  try  to--.   I  know  that  there  was  a  Pentony,  and  I 
know  we  met  with  the  deputy  of  Hayakawa,  and  we  met  with 
representatives  of  the  academic  senate,  I  think  Professors 
Bierman  and  Axen,  and  there  were  others.   We  met  with  a  group 
selected  by  the  faculty  that  we  had  nothing  to  do  with  choosing. 
But  we  met  with  other  people  as  well,  in  an  effort  to  work  out  a 
solution,  because  a  good  many  people  were  being  arrested. 

Counsel  for  the  system  had  obtained  an  injunction  against 
the  so-called  strike  and  against  threatening  picketing,  in  other 
words  not  picketing  for  information  and  communication  but  what 
can  be  termed  "violent  picketing."  No  arrests  were  ever  made 
under  that  injunction.   I  had  grave  concerns  about  it. 

From  a  legal-- 


226 


Heilbron:   From  a  legal  standpoint.   The  injunction  was  obtained  on  the 

theory  that  a  strike  against  any  part  of  the  state  was  illegal. 
Now  there  was  a  [United  States]  Supreme  Court  case  with  a  dictum 
to  that  effect- -not  a  decision,  but  what's  called  a  "dictum",  or 
kind  of  an  insert  of  an  opinion- -and  there  was  very  much  of  a 
lower  California  court  case  which  indicated  that  any  such  strike 
would  be  illegal.   But  to  make  arrests  of  faculty  on  a  criminal 
contempt  charge  of  the  injunction,  the  publicity  that  would 
bring- -without  discussing  it,  I  had  my  own  estimation  of  what 
the  liberal  Supreme  Court  of  that  time  would  do  if  the  case  ever 
got  up  to  it,  and  what  the  damages  could  be  to  the  state  in  back 
pay  and  everything;  there  was  also  a  question  as  to  whether 
there  was  a  strike.  Many  of  the  picketers  were  teachers  who 
would  go  to  teach  their  class  and  then  come  back  on  the  picket 
line!   So  was  there  a  strike  or  wasn't  there?  There  was  a 
statute,  however,  that  was  a  kind  of  absentee  statute  that 
conservative  people,  and  I  believe  the  governor,  wanted  to  rely 
on.   It  stated  that  any  employee  of  the  state  who  left  his 
position  without  consent  and  remained  absent  without  any  kind  of 
reporting- - 

Hicke:     No  notification? 

Heilbron:   --no  notification,  would  automatically  be  deemed  to  have 

resigned  in  five  days.   So  the  question  was,  for  many  of  these 
professors,  some  of  whom  really  did  not  go  to  class,  were  they 
under  that  statute?  Had  they  resigned?  There  was  a  provision 
in  the  statute  that  allowed  them  to  apply  for  reinstatement  for 
cause,  and  that  turned  out  to  be  a  very  important  escape  hatch. 

Meanwhile,  Hayakawa  had  canceled  the  college  period  before 
the  end  of  the  term,  he  abbreviated  the  term  by  one  week,  with 
the  intention  of  putting  that  week  later  on  an  extended  term,  in 
the  hope  that  a  longer  Christmas  vacation  would  quiet  things 
down.   But  when  the  students  came  back  and  the  faculty  came  back 
in  January,  it  was  to  the  same  old  places,  although  we  had  made 
considerable  effort  to  try  to  bring  about  peace. 

Through  some  kind  of  faculty  organization  and,  I  believe, 
the  labor  people  in  San  Francisco,  they  brought  out  a  man  from 
Wayne  State  University  by  the  name  of  Ronald  Haughton,  and  he 
became  a  facilitator  of  discussion.   The  committee  consisted  of 
Albert  Ruffo,  James  Thacher--Thacher  was  from  San  Francisco, 
Ruffo  had  been  mayor  of  San  Jose  and  had  been  chairman  of  the 
board- -George  Hart,  also  from  San  Francisco,  Karl  Wente,  from 
Alameda  County,  and  me. 

Hicke:     Wasn't  he  with  the  Bank  of  America? 


227 


Heilbron:  No,  this  is  the  younger  Karl  Wente.  Hart  was  an  extremely 

conservative  member  of  the  board.  He  hardly  participated  in  any 
discussion  whatever,  but  he  took  copious  notes  on  what  we  were 
doing  and  where  these  notes  went,  I  don't  know.   I  suspect. 
Vent*  was  an  appointee  of  governor  Reagan.   He  was  a  very 
honest,  receptive  person  who  wanted  to  be  of  help  to  the 
committee  and  to  the  board,  but  he  finally  was  persuaded  by  the 
governor  to  resign  the  committee  because  he  would  be  doing 
things  contrary  to  the  governor's  wishes.   So  the  active 
commit tee  was  down  to  three  of  the  five. 

Hicke:     I  take  it  not  all  of  you  were  appointed  by  the  governor? 

Heilbron:   We  were  all  appointed  by  the  governor.   I  was  appointed  by 
Governor  Brown. 

Hicke:     Oh,  the  previous.   I  guess  I  was  thinking  he  was  appointed  to 
this  committee,  but  you  meant  he  was  appointed  as  a  trustee? 

Heilbron:   He  was  appointed  as  trustee  by  [Reagan].   Yes. 
Hicke:     And  then  he  had  to  resign  as  a  trustee? 

Heilbron:   No,  no.  Just  from  the  committee,  because  1  guess  the  assumption 
was  he  would  be  embarrassing  the  governor's  position. 

Hicke:     Okay.   Thank  you.   So  you  were  down  to  three  active -- 

Heilbron:   Did  I  mention  that  the  Teamsters  were  really  involved  in  this? 
Because  the  Teamsters  were  potentially  much  involved  in  the 
situation.   If  they  stopped  deliveries  in  support  of  the  strike, 
the  party  was  over.  We  had  to  have  the  Teamsters  remain 
neutral . 

Hicke:     And  who  was  the  head  of  the  local  Teamsters? 

Heilbron:   I  don't  remember  the  head  of  the  local  Teamsters,  but  I  do 
remember  that  the  secretary  of  the  San  Francisco  Labor 
Federation,  Johns,  was  one  of  the  people  we  dealt  with,  and  he 
was  able  to  convince  the  Teamsters  to  remain  outside  of  the 
fray. 

Hicke:     And  you  were  able  to  convince  him? 

Heilbron:   Well,  we  worked  with  him.   Haughton  was  greatly  responsible -- 

Haughton  became  a  member  of  the  federal  commission  handling  all 
labor  problems  within  the  civil  service  of  the  United  States  for 
President  Johnson.   So  he  was  a  first-class  person. 


228 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Vith  these  almost-daily  demonstrations  and  arrests,  the 
community  was  getting  pretty  tired  of  San  Francisco  State,  the 
students  themselves  were  getting  tired,  and  the  faculty  were 
shouting  at  each  other.   Classrooas  were  disrupted.  John 
Bunzel,  who  becaae  president  of  San  Jose  State,  was  then  the 
chairman  of  the  political  science  department,  and  when  he 
appeared  in  his  classes,  students  in  the  front  row  stamped  their 
feet  so  that  neither  he  could  be  heard  nor  the  other  students 
who  wanted  to  listen.   He  dismissed  the  class.   His  tires  were 
slashed;  his  automobile  was  damaged.   So  matters  were  physical 
and  occasionally  brutal. 

Finally,  I  worked  out  what  1  thought  would  be  a  plan  of 
action  in  the  form  of  a  letter.   First,  we'd  give  amnesty  to  the 
faculty  protesters.   Second,  we  would  recognize  that  a  black 
studies  program  in  line  with  faculty  traditions  was  operative 
and  was  to  be  encouraged  at  San  Francisco  State.   Third,  that 
the  faculty  members  who  had  been  absent  from  their  classes  and 
had  participated  in  the  so-called  strike  would  be  expected  to 
file  with  the  state  Personnel  Board  an  application  for 
reinstatement,  and  fourth  that  a  new  grievance  procedure,  which 
had  been  approved  by  the  state  senate  and  was  up  for 
consideration  by  the  trustees,  would  be  recommended  by  us  as 
individuals.   Indeed,  this  whole  letter  was  by  three  of  us  as 
individuals,  the  three  that  were  named. 

You  and  Mr.  Thacher? 

And  Ruffo.   But  this  draft  of  communication  was  not  to  be  the 
act  of  the  committee,  it  was  to  be  agreed  to  by  the  San 
Francisco  State  College.   I  got  the  deputy  of  Hayakawa,  who  was 
authorized  by  Hayakawa  to  sign  for  the  college,  and  I  got  hold 
of  Van  Borg,  who  had  just  come  back  from  vacation  in  Hawaii,  I 
got  hold  of  him,  and  he  came  to  our  house  close  to  midnight,  and 
he  approved  the  letter,  or  was  satisfied  by  the  letter,  let's 
put  it  that  way.   It  wasn't  a  question  of  whether  he  would  agree 
to  the  letter  as  a  kind  of  a  contract  or  not,  this  was  what  the 
college  was  willing  to  do.   Would  he  advise  his  people  to  act 
accordingly?  That  was  all  that  could  be  involved.   The  faculty 
accepted  this  idea. 

Of  course,  in  the  meantime,  the  governor  was  against  any 
kind  of  transaction  involving  the  faculty.   They  should  either 
cone  back  or  quit,  and  any  kind  of  implied  recognition  of  their 
interests  was  not  acceptable.  You  will  recall  that  the  same 
pattern  was  followed  with  the  air  traffic  controllers  when  the 
governor  [Reagan]  became  president.   In  that  situation,  however, 
there  was  unquestionably  a  statute  which  made  action  against  the 
government  of  the  United  States --the  strike- -illegal.   So  he  did 


229 


have  that  legal  position,  but  there  was  the  same  question  as  to 
whether  that  action  was  in  the  best  interests  of  the  United 
States.  There  are  divided  opinions  on  that.   In  any  event,  he 
had  the  saae  position  regarding  the  teachers.   He  also  felt,  for 
some  reason,  that  we  had  no  authority  to  deal  in  the  way  we  did 
with  the  faculty  and  the  other  people  who  were  involved  in  the 
effort  to  settle  the  dispute. 

Hicke:     As  trustees? 

Heilbron:   As  trustees,  that  we  were  a  regional  committee  to  be  somewhat 

advisory  to  the  trustees  but  had  no  real  authority  to  discuss  as 
we  had,  or  confer  as  we  had,  and  try  to  work  out  a  solution  as 
we  had. 

Ted  Merriam  was  the  board  chairman  at  the  time-- 
Hicke:     Chairman? 

Heilbron:   Chairman  of  the  trustees.   He  was  a  Republican.   He  confirmed 
that  we  had  the  authority  that  we  claimed  we  had. 

Well,  we  came  to  a  meeting  in  Los  Angeles -- 
Hicke:     Of  the  trustees? 

Heilbron:   --of  the  trustees,  and  the  question  then  was,  would  all  of  this 
effort  at  settlement  be  rejected?   It  was  obvious  that  the 
trustees  were  not  giving  anything  except  for  permitting  the 
faculty  to  resume  their  positions  and  their  livelihood  on 
application  to  a  neutral  agency,  that  what  had  been  done  had 
been  done  by  trustee  and  college  action  with  the  exception  of 
our  individual  recommendations  for  the  grievance  procedure. 
That  was  the  story.   This  came  as  somewhat  of  a  surprise  to  the 
governor.   I  believe  he  was  advised  by  all  of  the  people  that  he 
later  brought  to  Washington,  including  [Edwin]  Meese.   But  the 
question  then  was  raised,  since  the  deputy  under  Hayakawa  had 
signed  the  letter- - 

M 

Heilbron:   --and  Hayakawa  was  in  the  room,  he  was  asked,  "What  is  your 

position,  President  Hayakawa?"  I  was  very  much  interested  in 
his  answer.  His  answer  was,  "I  think  Mr.  Heilbron  is  right,  and 
I  think  that  this  matter  should  be  resolved  in  the  way  that  this 
letter  states." 

Hicke:     Oh,  terrific.   What  a  relief. 


230 


Heilbron:   That  was  a  relief,  and  then  I  got  a  standing  ovation.   Then  the 
governor,  of  course,  did  not  reappoint  me.   [laughter] 

Now,  there  is  possibly  a  little  postscript  to  this.  J. 
Hart  Clinton,  the  publisher  of  the  San  Mateo  Times  and  an 
attorney  in  San  Francisco  and  perhaps  at  that  time  the  leading 
negotiator  for  management  in  labor  relations  in  town,  had 
written  a  letter  advising  the  governor  to  reappoint  me.   He  had 
also  written  Caspar  Weinberger,  who  was  then  the  governor's 
director  of  finance,  to  ask  the  governor  to  reappoint  me.   Both 
newspapers  in  San  Francisco  had  asked  the  same.  Ve  know  how  the 
governor  finally  acted,  that  he  felt  that  I  had  participated  in 
a  situation  where  we  didn't  have  authority.  Mr.  Clinton,  after 
hearing  from  Mr.  Weinberger's  explanation  of  the  governor's 
failure  to  reappoint,  said  that  he  still  felt  the  governor  made 
a  mistake,  and  here  is  what  he  said:  "In  fact,  although  the 
governor's  position  on  the  handling  of  the  college  problem  is 
undoubtedly  popular  and  is  gaining  him  many  votes,  I  still  feel 
that  Louis  Heilbron  and  I  have  as  much  dedication  to  law  and 
order,  and  we  dislike  rioting  and  activism  fully  as  much  as  the 
governor.   However,  the  situation  is  not  going  to  be  settled  by 
complete  polarization  of  viewpoints,  and  if  it  were  not  for 
people  like  Heilbron,  who  stuck  out  his  neck  in  order  to  bring 
the  San  Francisco  State  situation  to  an  acceptable  conclusion, 
the  governor  would  not  be  in  as  comfortable  position  as  he  is 
today.   He  looks  good  because  he  gives  everybody  the  impression 
that  he  took  a  tough  position  and  won,  but  it  was  Louis  Heilbron 
who  did  much  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  successful  conclusion,  and 
yet  he  not  only  fails  to  get  the  credit,  but  ends  up  by  losing  a 
job.  All  of  which  means  to  me  that  the  governor  has  profited 
greatly  and  good  people  like  Heilbron  have  ended  up  as 
sacrificial  goats  in  the  process." 

Hicke:     Wow,  that's  pretty  strong.   That  is  truly  significant.   That 
accomplishment  of  yours  is  really  a  major  one,  and  it's 
unfortunate  that  it  was  so  unappreciated  by  Governor  Reagan, 
though  not  by  everybody  else. 

Heilbron:  Well,  the  letters  I  got  were  sure  approving. 

Hicke:     You  have  a  file  there  that  looks  like  it's  an  inch  and  a  half 
thick. 

Heilbron:   And  they  were  all  letters.   And  they  came  from  people  like  Kerr 
and  Dumke,  a  beautiful  letter  from  Dumke,  and  [Norman  L. ] 
Epstein,  who  was  general  counsel  but  who  has  become  a  justice  in 
the  [state]  court  of  appeal.   They  were  very  good  letters.   I 
didn't  know  whether  to  bring  this  thing  out  or  not,  because  it 
is  self-serving. 


231 


Hicke:  But  !'•  glad  you  did,  because  it  really  indicates  the  support 
that  you  actually  did  have. 

Heilbron:  Oh,  I  had  a  great  deal  of  support.  Much  of  it  is  not  evident 
here  [indicates  file].  There  were  communications  sent  that  1 
never  saw. 

Hicke:     When  you  were  actually  negotiating,  or  not  negotiating, 
conferring,  what  kind  of  support  were  you  getting? 

Heilbron:  Well,  the  comunity  was  anxious  that  the  affair  be  settled,  and 
it's  a  good  question.   1  don't  know  what  the  papers  then 
actually  said.   I  think  that  the  papers  were  quite  supportive. 
I'd  have  to  check  and  look  that  up.   I  haven't  got  any  of  the 
papers  at  the  time,  but  there  was  one  interesting  thing,  and 
that  is  that  Van  Borg  went  down  to  Joseph  [L. ]  Alioto,  who  was 
then  mayor  [of  San  Francisco]  and  told  him  that  the  whole  thing 
was  settled  and  that  it  was  a  great  victory  for  labor. 

Hicke:     Oh  really? 

Heilbron:   I  was  invited  to  go  down,  and  I  didn't,  because  I  regarded  this 
as  something  San  Francisco  State  was  settling,  and  I  was  not 
going  to  be  a  principal  in  that  affair.   Alioto  had  wanted  an 
end  to  the  turmoil,  and  he  had  sympathy  for  many  of  the 
professors,  and  of  course  he  was  a  political  opponent  of 
Governor  Reagan.   That  introduced  a  kind  of  an  amusing  note. 
However,  it  really  was  extraneous  to  the  settlement. 

Hicke:     What  was  Hayakawa  doing  all  of  this  time? 

Heilbron:   Hayakawa  had  done  one  very  important  and  symbolic  thing  in  all 
of  this  situation  of  student  protest  and  strike.   The  students, 
before  the  noon  gatherings,  had  a  truck,  and  on  top  of  that 
truck  a  loudspeaker  to  call  the  faithful  to  action.  At  a 
somewhat  early  point  in  his  career  after  the  flower  drum  song 
didn't  work,  he  went  up  to  where  this  truck  was,  and  he  climbed 
up  that  truck,  and  he  disconnected  the  wires  himself.   The 
mouthpiece  was  silenced.   That  twenty -five  seconds  earned  him 
the  senate  position  in  the  United  States.   There  was  practically 
no  other  thing  that  he  had  ever  done  that  warranted  his 
elevation.   But  it  so  captured  the  imagination  of  the  people,  it 
so  did  what  the  community -at -large  wanted  to  do  to  the  violence 
of  students,  that  he  sailed  in  with  little  of  a  campaign. 

Hicke:     And  of  course  what  he  was  doing  was  cutting  communications, 
[laughter] 


232 


Heilbron:   That's  right.  He  cut  communications  in  order  to  have  the 

greatest  communication,  I  guess,  in  political  senate  history. 

For  much  of  the  time  that  we  were  sweating  out  the 
situation  with  the  deputy,  he  was  examining  the  clippings  about 
this  very  important  act  in  disconnecting  the  student  megaphone. 
He  didn't  participate  in  much  of  the  discussion,  either  with 
faculty  or  with  us.   From  time  to  time,  I  called  him  and  kept 
him  aware  of  what  we  were  doing,  and  I'm  sure  that  the  faculty 
and  senate  tried  to  do  the  same  thing,  but  he  had  done  his  job 
and  that  was  it. 

Hicke:     Resting  on  his  laurels? 

Heilbron:   He  rested  on  his  laurels.   But  there  are  two  pieces  of 

importance .   One  of  them  was  what  he  did  with  that  loudspeaker 
and  the  other  was  what  he  did  at  that  meeting. 

Hicke:     Supporting  it? 

Heilbron:   That's  right.   And  for  my  part,  the  rest  of  it  can  be  forgotten, 
[laughter]   That  was  critical;  he  backed  his  deputy.   That  was 
it. 

You  might  be  interested  in  some  of  the  things  that  the 
committee  talked  about  and  what  its  viewpoints  were  during  our 
discussions.  We  stressed  that  violence  was  an  unacceptable 
route  for  a  university  with  the  traditions  of  American  and 
English  universities. 

Hicke:     Vas  that  with  the  idea  of  not  calling  in  the  police  any  more 
than  necessary? 

Heilbron:   Well,  the  calling  in  of  police  was  not  our  prerogative.   It  was 
definitely  the  prerogative  of  the  president  of  the  university. 
But  we  wanted  to  make  clear  that  we  were  not  supporting  violence 
in  any  form  by  student  or  faculty  or  anybody  else;  that  the 
university  was  a  place  for  reason,  and  if  the  university 
couldn't  solve  its  problems,  the  society-at-large  was  lost,  too. 
We  agreed  on  the  basic  right  to  protest,  to  dissent,  but  not  to 
disrupt.  We  pointed  out  again  and  again  that  most  of  the 
concerns  that  the  faculty  had  had  already  been  answered;  they 
didn't  realize  that.   We  went  over  these  items.   We  recognized 
legitimate  complaints,  such  as  the  fact  that  the  college  should 
have  more  flexibility  in  financial  and  in  other  areas,  but  much 
of  this  program  was  controlled  by  statute.   I  told  you  before,  I 
think,  that  we  didn't  have  line  item  authority  to  transfer 
between  items.  You  could  protest  about  it,  but  the  place  of 
protest  should  be  the  legislature.   I  indicated  that  we 


233 


recognized  that  the  faculty  needed  a  grievance  procedure  that 
they  felt  protected  their  proper  interests,  that  there  had  to  be 
due  process  but  not  endless  process.   It  was  important  that  the 
campus  be  kept  open,  that  it  should  not  be  shut  down.   It  was 
not  right  that  an  institution  that  should  be  open  to  discussion 
and  reason  and  arguoent  should  be  shut  down. 

And  I  will  add  that  we  paved  the  way  for  an  administrative 
conference  between  the  faculty  and  the  representatives  of  the 
headquarters  administration.   They  came  within  a  very  short 
distance  of  resolving  the  conflict  after  we  had  prepared  the 
way,  but  at  the  last  minute  they  simply  could  not  bridge  the 
g«P- 

Hicke:     Well,  I  thank  you  for  going  through  your  files  and  your  careful 
preparation.   That  really  makes  it  a  full  account. 

Heilbron:   Well,  actually  I  have  a  number  of  files  that  I  haven't 

consulted,  but  my  main  file  in  this  area,  as  in  others  I  think  I 
told  you,  got  lost  when  we  moved  to  this  apartment.   I  had 
written  out  the  whole  situation  and  would  have  saved  you  all  of 
this  valuable  time,  if  I  had  taken  it  with  me.   Why  I  had  only 
one  copy,  I  don't  know,  but  that's  all  I  had. 

Hicke:     Now  we  have  it. 

Let's  just  switch  gears  here  for  a  minute  and  back  up  to 
Clark  Kerr's  part  in  the  original  Master  Plan  planning. 

Heilbron:   Well,  President  Kerr  had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  formation 
and  the  implementation  of  the  Master  Plan.   Of  course,  he 
represented  the  university  along  with  two  of  the  regents  in  most 
of  the  discussions  with  the  other  segments,  but  beyond  the 
procedural ,  he  drafted  much  of  what  was  agreed  to  and  when  the 
issue  arose  as  to  whether  the  university  would  find  the 
compromises  acceptable,  he  called  a  large  meeting  and  it  was 
agreed  to  support  the  plan  from  the  university's  standpoint. 
This  included  the  constitutional  position  of  the  new  board  of 
trustees  for  the  state  colleges.   President  Kerr  was  reluctant 
to  permit  it  to  decline  into  a  statute,  as  we  discussed  before. 
And  then  he  supported  the  idea  of  a  board  of  trustees  modeled 
after  the  regents ;  he  wanted  that  board  to  have  broad  fiscal 
authority  that  was  denied  in  the  legislation  finally  passed.  He 
was  quite  supportive  during  the  operation  of  the  plan  to  give 
the  college  administration  as  much  leeway  and  authority  as  the 
university  had,  provided  that  it  kept  within  the  confines  of  the 
legislation  and  did  not  aspire  to  turn  itself  into  a  competitive 
research  institution.   Does  that  do  it? 


234 


Hicke:     Yea,  thank  you.   But  what  about  President  Dumke? 

Heilbron:   Let  me  quote  what  I  said  at  the  dedication  of  the  CSU  Archives: 
I  said,  "I  pay  tribute  to  Chancellor  Dumke,  an  extraordinary 
public  servant  by  any  standards,  who  has  given  direction  to  this 
system  over  almost  its  entire  life  and  whose  imprint  will  last 
far  beyond  the  two  decades  of  history  that  we  are  celebrating 
this  evening.  His  survival  in  his  post  is  already  a  legend  in 
the  annals  of  American  higher  education—at  times  it  reads  like 
an  account  of  the  Perils  of  Pauline  or  even  of  the  Raiders  of 
thf  Lost  Ark,  but  actually  survival  is  not  the  mark  of  his 
administration. 

"Rather  his  persistent  efforts  to  achieve  quality  education 
throughout  the  CSUC,  to  provide  new  approaches  in  educational 
methods,  and  to  maintain  this  segment's  commitment  under  the 
Master  Plan  of  which  he  was  a  principal  architect- -these  are 
among  the  contributions  that  will  mark  his  era." 

I  think  that  this  was  a  fair  assessment. 


Coordinating  Council  for  Higher  Education 
[Interview  9:  July  15,  1992]  ## 


Hicke:     What  I  had  in  mind  today  was  to  start  off  with  the  coordinating 
council. 

Heilbron:   You  mean  the  Coordinating  Council  for  Higher  Education?  Yes, 
that  was  part  of  the  Donohue  Act,  the  provision  for  such  a 
coordinating  council.   You  may  recall  that  there  had  been  a 
liaison  committee  between  the  State  Board  of  Education  and  the 
University  of  California  at  an  earlier  time,  that  is  prior  to 
the  Donohue  Act,  whose  purpose  was  to  adjust  conflicts  between 
the  state  colleges  and  the  university,  and  yet  that  had  not 
proven  sufficiently  satisfactory,  so  the  coordinating  council 
was  made  part  of  the  program  for  monitoring  the  implementation 
of  the  Master  Plan. 

Hicke:     So  this  came  into  being  along  with  the  Master  Plan? 

Heilbron:  At  the  same  time.   The  coordinating  council  consisted  of 
representatives  from  the  various  segments  of  the  higher 
education  system.  That  is,  there  were  three  representatives 
from  the  University  of  California,  there  were  three  from  the 
California  State  Colleges,  there  were  three  representatives  of 


235 


the  junior  colleges,  who  at  that  time  had  not  been  gathered  in 
to  any  single  organization  where  there  was  oversight --they  were 
still  individual. 

Hicke:     And  they  were  locally  funded? 

Heilbron:   They  were  locally  funded,  but  with  substantial  state  subsidy.   I 
think  it  was  nearly  fifty-fifty.   So  the  representatives  were 
chosen  by  sone  kind  of  association  that  they  had  together.   The 
private  colleges  were  also  represented,  and  there  were  three 
public  members.   So  that,  I  think,  made  fifteen  members.   I 
believe  that  originally,  in  the  first  council,  Dr.  Kerr,  Ed 
Pauley,  and  Mr.  Carter  represented  the  university,  and  Dr. 
Gallagher,  who  was  the  chancellor  of  the  CSC  system,  and  I,  and 
Alan  Sutherland  represented  the  California  State  Colleges. 
Father  Cassasa,  president  of  Loyola  College,  and  Dr.  Arthur 
Coons,  who  was  president  of  Occidental  College,  and  Helen 
Milbank,  a  noted  international  reporter,  represented  the  public. 
Robert  Wert,  who  was  vice-provost  of  Stanford  [University] --he 
became  president  of  Mills  College- -and  Warren  Christopher  either 
represented  the  private  colleges  or  was  a  public  member.   I  may 
have  the  public  members  and  the  private  institutional  members, 
or  the  time  of  appointment,  mixed  up  a  bit.   But  the  theory  of 
representation  I  have  given  you.   I  know  that  Roy  Simpson  and 
Joseph  Cosand  and  perhaps  Andrew  Kay  represented  the  junior 
colleges- -no,  Eleanor  Nettle  was  the  third  person  for  the  junior 
colleges. 

The  idea  of  this  council  was  that  it  would  advise  the 
segments  regarding  their  functions  and  levels  of  expenditure 
under  the  Master  Plan. 

Hicke:     You  mean  the  university  and  the  state  colleges? 

Heilbron:  And  the  junior  colleges,  too.   That  it  would  interpret  the 

purposes  of  the  Master  Plan  as  it  applied  to  these  segments. 
And  that  it  would  advise  the  governor,  the  legislature,  as  well, 
on  the  higher  education  problems  of  the  state,  in  addition  to 
specifically  advising  the  segments. 

The  liaison  committee  had  operated  privately.   This  council 
was  a  public  institution  whose  meetings  were  open  to  the  public, 
and  it  was  thought  that  by  airing  any  difficulties  the  segments 
might  have  between  themselves  or  among  themselves,  the  public 
would  benefit  and  higher  education  would  benefit.   By  compelling 
the  discussion  to  be  public,  we  expected  a  principle  established 
of  cooperation  and  civility.   I  think  both  of  those  objectives 
were  accomplished.   It  could  not  order  the  university  or  the 
state  colleges- -certainly  not  the  junior  colleges  that  were 


236 


locally  organized  and  authorized- -it  could  not  order  these 
segments  to  do  any  particular  thing.   But  it  could  recommend, 
and  its  recommendations  would  be  public,  and  the  governor  would 
know  about  them  and  the  legislature  would  know  about  them.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  in  one  area,  the  legislature  flatly  declared 
that  it  would  not  approve  or  authorize  any  new  campus  or 
facility  unless  the  coordinating  council  approved  and 
recommended  it.   So  it  did  have  a  certain  amount  of  let's  call 
it  clout,  not  only  because  of  its  public  character,  but  because 
of  the  people  who  were  on  it.   The  top  representatives  of  the 
segments  (when  I  say  "top"  1  mean  in  their  official 
responsibilities  within  the  segments)  were  present  on  the 
council,  so  that  they  didn't  have  to  go  back  to  anybody  for 
approval  as  to  what  their  views  would  be. 

Hicke:     Was  there  the  support  of  the  governor? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  most  of  the  members  were  well  known  to  the  governor  and  had 
his  confidence.   1  know  that  Varren  Christopher  was  chairman  for 
some  time,  and  he  had  been  an  advisor  to  the  governor. 
Christopher  has  had  an  extraordinary  career  in  California,  at 
O'Melveny  &  Myers,  as  president  of  the  Stanford  Board  of 
Trustees,  in  the  southern  California  community,  and  as  U.S. 
Secretary  of  State.  Most  of  the  segment  representatives  had 
worked  with  the  governor.   Robert  Wert  served  as  the  first 
chairman. 

The  subjects  of  consideration  by  the  coordinating  council 
were  pretty  much  the  following:  they  reviewed  the  general  level 
of  support  sought  by  the  segments.   In  other  words,  they 
reviewed  the  budgetary  requests  of  the  segments. 

Hicke:     Which  had  gone  into  the  legislature? 

Heilbron:   Were  about  to  go  into  the  legislature,  and  the  legislature 
wanted  to  know  what  the  viewpoint  of  the  council  was.  Of 
course,  if  there  was  disagreement  between  the  representatives  of 
the  segments,  it  would  be  shown  in  the  discussion  and  in  the 
minutes.   That  was  one  important  function. 

The  council  monitored  the  manner  in  which  the 
differentiation  of  function  was  being  handled  by  the  segments. 
In  one  case,  for  example,  the  Presbyterian  [Medical  Center]  in 
San  Francisco  asked  the  state  colleges  for  approval  of  a 
hospital  to  be  attached  to  San  Francisco  State  College,  and  the 
trustees  of  the  state  colleges  immediately  forwarded  the 
communication  to  the  coordinating  council.   They  recognized 
immediately  that  if  they  would  have  any  participation  in 
instruction,  the  proposal  was  violative  of  the  Master  Plan  since 


237 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


medicine  and  the  training  for  medicine  was  solely  a  university 
prerogative.   But  the  trustees  preferred  not  to  turn  the 
application  down  directly  but  that  the  council  advise  them  that 
they  had  no  authority  with  respect  to  the  matter  and  that  the 
situation  could  be  politely  resolved,  not  through  a  direct 
refusal,  but  through  the  reply  from  the  most  appropriate  agency 
advising  that  they  had  no  authority  to  consider  or  accept. 

Of  course,  the  monitoring  was  usually  directed  to  others 
than  the  university.   The  university  was  constitutionally 
organized  and  could  practically  do  anything  in  higher  education 
that  it  felt  was  appropriate.   I  think,  however,  that  if  the 
university  had  stated  that  it  was  going  to  concentrate  on  the 
training  of  teachers,  that  the  council  would  have  recommended  to 
the  legislature  that  in  some  way  they  use  their  financial 
leverage  in  budgeting  to  prevent  that  which  had  been  for  years 
the  prerogative  or  the  function  of  the  state  colleges. 
Actually,  the  state  colleges  grew  out  of  the  normal  schools,  as 
you  know.   So  much  for  monitoring. 

The  council  had  this  very  important  duty  to  review  the 
requests  from  the  segments  for  the  establishment  of  new 
campuses,  and  adopted  one  very  critical  criterion  involving  the 
junior  colleges,  and  that  is  that  no  new  campus  would  be 
established  for  the  university  or  the  state  colleges  unless 
there  was  adequate  junior  college  opportunities  covered  in  the 
primary  area  to  be  served  by  the  new  campus . 

In  other  words  the  junior  colleges  should  come  first? 

The  junior  colleges  would  have  to  be  there  to  offer  the 
opportunity  for  lower  division  instruction  before  an  upper 
division  or  graduate  program  was  established.   This  held  up,  for 
a  little  while,  the  Sonoma  State  College  program.   It  had 
intended  to  include  freshman  when  it  was  to  open  in  1962.  At 
that  time,  Sonoma  County  had  not  been  adequately  covered  by 
junior  colleges,  that  is  all  of  the  cities  and  towns  of  Sonoma 
County  and  Marin,  and  that  was  remedied  before  the  Sonoma  State 
College  opened. 


Who  determined  what  was 
already  set  up? 


•adequate"?  Maybe  there  were  criteria 


Of  course,  the  junior  college  district  would  have  to  raise  the 
money  to  establish  the  college  campus  itself.   The  principle  of 
the  council  was  that  the  majority  of  students  would  have  to  live 
within  twenty- five  to  thirty  miles  commuting  distance  from  this 
new  college  to  be  established.  At  the  time  of  the  establishment 
of  the  council,  1  suppose  there  were  somewhere  close  to  100 


238 


junior  colleges.  That  grew  to  around  107  rather  speedily.   I 
don't  know  to  what  extent  that  has  been  increased  since  then, 
but  it  can't  be  a  great  deal,  because  we  were  pretty  well 
covered  in  the  state  of  California  with  junior  colleges.  What 
the  council  sought  to  do  was  to  protect  the  junior  colleges 
against  unwarranted  competition  from  new  state  institutions  and 
to  protect  the  principle  that  there  had  to  be  complete 
opportunity  for  young  people  to  get  through  the  higher  education 
system  from  the  first  year  on  by  being  able  to  go  to  a  junior 
college  within  their  residential  area. 

Mow  this  expansion  worked  pretty  well.   Those  state  college 
institutions  that  had  been  approved  by  the  legislature  before 
the  Master  Plan,  before  the  Donohue  Act,  were  not  limited,  or 
were  not  to  be  reviewed.   We  had  an  institution  down  in  the 
Valley  (Turlock) ,  and  Sonoma  State  had  been  approved  under  the 
old  regime.   But  the  new  ones  and  the  sites  for  the  new  ones 
were  reviewed  and  approved.   When  I  say  sites,  the  council  would 
approve  the  area  where  the  new  institutions  would  be 
established,  but  not  the  particular  site.   They  would  say  you 
can  go  ahead  and  we  will  recommend  to  the  legislature  that  a 
state  college  be  established  at  Bakersfield.   But  the  particular 
place  in  and  around  Bakersfield  for  that  college  would  be  a 
matter  for  the  trustees  of  the  state  colleges  and  the  same 
principle  applied  to  the  university. 

The  coordinating  council  staff  was  separately  chosen  by  the 
director  of  the  coordinating  council.   The  first  one  was  John 
Richards,  formerly  chairman  of  the  Oregon  State  higher  education 
system.   In  some  cases,  the  experts  were  lent  by  the  segments  to 
make  as  complete  use  of  personnel  as  possible,  at  the  least 
cost. 

The  council  was  charged  with  looking  forward  and  planning. 
When  the  Master  Plan  began  in  1961,  growth  was  projected  by  the 
State  Department  of  Finance  and  by  people  in  higher  education. 
So  the  council  recommended  expansion,  looking  forward  to  1975- - 
this  was  1960-61- -for  all  segments.   They  reviewed  the  needs  for 
medical  education  for  the  next  ten  years.   They  had  special 
studies  concerning  salaries  and  working  conditions  and  fringe 
benefits  for  faculty  and  administrators  in  both  the  university 
and  the  state  college  systems.   They  reported  on  the  progress  of 
"articulation,"  the  facility  with  which  junior  college  graduates 
were  accepted  for  transfer  by  the  university  and  the  state 
colleges.   The  state  colleges  were  always  pressing  for  more 
equality  in  compensation  for  teachers  who  were  teaching  the  same 
subjects  as  those  in  the  university,  but  whose  teaching  loads 
were  greater.  Of  course,  their  research  obligations  were  less, 
and  those  adjustments  were  not  easy  to  make,  particularly  since 


239 


the  legislature  was  always  holding  back  a  bit  on  equalizing  the 
compensation.  I'm  not  talking  now  about  expertise  in  mining  or 
in  physics. 

M 

Heilbron:   I'»  talking  about  the  professor  who  teaches  American  history  in 
a  state  college  and  in  one  of  the  university  campuses. 

Hicke:     Were  the  salaries  equalized? 

Heilbron:  They  were  brought  up  quite  well,  I  think,  during  the  sixties. 
As  a  statter  of  fact,  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  sixties,  when 
the  state  colleges  were  expanding  at  a  rapid  rate,  in  order  to 
draw  and  recruit  personnel,  it  was  necessary,  and  the 
legislature  recognized  it,  to  raise  salaries.   I  think  that  at 
least  with  respect  to  comparable  institutions,  the  California 
salaries  for  the  state  colleges  were  higher  than  comparative 
institutions  in  the  United  States  with  whom  we  were  competing. 
I  think  later  on  that  has  dropped. 

Hicke:     But  compared  with  the  university  they  have  come  up? 

Heilbron:   The  state  colleges  did  come  up,  but  not  to  the  same  level.   Now, 
of  course,  it  is  the  California  State  University.   But  that 
research  requirement  in  the  university  is  still  the 
distinguishing  one,  although  the  state  college  (university)  has 
always  contended  that  the  person  with  the  greater  teaching  load 
is  nevertheless  performing  an  equal  service. 

The  council,  in  order  to  make  its  projections,  asked  for 
uniform  accounting  and  reporting  procedures  so  that  its  data 
were  comparable . 

The  Liaison  Committee  between  the  State  Board  of  Education 
and  the  university  had  a  great  many  agreements  on  specific 
matters.   The  question  was  raised  whether  they  would  survive  the 
creation  of  the  council. 

Hicke:     Were  these  formal  agreements? 

Heilbron:   These  were  formal  agreements,  and  the  decision  was  made  to 
review  every  one  of  them.   Those  that  were  approved  to  be 
continued  would  be  continued,  and  those  not  approved  would  be 
cancelled.   That  worked  out  to  everybody's  satisfaction. 

One  of  the  problems  that  came  up  early  on  in  the  council 
referred  to  the  matter  of  tuition.   There  was  always  a  materials 
fee  charged  by  the  university  and  the  state  colleges,  and  one  of 


240 


the  sources  of  pride  In  California  was  that  it  had  a  relatively 
free  higher  education  system.   Even  the  increase  in  materials 
fees  would  be  a  matter  for  considerable  discussion  in  the 
council  as  to  how  far  increases  should  go  when  the  whole  purpose 
of  the  California  system  was  to  have  a  tuition- free  program,  and 
there  was  always  a  question  as  to  how  much  the  materials  fee  was 
really  a  kind  of  a  substitute  for  partial  tuition. 

But  tuition  itself,  as  a  means  of  supporting  the 
university,  became  a  question  even  in  the  early  sixties.  With 
the  burgeoning  student  population,  there  were  those  who  felt 
that  tuition  was  inevitable,  and  some  of  us  fought  that  idea  to 
the  last  trench,  although  in  our  hearts  we  knew  that  the  time 
had  to  come  when  the  tremendous  college/university  population 
pressure  on  the  universities,  the  tremendous  costs  for 
expansion,  the  costs  of  administration  had  to  be  paid  for  by 
something  besides  the  general  appropriation  and  general  tax 
money.   But  I  believe  for  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  time  that  I 
was  on  the  council,  the  free  tuition  principle  held. 

Now,  whether  it  was  going  to  hold  in  the  future- -as  I 
indicated,  it  appeared  to  most  council  members  that  it  was  a 
question  of  time.   But  the  idea  of  opposing  tuition  really 
translated  ultimately  into  holding  the  amount  of  tuition  down. 
If  you  start  with  the  idea  that  there  shouldn't  be  any  tuition 
and  then  have  to  charge  tuition,  at  least  you  want  to  make  it  a 
minimum  tuition.   For  years,  I  think  that  the  California 
institutions  did  remarkably  well  compared  with  the  situation  in 
other  states  and  compared  with  the  opportunities  given  to 
students  throughout  the  state.   So  that  the  idea  now,  that  you 
go  up  40  percent  in  tuition  in  a  single  year,  as  I  believe  the 
California  State  University  is  going  to  do,  would  be  impossible 
to  think  about  in  the  days  when  we  were  serving.  A  few  percent, 
yes,  but  the  transfer  of  this  amount  of  burden,  no.   But  that 
is,  of  course,  the  difference  between  two  eras  of  state 
financial  resources. 

Even  Governor  Brown,  who  was  so  supportive  of  public  higher 
education,  if  he  were  the  governor  now,  would  not  be  able  to 
carry  out  the  ideas  that  he  may  have  had  then. 

But  1  suppose  it's  worth  mentioning  the  obvious,  that  in 
the  sixties,  even  with  all  of  the  protests  and  the  period  of 
troubles  with  students,  those  in  charge  of  higher  education  were 
very  proud  of  the  system  that  had  been  developed.  Ve  had  this 
open  door  opportunity  where  we  felt  that  everyone  would  have  his 
chance  to  take  advantage  of  higher  education  at  truly  minimum 
costs.   I  realize  that  these  days  it's  more  and  more  difficult, 


241 


even  vith  extended  scholarships  and  government  aid,  for  the 
institutions  to  hold  onto  that  premise. 

I  think  that  during  the  period  of  the  sixties,  the  junior 
colleges  more  and  more  becaae  dependent  on  state  subsidy,  and 
when  it  got  beyond  50  percent,  the  state  took  more  and  more 
authority  and  created  an  organization  to  monitor  the  junior 
colleges,  and  they  have  felt  the  pinch  perhaps  more  than  any 
other  part  of  the  higher  education  system,  because  that  is  where 
the  great  influx  of  college  population  begins. 

Hicke:     I  just  heard  this  morning  that  they  have  turned  down  over 
100,000  applications  in  the  last  school  year,  the  junior 
colleges ,  which  were  supposed  to  be  open  to  everyone . 

Heilbron:   That  is  correct.   Just  as  the  university  at  Berkeley  has  cut 

down  on  admissions  (1  understand  now  unfortunately  being  unable 
to  admit  many  people  with  4.0  average  from  the  high  schools)  and 
the  California  State  University  [system]  is  closing  off  on 
admissions  and  classes,  not  having  sufficient  faculty  and 
classes  to  accommodate  the  students  who  want  them,  the  junior 
colleges  also  are  in  the  situation  where  they  have  had  to  turn 
back  people.   I  will  say  that  this  is  an  unexpected  and 
unfortunate  problem  for  the  Master  Plan.   The  Master  Plan 
contemplated  full  opportunity,  and  that  isn't  now  available. 
The  Master  Plan  in  effect  is  being  amended  by  financial 
circumstance.   I  assume  that  it  will  be  some  time  before  the 
state's  fiscal  situation  can  restore  that  opportunity,  if  ever. 

Hicke :     Let  me  ask  you  to  comment  on  what  part  you  think  is  played  by 

the  fact  that  people's  expectations  were  raised  of  having  a  free 
or  at  least  easily  accessible  higher  education  in  California,  so 
that  perhaps  parents  didn't  save  for  a  college  education  like 
they  did  elsewhere,  and  now  a  big  part  of  the  problem  is  that 
their  expectations  are  not  reality. 

Heilbron:   I'm  inclined  to  think  that  their  expectations  were  more  or  less 
based  on  the  system  as  they  understood  it  to  be.   I'm  not  sure 
that  they  would  have  saved  too  much.   Ve  are  not,  unfortunately, 
a  saving  population.   I  think  that's  one  of  the  lessons  that's 
being  learned  during  this  recession-depression,  that  the 
American  people  have  to  take  a  longer  view  of  economic  prospects 
and  opportunities  and  plans.   I  know  people  do,  now,  save  for 
the  higher  education  of  their  children  where  they  did  not  do 
that  before.   But  somehow  you've  got  to  have  the  disaster  first, 
before  you  learn  the  lesson. 

Now  as  to  the  quality  of  education,  I  can't  comment  on  the 
present,  because  I  don't  know  enough  about  it.   But  I  believe 


242 


Hicke : 


that  the  quality  of  education  is  being  maintained  by  limiting 
the  opportunity  and  holding  onto  faculty  pretty  well.   But  when 
I  read  that  early  retirement  is  being  provided  to  induce  faculty 
to  leave,  and  this  means  senior  faculty,  I  get  deeply  concerned 
about  it. 

But  the  higher  education  program  has  to  be  taken  along  with 
public  education  generally  in  California.   That  is  suffering 
seriously  from  kindergarten  through  grade  twelve.   It  is  also 
rather  interesting  that  even  during  our  period  of  expansion 
during  the  sixties  and  early  seventies,  perhaps  even  later  than 
that,  there  were  many  people  who  said  that  too  many  students 
were  going  to  college  who  shouldn't  really  be  going  there,  that 
they  weren't  really  taking  advantage  of  the  opportunities  that 
were  given,  that  some  of  it  was  remedial,  that  the  equivalent  of 
the  European  high  school  was  the  fellow  who  had  gone  as  far  as 
being  a  junior  in  college  or  at  the  university.   Unfortunately, 
now  very  good  students  are  not  getting  the  opportunities  that 
they  deserve. 

The  private  universities  were  not  given  too  much 
consideration  with  respect  to  the  Master  Plan,  although  lip 
service  was  given  to  the  fact  that  they  often  are  the  sources  of 
innovation  and  are  more  flexible  than  state  institutions.   But 
it  can  be  that  the  private  universities  now  will  take  up  some  of 
the  burden  that  the  state  institutions  are  unable  to  carry. 
They  have  become  more  important  in  the  general  scheme  of  things . 

And  individual  people,  parents  and  students,  will  have  to  take 
more  responsibility  for  the  financing  there. 


Heilbron:   The  difficulty  always  is,  for  the  private  institutions,  that 

they  usually  cost  far  more  than  the  public  institutions,  so  when 
you  say  carry  the  burden,  what  you  mean  is  that  those 
financially  able  to  go  over  to  private  institutions  will 
probably  take  advantage  of  that  opportunity,  but  others  will 
not. 

Hicke:     There  are  a  lot  of  scholarships  available,  1  think,  and  maybe 
that's  another  way  that  society  can-- 

Heilbron:  Yes,  I  think  that  the  development  of  the  federally  and  state- 
financed  scholarship  programs  during  the  years  has  been  notable. 
Far  more  scholarships,  grants,  and  loans  exist  than  were 
available  during  the  early  period  of  the  Master  Plan. 

To  get  back  a  little  bit  on  organization  of  the 
coordinating  council,  in  due  course  there  was  a  good  deal  of 
comment  on  the  fact  that  the  California  State  Colleges  and  the 


243 


university  got  along  quite  well.   Maybe  It  was  because  they 
supported  each  other's  aspirations  and  were  willing  to  support 
the  financing  of  each  other's  programs  in  the  legislature. 
There  was  a  little  log  rolling  between  these  two  venerable 
institutions.   That  caused  a  change:  first,  either  the 
coordinating  council  or  its  immediate  successor  added  a  number 
of  public  members  so  that  the  majority  became  public  members. 

Later  a  more  representative  body  was  created  consisting  of 
seventeen  members,  nine  from  the  general  public,  six  from  the 
segments,  and  two  from  students.   The  public  members  are 
selected  by  different  high  government  officials- -these  each 
appointed  for  six-year  terms  by  the  governor,  the  senate  rules 
committee,  and  the  speaker  of  the  assembly.   The  governor 
appoints  the  students.   I  suppose  the  idea  is  that  the  public 
majority  may  be  educated  by  the  segment  representatives  on 
segmental  matters,  but  are  conscious  of  the  interests  of  the 
respective  appointing  powers  and  practical  and  political 
considerations  as  well  as  educational.   The  six  from  the 
segments  are  trustees,  or  regents.   The  agency  is  called  the 
Post -Secondary  Commission. 

Theoretically,  this  widely  representative  organization 
should  carry  more  influence  than  the  original  coordinating 
council  had.   It  should,  but  I  don't  know  the  evidence  to  prove 
it.   Certainly  now  (1993-1994)  is  the  time  to  demonstrate 
effective  leadership.   Clark  Kerr  in  the  fall  of  1993  addressed 
both  the  Regents  of  the  University  of  California  and  the 
Trustees  of  the  California  State  University  and  then  the  Post- 
Secondary  Commission  outlining  the  challenges  to  higher 
education  in  the  state  in  clear  and  stark  terms.   He  said  that 
what  was  needed  was  vision  and  planning  in  the  management  of 
resources  on  a  scale  equal  to  the  academic  master  planning  of 
the  1960s.   Higher  education  must  come  up  with  its  own  solutions 
in  order  to  raise  legislative  participation.   The  higher 
education  community- -all  segments --must  devise  programs  of 
tuition,  teaching  load,  consolidations,  terminations,  contract 
arrangements ,  emphases  and  technological  uses  that  will  preserve 
California  higher  education  as  a  model- -and  not  permit  it  to 
sink  into  mediocrity.  And  in  doing  so  they  must  look  to  provide 
for  a  future  of  student  applicants  equal  to  or  exceeding  the 
demands  of  the  baby  boomers  of  the  sixties.  Will  they  meet  the 
challenge?  Are  the  leaders  there?  Will  the  huge  alumni  of 
California  higher  education  respond  with  coordinated  and 
effective  support?  We  are  struggling  in  one  of  the  historic 
periods  of  the  state  and  for  its  own  future  well-being  the  state 
must  face  and  solve  its  higher  education  crisis. 


244 


My  estimate  is  that  the  real,  creative  solutions  and 
adjustments  will  cone  up  from  the  segments  directly  affected, 
including  saving  the  vested  research  function  of  the  University 
of  California. 

Hicke:     Why  were  public  members  increased  to  become  a  majority? 

Heilbron:   That  was  done  partly  to  provide  an  overall  "independent" 
monitor,  theoretically,  with  greater  influence  on  the 
legislation  with  respect  to  advising  on  planning  and 
appropriations. 

Of  course  the  university's  constitutional  protection  is 
inviolate,  but  the  university  is  substantially  dependent  on 
appropriations  from  the  state.   Then  again,  I  have  talked  about 
public  and  private  institutions,  but  the  private  institutions 
have  become  more  public  and  the  public  institutions  have  become 
more  private  in  the  sense  of  their  funding.   The  University  of 
California  goes  out  for  money  that  was  impossible  to  think  about 
in  the  time  that  we  were  there. 

Hicke:     Private  funding  you  mean? 

Heilbron:   Private  funding.  UC  Berkeley  raised  $400  million  in  the 

campaign  for  "Keeping  the  Promise"  for  example.   When  some  years 
ago  $300  million  was  raised  by  Stanford  in  one  year,  that  was 
considered  a  great  achievement.   Here  the  public  university  has 
raised  $400  million,  and  of  course  Stanford  now  raises  much 
more.   But  at  the  same  time,  who  makes  possible  all  of  the 
students  [at  Stanford]?  The  federal  scholarships  and  loans  and 
the  state  scholarships  and  aid  make  it  possible.   We've  always 
thought  of  Oxford  University  as  being  a  "gentlemen's 
university."   I  don't  know  about  Cambridge,  but  Oxford  is 
mostly,  I  believe,  filled  with  students  with  scholarships  from 
the  government  of  Britain. 

Hicke:     And  the  British  universities  are- -I  met  a  man  who  was  coming 
here- -met  him  on  an  airplane --coming  over  here  to  learn  how 
universities  raise  funds,  because  where  they  had  always  had 
government  funding  before,  they  were  now  having  to  raise  their 
own. 

Heilbron:   That's  right.   Well,  when  Great  Britain  expanded  their  college 
system  to  be  much  more  decentralized,  as  ours  is --that  is,  when 
they  created  comprehensive  universities  that  were  not  on  the 
Oxford  or  Cambridge  level,  they  succeeded  to  some  of  our 
problems . 

ftf 


245 


Hicke: 

Hellbron: 
Hicke: 

Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


You  had  just  said,  which  was  lost  on  the  other  tape,  that  the 
people  cane  over  here  from  Great  Britain  to  study  both  of  the 
systems  in  California,  including  the  coordinating  council- - 

Yes. 

--before  they  established  this  new  system. 

Well,  when  you  say  before  the  establishment,  I  would  say  in 
connection  with  the  expansion  of  their  higher  education  program 
throughout  England,  and  1  assume  Scotland. 


That's  pretty  interesting, 
came  over? 


Did  you  talk  with  them  when  they 


Yes.   I  don't  want  to  give  the  impression  that  they  wouldn't 
take  action  until  they  really  looked  at  us,  but  they  were  most 
interested  in  how  we  functioned. 

How  long  did  you  stay  on  the  coordinating  council? 

During  the  entire  time  that  I  was  a  trustee.   After  I  ceased  to 
be  chairman  of  the  board,  I  was  always  appointed  and  reappointed 
as  one  of  the  representatives  of  the  state  colleges. 

Okay.   That  was  1969? 

Well,  1961-69.   I'll  just  conclude  this  part  of  our  discussion 
by  saying  that  1  think  the  coordinating  council's  most  important 
function  was  to  oversee  and  substantially  control  the  orderly 
growth  of  higher  education  in  the  state  of  California. 

And  how  do  you  assess  its  success? 

1  think  it  was  successful  where  the  legislature  followed  its 
guidance,  and  when  1  say  that,  I'm  referring  to  the  fact  that  it 
approved  areas  for  expansion  that  the  legislature  did  not  act 
upon.   In  some  situations,  it  may  have  been  in  error,  but  I 
think  generally  speaking  it  was  correct  in  foreseeing  where  the 
growth  was  going  to  be.   For  example,  and  I  think  I  told  you 
about  this  before,  it  approved  the  recommendation  for  a  state 
college  in  Contra  Costa  County,  and  the  state  colleges  did 
receive  200  acres  at  a  bargain  price  for  a  fine  college  campus 
at  Pleasant  Hill.   Ultimately,  the  state  sold  this  property. 

Incidentally,  it  also  identified  Ventura  County  as  a  place 
for  another  college,  but  merely  to  set  it  aside  and  not  to 
authorize  the  campus.   They  also  approved  an  area  around  Redwood 
City  to  relieve  the  pressure  on  San  Francisco  State.   That 


246 


property  was  owned  by  the  City  of  San  Francisco  (even  though  it 
was  in  the  County  of  San  Hateo)  and  was  going  to  be  made 
available,  but  it  was  not  implemented.  And  in  Los  Angeles 
you've  got  the  San  Fernando  Northridge  canpus,  the  Dominguez 
Hills  campus,  the  Long  Beach  campus,  the  Riverside  (UC)  and  San 
Bernardino  campuses,  and  San  Diego  State.   It  may  be  that  a 
project  in  San  Mateo  was  fully  warranted. 

There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind  that  the  original  council  did 
look  far  ahead  and  wanted  to  equip  the  state  with  higher 
education  facilities  effective  to  this  day.   Had  they  done  so,  I 
suppose  that  we'd  be  in  further  deficiency  and  we  would  not  be 
able  to  maintain  and  keep  up  the  expansion.   1  always  cautioned 
both  the  state  colleges  and  the  coordinating  council  that  one 
always  should  be  very  careful  on  expansion,  because  the  more 
branches  you  get,  the  weaker  the  other  branches  may  get  to  be. 
There  develops  more  competition  for  funding,  and  you  should  be 
pretty  certain  that  you  can  fund  the  old  institutions,  this  new 
institution,  and  all  of  the  other  new  institutions  when  you  get 
to  them.   Expansion  can  be  a  weakening  as  well  as  a 
strengthening  factor. 

I  would  like  to  add  a  note  that  John  Richards  and  A.  G. 
Spalding  were  thoughtful  and  skillful  directors  of  the 
Coordinating  Council.   Keith  Sexton  should  receive  special 
mention. 


Accreditation 


Hicke:     The  next  thing  I  guess  we  are  going  to  talk  about  is 
accreditation. 

Heilbron:   Yes,  accreditation  of  public  and  private  universities  has  become 
a  vital  part  of  the  education  scene.   I  was  appointed  to  become 
a  public  member  on  the  Federation  of  Regional  Accrediting 
Associations  in  1970,  and  subsequently  that  developed  into  the 
Council  on  Post  Secondary  Accreditation,  where  I  also  served  for 
six  years- -I  think  three  years  on  the  regional  federation  and 
six  years  on  the  council- -and  then  I  served  for  about  six  years 
on  the  recognition  committee,  which  was  a  subordinate  though 
probably  the  pivotal  agency  of  the  council.   Perhaps  I  should 
outline  a  little  bit  of  how  this  whole  operation  is  organized. 

Accreditation  is  a  quasi-public  function,  but  it  is 
privately  organized  in  the  sense  that  it  is  a  nongovernmental 
operation. 


247 


Hicke : 


It  deals  with  both  public  and  private  schools? 


Heilbron:   Yes,  in  this  way:  there  are  about  six  regional  accrediting 

agencies,  dividing  the  United  States  and  Hawaii  and  Alaska  into 
a  Western  Section  and  a  Northwestern  Section  and  a  Middle  States 
Section,  an  Atlantic  Section,  New  England,  and  a  Southern 
Section  (I  believe  I  have  named  the  principal  ones).   These 
agencies  accredit  individual  institutions  on  an  institutional 
basis.   Is  their  general  operation  a  quality  operation?  What 
should  be  done  to  iaprove  the  operation  to  make  it  a  quality 
institution?  All  of  the  institutions  that  are  accredited  in  an 
area  comprise  that  particular  association.   They  will  include 
the  most  prestigious  institutions,  such  as  Stanford  University. 
These  lead  institutions  may  not  need  accreditation  to  survive; 
they  have  an  important  part  in  determining  accreditation. 

Hicke:     Standards? 

Heilbron:   In  setting  the  standards  for  accreditation.   But  all  of  the 

other  institutions  of  higher  education  are  subject  to  a  regional 
accreditation  body.   Then,  on  a  national  scale,  there  are  about 
sixty- five  or  more  professional  and  program  accrediting 
agencies.   These  may  be  huge  operations  like  the  American  Bar 
Association  accrediting  law  schools,  the  American  Medical 
Association  accrediting  medical  schools,  the  engineers  have 
their  association  [the  IEEE],  the  business  schools  have  theirs, 
those  in  chemistry  have  theirs,  and  the  nursing  profession  and 
the  anesthesiologists  have  theirs  respectively. 

Hicke:     These  are  professional? 

Heilbron:   These  are  professional  organizations,  and  there  are  vocational 
organizations,  too.   It  gets  down  to  that  level.   But,  of 
course,  they  simply  accredit  schools  or  departments  within  their 
field. 

Now,  there  has  been  a  proliferation  of  these  agencies.   If 
you  can't  get  accredited  by  your  agency,  form  another 
accrediting  agency  yourself  so  you  can  get  accredited.   But  that 
runs  up  against  the  problem  of  the  Council  on  Post  Secondary 
Accreditation,  because  that  body  accredits  every  one  of  these 
professional  and  vocational  bodies  in  addition  to  the  regional 
bodies,  so  that  a  university  may  receive  accreditation  for  a 
five-  or  ten-year  period  by  the  regional  accreditation  body,  but 
they  will  have  the  chemistry  organization  come  in  to  see  how 
their  chemistry  program  is  going,  the  business  people  to 
accredit  their  business  school,  et  cetera.   They  don't  have  to 
have  that.   If  they  don't  want  to  be  accredited,  they  don't  have 
to  apply  for  it.   Regional  accreditation  is  quite  essential  to 


248 


the  existence  of  an  institution  that  is  going  to  have  much  of  a 
quality  claim  on  the  public,  but  accreditation  by  a  professional 
body  may  or  may  not  represent  a  similar  necessity. 

Now,  you  certainly  are  not  going  to  be  a  nurse  if  you  don't 
go  to  a  school  with  an  accredited  nursing  program. 

Hicke:     So  state  licensing  agencies  look  at  these  accreditations? 

Heilbron:   No,  that's  not  true.   No,  I'll  amend  that.   State  licensing 
agencies  in  many  states  simply  accept  the  accrediting  body's 
accreditation  as  sufficient  to  show  good  proof  that  they  can  be 
licensed. 

Hicke:     I  guess  my  question  was:  do  the  state  licensing  agencies  depend 
on  the  accreditation  agencies? 

Heilbron:   To  some  extent,  but  the  state  licensure  is  a  very  limited 

operation  in  most  states.   I  think  that  if  you  had- -I  don't  know 
what  the  situation  is  today,  but- -if  you  had  five  hundred 
dollars  and  you  said  you  wanted  to  establish  an  educational 
institution,  you  got  a  license  from  the  state  of  California. 
The  licensing  of  institutions  is  simply  to  assure  that  some 
minimum  amount  of  money  is  going  into  an  institution,  and  the 
quality  of  the  education  is  not  part  of  the  purview. 

I'll  come  to  that  in  a  little  bit,  because  many  people 
wanted  the  accrediting  agencies  to  do  what  licensing  agencies 
should  do,  and  that  is  to  supervise  and  to  prevent  fraud.   They 
[the  licensing  agency]  should  be  the  people  who  should  say  that 
these  correspondence  degree  mills  should  be  put  out  of 
existence.   Licensing  agencies  really  should  be  a  system  that 
protects  the  public  against  nonaccredited  institutions,  because 
if  a  fly-by-night  organization  knows  that  it  never  will  be 
accredited  and  doesn't  want  to  expose  its  operation  to 
examination,  they  are  never  going  to  apply  for  accreditation. 
So  licensing  is  something  different  from  accreditation. 

Now,  what  accreditation  does  is  really  to  put  its  seal  of 
housekeeping  approval  on  an  organization.   But  the  Council  on 
Post  Secondary  Accreditation  on  which  1  served  recognized  and 
approved  and  in  effect  accredited  the  accrediting  agencies  about 
whom  I'm  speaking.   The  work  of  accrediting  single  institutions 
or  programs  fell  to  the  accrediting  agencies  that  were 
recognized  by  the  council. 

The  process  of  the  accreditation  is  rather  uniform.  An 
institution  may  apply  for  accreditation  or  apply  for  the  renewal 
of  its  accredited  status.   It  engages  first  in  a  self -study, 


249 


where  it  analyzes  every  part  of  its  operation,  and  that  self- 
study  is  examined  by  a  team  of  around  ten  people  usually 
representative  of  the  particular  interests  of  the  institution. 
If,  for  example ,  a  regional  accrediting  procedure  involves  a 
four-year  college,  they  will  want  people  from  the  humanities, 
they  will  want  some  people  from  the  sciences,  they  will  want 
some  people  from  administration  and  finance  to  make  up  this  team 
of  ten. 

They  come  into  an  institution  for  a  couple  of  days  and  talk 
with  the  administration  and  talk  with  the  faculty  and  talk  with 
the  students,  and  sometimes  with  trustees.   They've  already  had 
the  benefit  of  looking  at  the  self -study,  so  they  are  testing 
performances  against  the  self -study;  they  are  testing  the 
program  of  the  institution  against  the  statement  of  its  own 
mission  and  objectives.   They  come  out  with  a  recommendation  to 
their  regional  commission.   The  regional  commission  then  makes 
its  determination. 

If  it  is  completely  a  new  institution,  it  may  be  placed  on 
probation  for  a  while  and  then  go  to  the  second  stage  of 
approval.   If  it's  an  institution  that  has  already  been 
accredited,  it  may  renew  accreditation,  and  it  is  sent  a  letter 
that  states,  "You  have  generally  been  accredited  for  a  period  of 
years,"  but  may  add,  "We  want  to  call  your  attention  to  certain 
deficiencies  that  you  will  wish  to  consider  and  correct."   Or  it 
may  find  that  it's  difficult  to  justify  an  approval  or  re- 
approval,  and  thus  place  the  applicant  on  probation  or  take 
steps  to  revoke  the  accreditation. 

Now,  let's  take  an  accredited  institution.   Not  only  do  you 
file  an  application  which  sets  forth  what  your  institution  does 
and  how  it  does  it  and  what  the  background  is  and  shows  the 
self-study,  you  also  have  an  opportunity  to  appear  before  the 
commission  itself  and  argue  your  case  for  renewal.   Then  after 
that  hearing,  you  get  a  judgment.   The  Judgment  may  be 
accreditation;  it  may  be,  as  I  indicated,  accreditation  with 
recommendations  for  you  to  improve  in  certain  areas;  it  may  be, 
if  you  are  already  accredited,  probation  or  maybe  a  warning  that 
you  may  be  placed  on  probation  if  you  don't  improve  certain 
areas  of  the  program;  it  may  be  probation  itself,  which  says 
you've  got  to  do  certain  things  within  a  certain  length  of  time, 
say  one  or  two  years,  or  else  we  will  question  your 
accreditation  and  maybe  even  consider  revoking  it;  and  finally 
it  may  be  revocation.   This  has  to  do  also  with  the  procedure  of 
the  professionals.   It  is  possible,  for  example,  to  have  your 
general  institution  approved  and  accredited,  but  lo  and  behold, 
your  business  school  is  no  longer  accredited  or  your  nursing 
school  is  no  longer  accredited. 


250 


The  point  of  it  is  that  while  all  of  this  is  self- 
regulating  and  privately  done,  in  the  sense  that  it  is  not 
controlled  by  a  ministry  of  education,  it  still  can  mean  life  or 
death  to  an  institution  because,  as  a  practical  matter,  if  an 
institution  is  not  accredited  and  a  student  has  any  designs 
whatever  to  be  become  trained  and  recognized  in  his  work  and 
profession,  he's  not  going  to  go  to  that  institution.   So  the 
accrediting  bodies  are  rather  hard  on  granting  applications  for 
first- time  accreditations,  because  they  are  getting  a  new 
institution  into  the  system  and  this  institution  will  be 
seriously  injured  if  it  is  not  reaccredited.  And  on  the  other 
hand,  an  accredited  institution  must  hold  onto  its  accreditation 
if  it  is  going  to  be  a  successful  institution.   So  there  is  a 
lot  of  power  here,  and  sometimes  reluctance  to  use  it  because  of 
the  economic  penalties.   Sometimes  too  much  eagerness  is  shown 
to  use  it  as  an  expression  of  authority  and  power. 

That  brings  me ,  perhaps ,  to  some  of  the  problems .   One  of 
the  problems  is  from  the  national  standpoint.   I  mentioned  that 
if  you  don't  feel  you  can  get  accredited,  you  like  to  form  your 
own  organization  that  will  accredit  you.  Veil,  that 
organization  must  prove  its  credibility  as  an  accreditor  to  the 
national  body,  and  the  national  body  has  been  very  sensitive  to 
the  danger  of  proliferation.  At  the  same  time,  if  a  body  that 
is  solid  comes  before  it  with  pressures  from  the  local 
population,  the  institution,  the  congressmen,  and  others 
interested,  it's  not  always  easy  to  prevent  proliferation.   And 
new  bodies  are  often  admitted  and  justified.   Some  of  the 
religious  organizations,  for  example,  have  excellent  secular 
programs  and  yet  they  have  certain  special  characteristics  of 
their  institutions  that  they  want  to  maintain,  and  they  may  get 
approved  for  limited  programs- -consistent  with  those  provided  by 
secular  institutions. 

Then  also,  some  organizations  want  to  expand.   The  physical 
therapists  and  the  American  Medical  Association  had  quite  a 
struggle -- 

H 

Heilbron:   --with  respect  to  the  right  to  accredit  physical  therapist 
programs  in  various  institutions.   Of  course,  the  American 
Medical  Association  said  that  to  protect  the  consumer  needs  the 
attention  of  the  medical  profession,  and  the  physical  therapists 
said  we  do  a  better  job  than  they  do  because  we  know  our 
therapists  and  we  know  our  program  better.   The  council  had  to 
make  a  judgment.   It  finally  determined  that  the  physical 
therapists  should  also  be  accredited- -that  you  can  be  accredited 
by  either.  Actually,  most  of  the  physical  therapists  wanted  to 


251 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


be  accredited  by  their  own  body,  and  it  worked  out  all  right. 
Finally  the  Aaerican  Medical  Association  agreed  that  they  [the 
physical  therapists  association]  were  doing  quite  a  good  job, 
but  it  was  a  long,  drawn-out  struggle. 

Regional  organizations  see  the  university  as  one,  big, 
complete  institution.   Its  law  school  is  part  of  that 
institution.  The  American  Bar  Association  sees  the  law  school 
as  an  independent  group  that  is  a  professional  group  that  could 
just  as  well  stand  alone  and  therefore  the  university  shouldn't 
be  putting  its  fingers  into  the  way  that  the  law  school  is  run; 
it  has  nothing  to  say  or  do  about  supervising  quality;  it 
wouldn't  know  the  quality  if  it  looked  at  it.   [laughter] 
However,  when  this  issue  becomes  reduced  to  dollars  and  cents, 
when  the  law  school  makes  a  great  profit  and  the  university  is 
in  dire  straits,  the  university  feels  that  they  are  one  body. 
When  the  law  school  loses  money,  it  suddenly  feels  the  need  for 
parental  guidance  and  support,  and  the  university  says,  "Well, 
that's  all  right,  but  will  you  help  us  when  we  are  in  trouble?" 
and  they  say,  "We  would  love  to  do  it,  but  we  don't  know  what  we 
can  do  about  the  ABA,  and  we'll  ask  them  to  see  if  we  can  do 
it." 

Well  anyway,  that  has  been  a  problem  nationally  and  it  has 
been  a  problem  locally,  but  the  bar  association  has  pretty  well 
won  out;  the  bar  association  feels  that  the  institution  is 
fortunate  to  have  the  privilege  of  having  a  law  school 
associated  with  it,  medical  schools  feel  the  same  way,  and  I  can 
see  some  justification  for  that.   I  have  had  to  be  on  both  sides 
of  this.  When  for  the  Golden  Gate  University,  we  bailed  out  the 
law  school-- 

When  you  say  "we , "  whom  do  you  mean? 

The  university  trustees  bailed  them  out  from  general  university 
funds  for  several  years  until  they  got  on  their  feet;  now  they 
are  making  a  great  deal  of  money,  and  the  university  would  like 
part  of  it.   They  have  already  been  repaid;  the  bar  association 
agreed  that  that  was  all  right  to  repay  the  advances,  but  they 
still  insist  the  university  keep  its  hands  off  of  the  profits, 
because  they  say  a  rainy  day  will  come  again  and  the  law  school 
should  have  its  own  earnings  to  protect  against  that  rainy  day. 

So  there  are  two  sides  to  this  question.   It  is  not 
anything  that  you  can  quickly  answer,  but  that's  one  of  the 
interesting  problems  that  we  had  to  deal  with. 

Then  there  is  the  question  of  what  about  nontraditional 
programs?  Big  adjunct  faculties  taking  care  of  the  university 


252 


program.   In  other  words,  teachers  who  are  practitioners,  not 
academically  involved.   How  far  do  you  go  in  recognizing  and 
persuading  your  regional  agencies  to  be  receptive  to  innovation? 
You  can  Imagine  a  science  prograa  being  developed  by,  let's  say, 
a  space  agency,  and  not  a  single  person  teaching  who  is  part  of 
any  university  systen,  and  the  space  agency  asking  for 
accreditation.   Although  why  the  space  agency  would  want  to  do 
it,  1  don't  know,  because  if  it  is  just  training  its  own  people, 
it  could  care  less  about  accreditation.   But  if  its  people  want 
to  feel  that  if  they  need  another  job  doing  that  kind  of  work-- 
I'm  just  using  this  as  a  made-up  example  of  innovation- -they  nay 
want  the  accreditation.  Without  any  of  the  academic  oversight 
customary  of  institutions,  there  is  a  problem. 

Correspondence  schools  raised  this  question.   Conceivably  a 
program  that  teaches  by  television  and  only  has  the  person  take 
examinations  at  school,  or  perhaps  a  combination  of  a  couple  of 
days  a  week  there  and  examinations,  that  would  be  an  innovative 
program.   To  what  extent  does  that  agency  have  a  right  to 
accreditation?  They  may  want  to  be  accredited  because  they  want 
to  say  that  the  people  who  teach  in  our  television  program  are 
really  good;  the  next  guy  may  be  a  talk  show  fellow  and  not  be 
that  competent. 

Hicke:     The  University  of  Maryland  has  a  lot  of  extension  organizations 
overseas  that  are  taught  to  servicemen  by  servicemen.   Would 
that  be  an  example? 

Heilbron:  Well,  yes.   That  is  an  example  of  an  institution  that  I  know 

about  and  an  extensive  program  in  our  military  camps.   Military 
students  were  taking  accounting,  they  were  taking  graduate 
degree  work- - 

[tape  interruption] 

Heilbron:   In  military  camps,  when  you  don't  have  a  full-time  professor  in 
residence  but  rely  on  adjunct  people  coming  out  from  near  the 
camp,  no  direct  supervision  and  so  on,  it  may  be  highly 
questionable  whether  your  degree  program  would  be  accredited. 
And,  if  it  is  a  part  of  regional  accreditation,  it  is  a  big  part 
of  your  institutional  program,  the  question  is  presented  whether 
your  whole  institution  will  be  accredited.   So  all  I  want  to 
indicate  is  that  the  accreditation  of  nontraditional  programs  is 
one  of  the  issues  that  national  accreditation  has  to  consider. 
Although  they  do  encourage  the  accreditation  of  nontraditional 
agencies,  provided  that  they  meet  the  standards  of  the  regional 
accrediting  agency,  they  also  try  to  indicate  to  the  regional 
accrediting  agencies  to  adjust  their  standards  if  quality  can  be 
proved  by  the  innovative  procedures. 


253 


Hicke: 


That's  good.   So  it  is  a  little  flexible. 


Heilbron:   It's  a  little  flexible  in  theory,  but  the  application  of  it  may 
not  be  as  flexible  as  you  might  want.   It's  so  much  easier  in 
accrediting  to  say  that  a  library  should  have  so  many  thousand 
books  and  an  institution  should  have  so  many  full-time 
professors;  particularly  if  you  are  engaged  in  a  professional 
operation.  However,  I  think  that  the  organized  medical 
profession  is  pretty  generous  in  permitting  doctors  to  teach  and 
also  engage  in  their  practice.   I  guess,  in  a  certain  sense,  the 
AMA  has  encouraged  the  nontraditional  approach  more  than  other 
groups . 

Hicke:     That's  unusual. 

Heilbron:  Well,  it  is  tradition  with  them  to  have  their  best  doctors 

teaching,  too.   But  generally,  full-time  teachers  do  not  wish  to 
have  half-time  teachers  be  their  competition.   It  is  all  right 
in  extension  work,  but  not  in  the  academy  in  general. 

Also,  one  of  the  questions  that  private  institutions 
sometimes  raise  in  accreditation  is  that  public  institutions, 
particularly  in  the  Vest,  are  far  more  numerous  than  private. 
They  have  usually  had  support  from  appropriations  by 
legislatures.  Until  recently  they  haven't  had  to  look  too  hard 
at  their  financial  situation;  they  knew  what  it  was.   They  asked 
for  the  money,  they  knew  they  got  a  budget,  they  knew  that  the 
money  was  there,  and  so  they  knew  how  to  proceed.   A  private 
institution  has  to  raise  its  money  by  solicitation  unless  it  is 
entirely  tuition  driven.   The  viewpoint  of  some  of  the  teams 
that  have  gone  into  private  institutions  has  been:  "Well,  how 
are  you  people  going  to  assure  us  that  you  are  going  to  be  able 
to  operate  in  the  next  few  years?  Look,  you  just  made  your 
budget  this  year,  you  are  going  to  have  increased  costs,"  and 
they  kind  of  get  shocked  when  reviewing  institutions  where 
tuition  is  the  major  part  of  their  financing.   I  think  that  many 
of  the  professors  and  administrative  leaders  in  public 
institutions  are  now  recognizing  that  financial  stringency  can 
happen  in  their  own  institutions;  that  what  they  thought  was 
certain  assured  financing  is  not  there.   This  may  result  in  a 
better  understanding  as  public  institutions  are  increasingly 
faced  with  less  state  funding  and  a  more  helpful  attitude  in  the 
accrediting  process  as  applied  to  private  institutions. 

The  accreditation  system  seeks  to  deal  with  the  quality  of 
education,  and  that  refers  to  the  curriculum,  the  scope  of  the 
subject  of  curriculum,  the  kind  of  teachers  you  have,  whether 
they  have  doctorates  or  not,  the  kind  of  library  you  have,  now 
the  number  of  computers  you  have  got,  and  all  of  these 


254 


Hicke: 


quantitative  things  that  also  go  into  quality  and  qualitative 
things  that  really  can't  be  measured:  you  have  a  Ph.D.  but 
really  it  is  where  you  got  it  from  that  may  be  more  indicative 
of  what  it's  worth  than  anything  else.   A  part-time  adjunct 
faculty  drawn  from  outside  the  academy  may  deliver  quality 
courses . 

But  as  a  matter  of  policy  accreditation  does  not  wish  to  be 
charged  with  determining  the  adequacy  of  long-term  financing  or 
to  monitor  discrimination  statutes.   They  just  have  not  got  the 
facilities  to  do  it.   The  federal  government,  for  financial  aid 
purposes,  uses  accreditation  as  a  basis  for  making  its  monies 
available.   If  you  are  an  accredited  institution,  they  see  fit 
to  advance  scholarship  money  to  your  institution.   I  think 
around  1976  a  statute  was  pending  which  would  have  made  probity 
of  an  institution  a  factor  in  its  recognition,  and  the 
implication  was  that  accreditation  should  look  into  the  matter 
of  probity.  What  was  probity?  Probity  could  mean  anything  from 
political  purity  to  ethical  purity  to  long- term  financial 
stability. 

Environmental  impact? 


Heilbron:   That's  right.   The  accrediting  agencies  and  the  Council  on  Post 
Secondary  Accreditation  opposed,  very  directly,  any  assumption 
that  the  accrediting  function,  which  deals  with  the  quality  of 
education,  should  go  into  these  statutory  rights. 

It's  not  too  easy  to  draw  the  line.   For  example,  certainly 
an  institution  would  not  be  accredited  that  did  not  support 
academic  freedom  and  where  academic  freedom  was  jeopardized. 
The  idea  is  you  can't  have  a  liberal  education  and  exchange  of 
ideas  if  you  don't  have  academic  freedom.   It's  part  of  the 
first  amendment,  but  it's  almost  beyond  the  first  amendment.   I 
think,  to  this  day,  the  accreditation  system  does  not  monitor 
the  anti-discrimination  statutes,  though  it  evaluates  diversity 
in  the  student  body  and  in  faculty  composition. 

The  public  has  a  consumer's  interest  in  the  kind  of  school 
that  students  are  attracted  to.   If  the  school  is  selling 
practically  nothing  for  money,  it  is  a  profit-making  scam,  of 
course  it  should  be  stopped.   But  California  has  been  very 
loathe  to  get  into  that  program  of  a  licensure  broad  enough  to 
stop  these  institutions.   As  I  say,  that's  not  an  accreditation 
problem  because  accreditation  is  not  applied  for.   Nevertheless, 
there  is  a  consumer  aspect  of  accreditation  because  students  do 
want  to  go  to  schools  that  are  accredited  and  to  programs  that 
are  accredited. 


255 


Hicke : 


When  a  team  comes  to  review  an  institution  or  a  program  and 
it  asks  a  lot  of  questions  of  students  and  it  says,  "Now  you 
Just  say  candidly,  does  your  professor  know  his  stuff  or  is  he 
just  taking  up  your  time  and  are  you  ahead  of  him?"  The  student 
will  then  candidly  give  his  answer.   The  professor  is  asked, 
"How  is  the  operation  running?"  He  may  answer,  "The  dean  is 
terrible,  I  can't  say  enough."  All  of  these  things  come  out 
about  an  institution,  and  they  are  repeated  or  summarized  by  the 
team  to  the  commission  together  with  the  facts  as  presented  by 
the  institution  by  way  of  self -study  or  factual  correction  of  a 
team's  report  by  institutional  comment.   The  general  requirement 
is  that  a  team  report  can  be  released  by  the  school,  but  if  it 
is  released,  then  it  has  to  be  released  in  its  entirety, 
although  many  of  the  regional  accrediting  agencies  say  that  it 
can  be  released  only  with  the  consent  of  the  commission. 

At  times  there  will  be  a  negative  decision  in  some  way  with 
respect  to  accreditation:  either  you  show  cause  why 
accreditation  should  not  be  revoked  or  something  of  that  kind. 
Of  course,  great  reliance  would  be  placed  on  the  team  report. 
Well,  to  what  extent  is  the  public  entitled  to  know  what's  in 
that  report?  To  what  extent  should  it  be  confidential?  There 
is  quite  a  legal  issue  here.   It's  generally  agreed  that  the 
decisions  on  accreditation,  even  though  negative,  after  the 
appeal  procedure  has  been  completed,  should  be  public.   In  other 
words,  it  should  be  published  somewhere  that  such-and-such  a 
school  is  no  longer  accredited  or  is  on  probation,  even  though 
it  has  a  serious  effect  on  the  school.   But  there  are  some 
things  that  are  said  that  really  should  not,  in  the  interests  of 
protecting  either  a  personnel  file  or  a  candid  statement  file, 
that  should  not  be  covered  and  should  not  be  public.   The  lines 
are  not  easy  to  draw.   I  once  wrote  a  monograph  on 
"Confidentiality  and  Accreditation,"  and  it  is-- 

What's  the  date  on  that? 


Heilbron:   The  date  on  that  is  July,  1976.   It  was  published  by  the  Council 
on  Post  Secondary  Accreditation,  and  I  don't  know  how  much  of  it 
still  holds,  but  it  takes  about  twenty-nine  pages  to  deal  with 
this  rather  complex  question.   I  began  with  quoting  the  then 
Attorney  General  of  the  Unites  States,  Edward  H.  Levi,  who 
pointed  out  that  confidentiality  is  something  different  from 
secrecy.   That,  "One  reason  for  confidentiality,  for  example,  is 
that  some  information  secured  by  government,  if  widely 
disseminated,  would  violate  the  rights  of  individuals  to 
privacy.   Other  reasons  for  confidentiality  in  government  go  to 
the  effectiveness  and  sometimes  the  very  existence  of  important 
governmental  activities."  In  other  words,  if  your  operation 
can't  function  without  some  degree  of  confidentiality,  then  you 


256 


lose  the  effectiveness  of  your  function.   At  the  same  time,  the 
public  ha«  a  lot  of  interest  in  knowing  that  you  have  a  process 
based  on  published  standards;  that  everybody  knows  these 
standards;  that  if  you  change  your  standards  you  have  got  to 
give  notice  to  everybody  interested  before  you  approve  then  and 
publish  then;  that  you  have  a  hearing;  that  there's  due  process 
in  that  hearing;  that  the  institution  has  a  chance  to  see  what 
facts  the  team  finds  and  to  correct  the  facts  if  they  are  in 
error;  that  if  the  institution  feels  that  it  has  not  been  fairly 
treated  that  it  has  the  right  of  appeal;  that  a  different  group 
will  hear  the  appeal  than  the  commission  that  heard  the 
application  or  reapplication;  that  after  the  appeal  is  over  and 
the  decision  is  Bade,  that  decision  will  be  made  public;  that  on 
the  commissions  that  deal  with  accreditation,  there  will  always 
be  public  members  to  represent  the  public  interest;  that  these 
public  members  have  the  same  right  of  voting  as  the 
institutional  members,  the  faculty,  and  the  administrative 
people  and  that  they  be  carefully  selected  and  be  representative 
of  the  public.   I  think  that  at  least  the  minor  contribution 
that  I  did  make  to  the  Council  on  Post  Secondary  Accreditation 
was  to  develop  a  policy  and  resolution  on  accreditation  and  the 
public  interest  that  has  become  part  of  the  standards  of  the 
national  organization. 

Hicke:     One  more  question  about  nontraditional  education.   I  heard  on 
the  radio  a  story  about  a  university  that  teaches  classes  by 
computer  to  students  scattered  throughout  the  country. 

Heilbron:   The  University  of  Phoenix  must  be  the  most  nontraditional 

accredited  higher  education  institution  in  the  country.   It  was 
founded  by  John  D.  Sperling,  once  head  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Teachers  union  that  bargained  for  a  segment  of 
professors  of  the  California  State  Colleges.   As  a  union 
representative  he  sought  recognition  of  the  union  and  ultimately 
higher  salaries  and  better  security  for  the  professors  he 
represented.   He  was  especially  active  at  San  Jose  State. 

As  chairman  of  the  University  of  Phoenix,  which  he  founded 
in  1976,  he  runs  a  for-profit  institution  that  is  reported  by 
the  Wall  Street  Journal  to  employ  free-lance  professionals 
(active  in  their  business  or  professional  fields)  to  teach  at 
$1,000  to  $1,200  per  course  and  to  provide  courses  in  office 
buildings,  motels,  even  through  a  home  computer.   The  courses 
are  designed  by  the  university,  carried  or  filled  out  by  the 
teacher -independent  contractors.   Credit  for  degrees  in  part  may 
come  from  life  experience,  such  as  in  work  or  travel,  though  it 
is  claimed  that  such  credit  has  been  very  much  restricted. 
Programs  are  in  business  and  in  several  professions  and 
vocations . 


257 


Accreditation  was  given  by  the  North  Central  Association, 
then  headed  by  Thurston  E.  Manning.   Subsequently  he  became 
executive  director  of  the  Council  for  Post  Secondary 
Accreditation.   (He  is  not  the  present  director.)  The  Western 
Association  of  Schools  and  Colleges,  the  regional  accrediting 
agency  for  California,  had  opposed  the  operation  of  Phoenix  in 
its  area.  However,  it  Bust  accept  the  status  conferred  by  North 
Central.   Opposition  had  been  mainly  based  on  the  assertion  of 
lack  of  qualified  academic  control.   Supporters  contend  that 
Sperling's  kind  of  cost-cutting  adult  education,  based  on 
enphaeizing  the  practical,  and  appealing  to  thirty- five-  and 
forty-year-olds,  is  simply  ahead  of  its  time.   The  critics  may 
be  plentiful,  but  so  are  the  profits. 


Chairman.  Advisory  Board.  San  Francisco  State  University.  1970- 
1976 

[Interview  10:  August  13,  1992]  ## 


Hicke:     Today  I  think  we  should  talk  about  the  San  Francisco  State 
Advisory  Board;  is  that  the  whole  name  of  it? 

Heilbron:   That's  the  name  of  it.   Advisory  boards  for  each  of  the  college 
caapuses  are  authorized  by  statute,  and  they  have  a  relationship 
with  the  system.   They  are  appointed  by  the  trustees,  but  are 
recommended  by  the  presidents.   They  advise  the  presidents  in 
particular,  and  their  impact,  I  guess,  is  as  effective  as  the 
president  wants  it  to  be  or  as  the  advisory  board  will  permit  it 
to  be.   If  they  aren't  listened  to,  there  will  not  be  any 
advisory  board.   The  presidents,  having  had  the  responsibility 
to  appoint  them,  are  usually  quite  prepared  to  take  advantage  of 
their  presence. 

They  consist  of  seven  to  thirteen  members,  and  the  San 
Francisco  State  board  met  quarterly. 

Hicke:     Could  we  get  the  years  that  you  were  on  this? 
Heilbron:  Yes,  I  served  between  1970  and  '76. 
Hicke :     Thanks . 

Heilbron:   And  most  of  that  time  as  the  chairman  of  the  board.   We  had  some 
effective  community  people  on  the  board.   There  was  North  Baker, 
who  was  also  particularly  active  in  the  California  Historical 
Society;  Mrs.  Patricia  K.  di  Giorgio,  who  was  president  of  the 


258 


Hicke : 


Hellbron: 


Hicke : 


United  Nations  chapter  in  San  Francisco;  Alfred  Fromm,  who 
founded  the  From  Institute  for  Studies  for  Retired  Persons, 
later  connected  to  the  University  of  San  Francisco;  Joanne 
Hendricks  was  the  president  of  the  Aluani  Association  of  San 
Francisco  State  and  was  quite  effective  in  developing  the  alumni 
association  and  in  procuring  a  development  fund;  Richard 
Peterson  had  been  executive  vice  president  of  PG&E;  Zeppelin 
Wong,  an  attorney;  Victor  Bergeron,  "Trader  Vic,"  was  on  the 
board  for  a  while,  and  I'll  refer  to  him  later;  Mrs.  James  K. 
MacVilliams,  a  Giannini  family  member.   So  these  were  more  or 
less  typical  of  the  people  of  the  community  who  were  active  on 
the  board  during  the  period  when  I  was  active. 

The  board  functions  were,  I  suppose,  best  performed  when 
the  president  had  a  problem  that  should  be  understood  by  the 
community  at  large  and  where  the  community  representatives  of 
the  board  could  be  the  interpreter  of  the  institution. 

The  board  was  a  liaison  between  the  community  and  the 
university? 

Veil,  that  was  one  of  its  purposes.   When  the  Fullerton  State 
College  was  in  difficulty  because  of  the  performance  of  a 
controversial  play,  their  advisory  board  stood  by  the  president 
and  was  helpful  in  maintaining  the  university  position.   At  the 
time  when  I  worked  on  the  settlement  of  the  San  Francisco  State 
strike,  the  then  advisory  board  under  the  chairmanship  of  Judge 
Albert  Vollenberg  was  supportive  of  our  position  in  our  efforts 
to  bring  the  strike  to  an  end.  When  I  say  "our,"  I'm  not 
referring  to  the  advisory  board;  I'm  referring  to  the  trustees 
regional  committee  at  the  time  of  the  strike. 

That  was  before  you  went  onto-- 


Heilbron:   That  was  before  I  went  on  the  advisory  board. 

Perhaps  the  most  interesting  and  trying  event  during  the 
period  when  I  was  on  the  advisory  board  concerned  the  problem  of 
married  students  housing.   Now,  San  Francisco  State  is  not  very 
much  of  a  dormitory  institution,  but  it  did  house  a  number  of 
married  students  and  their  families.   The  structures  were  built 
during  Vorld  War  II  in  the  state  of  Washington,  and  at  the  end 
of  the  war  they  were  acquired  for  very  little  by  San  Francisco 
State.   They  consisted  of  seven  buildings.   They  were  supposed 
to  be  temporary  buildings  even  during  World  War  II,  and  they 
were  temporary  now,  up  to  I  guess  1974  or  there  about. 


Hicke : 


They  weren't  quonset  huts,  were  they? 


259 


Heilbron:  No,  they  were  wooden  structures,  but  in  very  poor  condition. 
Over  the  years  the  university  wanted  to  terminate  the 
residencies  of  the  faailies  quite  some  time  before  our  service, 
because  the  repair  costs  seemed  to  be  insurmountable  and  the 
university  adainistration  was  concerned  about  the  hazards  of  the 
condition  of  the  housing. 

But  the  married  students --by  the  time  of  the  issue  in  the 
mid- seventies --the  married  students  had  commanded  the  attention 
of  the  media,  and  the  idea  of  throwing  families  onto  the  streets 
was  of  course  quite  an  appealing  public  issue  and  immediately 
brought  in  legislators  and  others  who  were  interested  in  the 
welfare  of  people  in  need.   Of  course  the  occupants  were 
mightily  concerned  about  their  own  welfare.   The  amount  of 
rental  was  very  low,  and  substitute  rental  arrangements  were 
very  hard  to  procure.   I  think  that  the  buildings  had  a  capacity 
originally  of  close  to  100  units,  but  by  the  time  we  are  talking 
about,  fifty- two  of  them  were  occupied- -something  in  that 
number- -and  because  of  the  condition  and  location  of  the  stoves 
and  the  dryness  of  the  wood  and  other  technical  features,  they 
were  really  not  habitable. 

The  state  fire  marshall  came  in  to  make  a  survey,  and  he 
made  a  report  setting  forth  the  nature  of  the  hazards,  and  I 
think  there  is  a  state  architectural  commission  also  that  had  an 
interest  in  the  affair.   Between  them  they  had  a  report  that 
said  that  if  the  university  didn't  put  in  about  $75,000  for  a 
six-month  period,  the  facilities  should  be  closed.   That  only 
was  good  for  the  temporary  period.   Then  the  real  improvements 
would  cost  somewhere  between  $1  million  and  $1.5  million,  which 
in  those  days  was  a  considerable  amount  of  money,  particularly 
considering  the  nature  of  the  buildings  and  the  few  people 
involved. 

The  president  elected  to  give  notices  of  eviction  and  to 
explain  as  best  he  could  to  the  married  students  and  to  the 
public  why  he  was  doing  this:  that  it  was  a  dangerous  situation 
for  occupancy.   But  some  legislators  wanted  to  be  sure  that  all 
due  process  was  taken  and  brought  some  pressure  against  the 
president  and  the  institution.   There  was  an  interchange  of 
correspondence  between  Mr.  Bergeron  and  Senator  [Milton]  Marks. 

Hicke :     I  need  to  ask  you  who  the  president  was. 

Heilbron:   The  president  was  [Paul]  Romberg.   He  had  succeeded  President 
Hay ska wa . 

Mr.  Bergeron  wrote  to  Senator  Marks,  and  I'm  quoting  from 
his  letter  dated  December  23,  1974,  so  that  gives  you  the  period 


260 


that  we're  talking  about.  "These  buildings  are  in  a  sad  state  of 
affairs  and  some  day  they  will  have  to  stay  out  of  them  while 
they  are  being  torn  down  and  new  ones  built.   Check  into  the 
length  of  time  the  buildings  have  been  around  the  Pacific  Coast 
and  you  will  know  what  the  hell  I  am  talking  about."   [laughter] 
Bergeron  was  quite  frank  and  rough  in  his  conversation,  and  this 
was  quite  typical. 

Hicke:     He  made  the  point  very  clearly. 

Heilbron:  He  made  the  point  very  clearly.   Incidentally,  the  buildings  had 
acquired  a  name:  they  called  them  "Gatorville , "  so  the  question 
was,  would  Gatorville  be  vacated  or  not? 

I  can't  quite  locate  what  he  thought  the  married  students 
should  do,  but  he  reflected  what  we  all  recognized,  and  that  was 
we  cannot  put  people  and  their  children  to  risk  even  if  they  are 
willing  to  take  the  risk.   Our  duty,  we  felt,  and  here  I  think 
we  made  some  contribution,  was  to  see  to  it  that  alternate 
housing  was  obtained.   Between  the  San  Mateo  Development  Agency 
and  the  San  Francisco  Development  Agency,  the  institution  found 
places  at  low- income  housing  for  all  of  the  eligible  students, 
and  found  out  in  the  course  of  doing  so  that  a  number  of  them 
weren't  eligible  at  all:  they  didn't  even  attend  the  university. 
There  were  eleven  of  them,  I  think,  who  were  totally  ineligible. 
So  that  was  a  time  when  we  were  of  use  in  supporting  the 
president's  position,  even  though  he  had  to  face  legislative  and 
media  criticism. 

Toward  the  community,  we  did  what  we  could  to  explain  the 
image  and  the  purposes  of  the  university,  especially  during  the 
earlier  period  of  President  Hayakawa.   Remember  he  succeeded  to 
the  presidency  first  as  an  acting  president  then  as  a  full 
president,  during  the  period  of  the  great  protests.   We  gave  a 
couple  of  civic  affairs  that  were  successful- - 

Hicke:     Bringing  people  together? 

Heilbron:   Bringing  people,  the  business  community  particularly,  together. 

Then  when  the  state  colleges,  during  the  period  of 
Hayakawa,  became  universities,  there  was  an  appropriate 
celebration  of  the  event.   For  some  reason  or  the  other,  the 
biggest  event  was  held  on  San  Francisco  Bay  in  a  ferry  boat.   It 
was  an  interesting  issue  in  itself:  were  these  colleges 
universities  or  not?  Even  casual  research  revealed  the  fact 
that  institutions  with  three  schools  and  a  graduate  program  were 
entitled  in  the  United  States  to  be  called  universities.   These 
institutions  with  between  15,000  and  20,000  students  and 


261 


Hicke : 


Hellbron: 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


extensive  master's  degree  programs  were  certainly  entitled  to 
the  status. 

The  meaningful  part  of  it  was  the  attraction  of  the  status 
Itself  in  the  hiring  of  faculty,  most  of  whom  preferred  to  go  to 
a  university  rather  than  to  go  to  a  college.   Otherwise,  it  was 
a  kind  of  change  of  name.  Actually,  in  some  cases  institutions 
are  proud  to  retain  the  name  of  "college."  Dartmouth  College 
wouldn't  give  up  that  name  for  anything,  and  most  of  the  famous 
institutions  at  Oxford  are  still  colleges,  after  all.   But  in 
the  United  States  there  is  a  different  approach.   So  the  change 
to  the  university  during  the  period  when  I  was  on  the  advisory 
board  had  some  significance. 

Toward  the  end  of  that  period  the  institution  established  a 
long-range  planning  committee  for  looking  forward  for  San 
Francisco  State  for  ten  years  or  more,  and  I  was  appointed  to  it 
especially  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  I  was  active  on  the 
advisory  board.  We  met  over  a  period  of  a  year  at  various  times 
with  the  faculty  and  administrative  members  assigned  to  the 
project,  and  it  was  extremely  interesting  to  weigh  the 
demographic  factors,  the  innovation  proposals,  the  minority 
pressures  envisioned  for  the  future  with  these  faculty  people. 
In  the  end,  this  group  produced  quite  a  large  document.   I 
suppose  what  became  of  it  was  what  becomes  of  most  large 
documents  produced  by  commissions,  who  argue  over  every  word  in 
the  hope  that  they  will  be  accurately  represented.   Somehow  so 
many  well -intended  studies  seem  to  rest  more  comfortably  in  the 
files  than  in  the  hands  of  people  who  should  do  something  about 
the  recommendations  that  are  made. 

[tape  interruption] 

I  just  wanted  to  ask  you  when  you  were  appointed  and  for  how 
long. 

1  was  appointed  October  8,  1974,  and  the  estimated  period  of  the 
service  was  eighteen  months,  and  that's  Just  about  what  it  took. 

Okay,  thanks.   Now  you  had  one  more  thing  to  add? 

Well,  one  of  the  projects  of  great  interest  to  the  institution 
was  to  say  that  San  Francisco  State  was  the  city's  university. 
(It  does  on  its  stationery.)  The  difficulty  with  that  approach 
is  that  several  other  institutions  want  to  be  the  city's 
university.   There  is  the  University  of  San  Francisco  that  has 
had  a  long  tradition  with  respect  to  political  affairs  and 
judicial  affairs  in  San  Francisco,  a  long  established  liberal 
arts  institution. 


262 


Hicke:     But  a  private  school? 

Heilbron:  A  private  school,  but  nevertheless  many  of  its  graduates  were 
quite  active  in  the  public  community.   There  was  Golden  Gate 
University,  also  a  private  institution,  but  with  strong 
relationships  to  the  business  and  industry  of  the  city.  There 
is  City  College  that  says  it's  the  city's  institution  and  is,  in 
numbers,  the  largest  of  them  all. 

Hicke:     Is  it? 

Heilbron:   I  would  think  so.  And  of  course  there  is  the  University  of 

California  at  San  Francisco  that  is  basically  a  medical  school 
and  health  institution  but  has  an  enormous  influence  in  San 
Francisco  and  economically  as  well  as  medically. 

My  own  thought  is  that  all  of  these  institutions  are  great 
contributors  to  the  city  and  that  the  community  should  take 
great  satisfaction  that  they  all  exist  here  side-by-side. 

There  was  one  other  item  that  I  think  you  had  mentioned. 

Hicke:     Well,  do  you  want  to  go  back  and  get  that  quote  from  that  paper 
on  the  "Gatorville"  secession? 

Heilbron:   Oh.   [shuffles  papers]  Well,  to  give  some  idea  of  the  kind  of 

coverage  that  the  Gatorville  problem  acquired,  I  can  refer  to  an 
article  in  the  San  Francisco  Examiner  which  is  headed, 
"Gatorville  Secedes  From  San  Francisco  State,"  and  then  it  gives 
a  description  of  what  occurred.   This  group  of  buildings  was 
located  in  the  northwest  part  of  the  campus,  and  I  assume  there 
was  a  flagpole  there --well  anyway  there  are  certainly  flagpoles 
on  the  campus- -and  someone  from  Gatorville  put  up  a  quilted  flag 
on  the  pole,  and  according  to  the  article,  "A  girl  played 
'Yankee  Doodle'  on  the  clarinet,  wearing  a  tricorn.  A  person  by 
the  name  of  Tom  Proulx  proclaimed  in  part,  "We  the  people  of 
Gatorville,  in  general  congress  assembled,  solemnly  publish  and 
declare  that  this  facility  is  and  by  right  ought  to  be,  free  and 
independent . ' " 

Hicke:     That's  marvelous. 

Heilbron:   That's  the  closing  of  the  quote.   Of  course,  if  their  secession 
had  succeeded,  I  don't  know  how  they  would  have  funded  their  new 
republic. 


263 


International  House.  Berkeley 


Hlcke : 

Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 


That's  probably  enough  for  now  on  San  Francisco  State,  so  let  me 
ask  you  about  some  of  your  other  activities,  and  I  know  one  of 
the  ones  that  had  a  major  influence  was  International  House  over 
at  Berkeley. 

Yes,  that  was  a  very  interesting  and  rewarding  experience.  Of 
course,  International  House  was  established  by  the  Rockefeller 
family  and  built  around  1930. 

The  one  here  on  campus? 

The  one  here  on  campus.   There  was  one  in  New  York,  one  in 
Chicago,  and  now  this  structure  in  Berkeley.   The  purpose  was  to 
bring  students  from  foreign  countries  and  from  the  United  States 
together  more  or  less  on  a  fifty-fifty  basis  to  improve  the 
mutual  understanding  of  different  peoples.   It  is  quite  a 
splendid- looking  institution.   It  doesn't  look  like  an  ordinary 
dormitory  and  it's  not. 


It's  got  tiled  hallways  or  something? 
since  I've  been  in  there,  but-- 


It's  been  a  long  time 


in 


Yes,  it  looks  as  though  it  had  a  Moorish  influence.  This  was 
the  earliest  part  of  President  [Robert  Gordon]  Sproul's 
administration,  but  he  immediately  considered  International 
House  as  one  of  his  most  important  projects  and  assumed  the 
presidency  of  International  House  as  well  as  the  presidency  of 
the  entire  university.   During  the  entire  period  of  his 
presidency,  he  had  this  dual  position.  After  he  retired, 
successive  chancellors  have  become  automatically  the  president 
of  the  house . 

H 

I  was  looking  at  this  newsletter  which  says,  "International 
House  celebrates  sixty  years."  You've  probably  seen  many  of 
them. 


Yes.   And  I  was  present  at  some  of  the  celebrations  during  this 
later  period.   I  know  that  I  gave  an  address  at  the  time  of 
Chancellor  [I.  Michael]  Heyman's  retirement  at  the  house. 

That  brings  up  a  good  question:  what  were  the  approximate  dates 
when  you  were  involved  with  it?   [Pause]  You  knew  I'd  ask  that! 
[laughter] 


264 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 
Hicke : 
Heilbron: 
Hicke: 

Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Yea.   I'll  give  them  to  you  before  you  leave,  because  I  think  I 
have  a  way  of  locating  the  dates.   Somehow  or  other,  I  was  there 
for  about  fifteen  years  on  that  board,  and  I  suppose  that  I  nay 
have  skipped  a  little  period  here  or  there  in  order  to  be 
eligible  for  such  a  long  period  of  service,  but  It  was  quite  an 
interesting  experience. 

Let  oe  Just  interrupt.   I've  got  it  here:  it's  1953  to  1977. 
I  see. 

That's  twenty -four  years. 

The  mystery  is  how  it  occurred,  and  I  can't  answer  that. 

All  right.   Well,  I  interrupted  you  in  the  midst  of  the  story; 
I'm  sorry. 

It  has  been,  I  think,  an  unqualified  success  with  respect  to  the 
foreign  visitors.   I  think  International  House  has  more  alumni 
who  are  cabinet  ministers  and  heads  of  government  and  even 
people  who  have  occupied  high  positions  in  the  United  States, 
than  many  full-blown  educational  institutions.   These 
relationships  reflect  not  only  to  the  benefit  of  the  house,  but 
I  think  to  the  benefit  of  the  country. 

For  a  time,  the  American  mixture  was  not  as  successful  as 
they  wanted  it  to  be.   That  is,  the  desire  was  that  there  would 
be  a  clear  mixture  of  the  American  and  the  foreign  elements  so 
that  people  not  only  would  learn  respect  for  one  another  but 
mutually  benefit  from  each  other's  cultural  heritage.   Now,  a 
good  deal  of  that  did  occur,  but  I  think  that  the  American 
graduate  students,  at  least  in  the  earlier  days,  were  interested 
in  having  a  very  pleasant  dormitory  to  be  in  and  had  just  a 
passing  interest  in  their  relationships  to  the  other  groups. 

And  I  will  say  that  students  tend  to  get  segregated  into 
their  national  groups  in  the  dining  hall,  or  did.   But  that  was 
improving  during  the  period  of  my  tenure  considerably,  and  now, 
I  believe,  Is  quite  well  taken  care  of.  Now  they  have  so  many 
people  wanting  to  get  Into  International  House  that  they  can 
almost  recruit  on  the  basis  of  the  interest  of  students  In 
participating  in  the  affairs  of  the  house. 

I  suppose  the  foreign  students  also  mix  among  themselves? 

To  a  considerable  extent,  although  the  relationship  of  the  Arab 
students  and  the  Israelis  is  a  story  again  by  itself.   During 
the  period  that  I  was  there,  and  perhaps  It  Is  still  the  case, 


265 


the  Israeli  students  sat  at  the  European  table  instead  of  at  the 
Middle  Eastern  table.   Maybe  both  sides  were  more  comfortable 
that  way,  but  it  was  a  reflection  of  conditions  in  the  Middle 
East. 

Hicke:     When  you  say  "tables,*  were  they-- 

Heilbron:   Veil,  they  did  have  language  tables.   Of  course  everybody  had  to 
take  instruction  in  English,  so  that  all  of  the  students  were 
presumably  English  speaking,  as  a  second  language  at  least,  but 
in  relaxed  periods  they  may  want  to  be  with  their  own  groups. 
It  is  in  the  programming  of  events,  the  tours,  the  special 
Sunday  evenings  in  which  cultural  groups  entertain  each  other, 
that  the  mixtures  take  place.   As  I  say,  I  think  it  has  been  a 
successful  enterprise. 

There  was  one  issue ,  I  guess  more  than  any  others ,  to  which 
I  nay  have  made  a  contribution,  and  that  is,  the  donors  of  the 
building  were  insistent  in  its  charter  that  the  house  be 
independent  of  the  university.   On  the  other  hand,  this  was  not 
entirely  practical  with  the  housing  of  university  students. 
During  Sproul's  period,  because  of  his  relationship  personally 
with  the  Rockefeller  family,  the  problem  was  not  as  difficult  as 
it  became  after  he  left.   The  concern  of  the  house  was  that  it 
would  become  another  dormitory  of  the  university,  and  the 
concern  of  the  university  was  that  things  could  go  on  in  the 
house  that  the  university  would  not  be  able  to  control  in  the 
way  of  disparities  in  salaries  and  payrolls.   So  when  Chancellor 
[Albert  H.]  Bowker  became  the  president--!  don't  know  whether  he 
was  chairman  or  president,  I  guess  he  was  president  and  there 
was  (and  is)  a  director  of  International  House. 

Hicke:     The  permanent  staff  person? 
Heilbron:   The  permanent  staff  person  in  charge. 

Bowker  and  I  took  the  matter  head-on  and  worked  out  an 
arrangement  where  undoubtedly  the  program  and  policy  of  the 
house  is  the  province  of  the  house  trustees  and  administration, 
but  the  payroll  and  personnel  procedures  and  benefit  procedures 
are  exactly  those  of  the  university.   In  fact,  by  the  end  of  our 
arrangement,  most  of  the  International  House  staff  were  on 
university  payroll,  and  I  think  under  Chancellor  Heyman  this  was 
completed  so  that  everybody  is  on  the  university  payroll 
receiving  the  same  benefits  and  having  the  same  commitments  or 
responsibilities,  fiscally,  as  all  of  the  other  university 
employees . 


266 


Of  course  International  House,  through  its  charges  and 
contributions,  pays  its  own  way  by  paying  the  university  back 
for  all  of  the  services  that  it  renders  and  all  of  the  salaries 
that  it  pays  and  all  of  the  benefits  that  it  pays.   So  this  has 
worked  out  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  concerned  and  it  is  no 
longer  an  issue.  Of  course  the  house  still  rests  on  university 
property,  and  I  don't  think  they  ever  changed  the  license 
arrangement,  which  is  revocable  in  short  order  by  the 
university,  but  the  university  can't  abandon  the  trust  either, 
so  it  works  very  well. 

Hicke:     I  have  a  note  that  in  1968  you  chaired  an  ad-hoc  committee  on 
student  governance. 

Heilbron:   Yes,  but  part  of  the  reply  is  that  the  institution  has  been 

fortunate,  in  a  way,  that  there  have  only  been  three  directors 
in  the  whole  history  of  the  institution. 

Hicke:     In  sixty  years? 

Heilbron:   Alan  Blaisdell  was  the  director  for  an  extended  period,  and 

Sherry  Warwick  was  director  until  a  few  years  ago,  and  Joseph 
Lurie  has  come  in  and  is  the  present  director.   Well,  I  know  him 
quite  well. 

But  Alan,  particularly,  was- -and  even  his  successor- -was  a 
little  restrictive  in  giving  students  control  over  program,  and 
the  students  were  always  bringing  some  kind  of  pressure  for 
defining  their  participation.   I  became  chairman  of  that 
committee,  and  we  worked  out  a  program  for  student 
participation.   I  think  that  we  saw  to  it  that  there  was 
representation  on  the  board  itself  and  that  they  contributed 
substantially  to  what  the  programs  were  to  be  and  how  they  were 
to  be  presented,  always  within  overall  administrative  policy, 
but  after  all  this  is  primarily  a  graduate  student  operation  and 
they  are  responsible  people.   So  my  recollection  is  that  we  had 
very  interesting  meetings  with  the  students,  worked  out  some  by 
laws,  and  I  have  not  heard  of  any  frustrations  or  protests 
since,  although  there  may  have  been. 

Hicke:     You  certainly  have  spent  a  great  part  of  your  life  bringing 

together  opposing  groups  and  creating  harmony  where  there  was 
disharmony  before.   That's  a  wonderful  record  to  have. 

Heilbron:  Well,  that,  in  a  way  I  have  indicated,  springs  out  of  my  legal 
work. 

Hicke:     Of  course.   That's  what  you  were  doing  in  the  law. 


267 


Heilbron:  In  part;  at  least  that's  constructive. 
Hicke:     Indeed. 

Heilbron:  Recently,  International  House  celebrated  sixty  years  of  its 

existence,  and  Dr.  Lurie  had  tapes  made  of  a  number  of  us  who 
had  made  soae  contribution  to  the  history  of  the  house,  and 
played  these  tapes  over  screens  during  the  celebration  dinner. 
He  also  put  together  a  history  of  the  house,  and  that's  why  I 
think  I'll  Unit  my  remarks  to  what  I  have  given,  because 
otherwise  I  would  be  repeating  matters  that  have  been  more  than 
adequately  dealt  with  by  the  director,  and  more  authoritatively 
than  I  could  do  at  this  point. 

Hicke:     Good.  Well,  we  wanted  to  get  your  perspective  on  it.   Let  me 
just  go  back  to  the  period  when  you  were  on  the  board  of 
trustees  for  the  California  State  Colleges.   I  understand  that 
you  exchanged  some  correspondence  with  Governor  Reagan  at  that 
point? 

Heilbron:  Yes,  that's  true,  and  the  correspondence  occurred  at  a  very 

interesting  period.   In  a  way,  the  period  of  protest  and  unrest 
is  somewhat  characterized  by  this  correspondence.   It  was 
initiated  by  his  writing  a  letter  to  every  regent  of  the 
University  of  California  and  every  trustee  of  the  state  college 
trustees  regarding  the  ways  and  means  of  dealing  with  student 
activism,  and  inviting  replies  and  comments.   The  governor  used 
Robert  [F.]  Kennedy's  assassination,  which  had  just  occurred,  as 
a  kind  of  springboard  to  a  series  of  comments  and  questions 
concerning  violence  on  the  campuses  of  higher  education. 

Hicke:     This  was  1968? 

Heilbron:   This  was  in  1968.   Indeed,  his  first  letter  is  dated  June  7, 
1968,  and  it  follows  a  release  on  the  subject  of  the  Kennedy 
assassination  dated  on  the  5th  of  the  same  month,  so  the 
incident  was  quite  fresh  in  his  mind.   There  was  some 
implication  that  campus  violence  was,  in  a  general  way,  related 
to  this  event. 

I  wrote  him  a  rather  extensive  reply.  With  respect  to  the 
assassination  itself,  I  pointed  out  that  Sirhan  Sirhan,  the 
assassin,  had  been  a  quiet  student,  according  to  the  reports,  in 
high  school,  and  a  dropout  from  junior  college,  and  had  in  no 
way  been  involved  or  associated  with  any  college  campus  or 
university  campus,  and  that  this  terrorist  attack  had  its  roots 
far  distant  from  the  college  scene.   Furthermore,  I  pointed  out 
that  the  college  campus  was  affected  by  the  violent  world  around 
it,  that  the  extremists,  the  destroyers,  were  a  small  number  and 


268 


that  they  influenced  the  behavior  of  the  vast  number  of  moderate 
students  only  when  the  college  authorities  were  viewed  unfair  in 
dealing  with  the  problems  or  activities  of  students  or  in  the 
treatment  of  students.  The  trustee  policy  condemned  violent 
action  in  any  form,  but  allowed  individual  college  authorities 
to  exercise  discretion  in  making  the  punishment  fit  the  crime 
rather  than  imposing  automatic  suspension  or  expulsion  against 
the  students  for  participating  in  some  kind  of  violent  action 
against  a  building—breaking  a  window  or  something  of  that  kind. 

I  think  1  mentioned  in  my  previous  remarks  that  there  can 
be  a  difference  between  a  freshman  influenced  by  an  experienced 
protester  and  particularly  one  who  is  really  on  the  extremist 
side.   The  moderate  student  gets  pushed  forward. 

Hicke:     Yes,  that  was  a  good  point. 

Heilbron:   And  he  is  the  one  who  gets  the  arrest.   There  have  to  be 

gradations  of  punishment  dealing  with  students.   You  Just  can't 
say,  this  person  participated  in  such-and-such  a  protest;  out 
with  him.   Particularly  because  of  the  long-time  effect  suffered 
by  such  a  student:  he  can't  get  into  another  college  or 
university.   I  think  I  went  over  that  before,  and  I  don't  intend 
to  review  these  letters  and  the  points  made  in  them  paragraph  by 
paragraph,  but  simply  to  refer  to  them. 

Hicke:     He  seemed  to  be  saying  that  the  disorders  on  campus  were  to 
blame  for  violence  everywhere . 

Heilbron:   It  is  not  quite  that  strong,  but  you  do  get  the  kind  of 

implication  that  it  is  because  there  is  violence  on  the  campuses 
that  there  may  be  young  people's  violence  everywhere,  rather 
than  recognizing  that  it  is  because  of  the  violence  everywhere 
that  the  campus  is  affected;  because  the  students  are  looking  at 
the  same  televisions  as  the  rest  of  the  people,  and  reading  the 
same  newspapers,  and  particularly  during  the  Vietnam  period, 
when  violent  action  was  the  scene  on  the  screen  everyday. 

Hicke:     It  seems  like  the  campus  reflected  society  rather  than  the 
society  reflecting  the  campus,  as  it  sounds  in  his  letters. 

Heilbron:   Exactly,  but  his  point  is  that  the  regents  and  the  trustees  had 
a  little  area  that  they  could  make  an  oasis  and  somehow  build  a 
wall  of  good  behavior  that  could  not  be  affected  by  the  things 
around  them.   But  after  all,  the  students  were  being  asked  to 
participate  in  a  war  across  the  seas,  and  they  opposed  that  war. 
It  was  the  world  reaching  into  the  campus,  not  the  campus  trying 
to  define  the  world. 


269 


Hicke:     Exactly. 

Heilbron:  He  did  send  me  a  second  letter  somewhat  modifying  his  first,  and 
as  I  recall  it,  emphasizing  the  responsibilities  of  the  trustees 
and  administrators  for  the  orderly  conduct  of  their 
institutions.   I  could  agree  with  this  point.  Unfortunately, 
the  originals  and  my  copy  of  the  correspondence  were 
accidentally  lost,  along  with  other  papers,  as  previously  noted, 
but  I  have  done  my  best  to  remember  the  essential  content. 

So  it  was  a  kind  of  an  interesting  exchange. 


Class  of  1928 


Hicke:     I  understand  that  you  are  active  in  your  1928  undergraduate 
class  at  UC  Berkeley,  and  it  is  still  going  strong.   In  what 
way? 

Heilbron:   I  can  tell  you  that  the  class  has  had  an  annual  reunion  in  one 
fashion  or  another- -cocktail  reception,  lunch,  or  dinner- -every 
year  since  graduation.   It  will  have  its  sixty-fifth  reunion  on 
the  day  before  the  Big  Game  in  November  of  1993. 

Hicke:     Who  keeps  the  organization  going? 

Heilbron:  A  more  or  less  "permanent"  class  committee.  Any  classmate  can 
become  a  member  provided  he  or  she  will  be  reasonably  faithful 
in  attending  the  meet ings --about  three  a  year.   Presently  the 
comnittee  consists  of  eighteen  members.   Walter  Frederick  of 
Carmel  is  secretary  and  has  kept  in  touch  with  many  classmates 
and  has  reported  their  activities  over  the  years.   The  alumni 
records  indicate  600  to  700  survivors  and  we  hope  the  numbers 
will  diminish  only  slowly.   I  participated  occasionally  in 
earlier  days,  but  since  retirement  have  been  a  regular. 

The  class  is  noted  for  its  gift  of  thirty- seven  new  bells 
for  the  Campanile  carillon,  making  it  one  of  the  finest  in  the 
world.  When  the  bells  toll,  the  class  feels  that,  in  a 
friendly,  cheerful  way,  they  toll  for  us. 


269a 


;  ;  oj  i 


Perkins  Street  #308 
Oakland,  Calif.  9^-610 

October  12,  1976. 

The  Honorable  Edmund  G.  Brown,  Jr. 
Governor  of  California 
Sacramento,  California. 

Dear  Governor  Brown: 

As  a  member  of  the  Berkeley  Fellows  "an 
honorific  society  of  one  hundred  fellows  estab 
lished  in  1968  on  the  occasion  of  the  Univer 
sity's  One  Hundredth  Anniversary",  of  which 
your  father  is  a  member,  I  would  like  to  pro 
pose  for  your  earnest  consideration  DDUIS  H. 
Heilbron  for  one  of  the  vacancies  on  the  Board 
of  Regents  of  the  University  of  California. 

Mr.  Heilbron  is  a  distinguished  San  Fran-  . 
ciscan  whose  career  of  public  service  is  con 
siderable,  as  you  can  see  from  the  attached 
record  of  his  activities,  particularly  in  the 
area  of  higher  education  in  California. 

Thank  you  for  your  thoughtful  deliberation 
on  the  needskof  the  University. 


270 


VI   SECTARIAN  INTERESTS 


Temcle  Emanu-El 


[Interview  11:  September  2,  1992] 


Hicke:     I'd  like  to  just  start  today  by  asking  you,  when  did  you  first 
become  associated  with  Temple  Emanu-El? 

Heilbron:   That  goes  back  a  long  time.   I  went  to  Sunday  school  in  the 

first  grade.   I  suppose  it  was  around  1912.   I  recall  still  the 
big  sandbox  on  top  of  the  table  in  the  class- - 

Hicke:     Inside  the  room? 

Heilbron:   Inside  the  room,  and  it  had  desert  tents.   Of  course,  that's 
where  Abraham  was  shown,  and  then  maybe  with  some  parsley  or 
something  like  that  a  little  Moses  [laughter]  was  alongside  the 
green  cover  [in  the  bulrushes].   I  think  a  little  bit  to  one 
side  was  some  salt  where  Lot's  wife  [laughter]  had  become  part 
of  the  environment.   I  remember  these  things  to  this  day, 
because  I  went  all  the  way  through  Sunday  school  at  Temple 
Emanu-El. 

This  was  long  before  the  present  temple  was  built.   There 
was  a  second  Temple  of  Emanu-El  that  was  constructed  in  the  late 
nineteenth  century  and  occupied  the  site  of  the  medical/dental 
building  on  Sutter  Street.   That's  where  I  was  Bar  Mitzvah  and 
that's  where  I  was  confirmed. 

But  the  Sunday  school  was  in  a  different  building 
altogether,  a  small  building  between  Van  Ness  and  Franklin 
streets  on  Sutter.   When  you  entered  the  foyer  of  it,  there  was 
a  banner  that  was  located  under  the  main  light  in  the  foyer,  and 


271 


it  said,  "I  an  early,  what  a  pleasure! 
[laughter] 


I  am  late,  what  a  pity!' 


In  any  event,  I  proceeded  through  the  classes  and  through 
the  confirmation  program  at  the  temple.  The  pulpit  was  occupied 
by  Martin  Meyer  during  all  of  this  period.   Meyer  was  a 
relatively  young  man  for  the  post;  I  don't  know  quite  what  his 
years  were.   He  was  an  extraordinary  person,  had  a  great  effect 
on  the  young  people  whom  he  taught.   He  was  firm  and  yet 
flexible,  and  particularly  interested  in  the  development  of  a 
young  leadership. 

After  confirmation,  some  of  the  boys  went  into  an 
organization  that  he  developed  called  the  Pathfinders.   They 
were  mostly  self -selecting.   I  think  if  we  missed  someone  whom 
he  felt  definitely  should  be  in  the  group,  he  could  persuade  us 
to  allow  the  person  in,  but  the  idea  was  that  the  young  people 
were  probably  quite  capable  of  indicating  who  had  the  potential 
for  temple  and  community  leadership. 

Hicke:     Did  this  include  both  boys  and  girls? 

Heilbron:  No,  it  did  not.  Later  on,  under  the  succeeding  rabbi,  a  group 
called  the  Reviewers  was  organized,  post -confirmation,  but  not 
during  Meyer's  day. 

We  met  in  a  large  living  room  in  his  home.   I'm  trying  to 
remember- -his  home  was  on  Jackson  Street,  near  Presidio  Avenue. 
Some  remained  active  in  that  group  pretty  much  through  the  first 
year  of  college.   That  meant  some  extra  effort  on  the  part  of 
those  who  waited  to  go  back  to  Berkeley  and  those  who  waited  to 
go  back  to  Stanford  until  after  the  evening  session  on  a  Sunday 
evening  at  his  home. 

Hicke:     You  mean  back  to  school? 

Heilbron:   Back  to  school.   So  it  commanded  a  certain  loyalty.   The  topics 
were  pretty  much  chosen  by  the  group,  although  the  ideas  may 
have  been  thrown  out  by  Meyer. 

Hicke:     It  was  a  discussion? 

Heilbron:   It  was  very  much  a  discussion  group  with  topics  such  as  should 
Jewish  families  be  permitted  to  have  Christmas  trees?  What 
about  the  play  of  R.U.R.  [Rossum's  Universal  Robots:  A  Fantastic 
Melodrama]?  It  was  a  provocative  play  which  had  quite  a  run  in 
the  early  twenties.   It  imagined  a  technological  world- -which 
perhaps  was  later  much  further  developed- -where  robots  were 
running  most  of  society  and  the  economy,  and  what  that  meant  to 


272 


Hicke: 
Hellbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


society,  to  men  and  women.   It  was  in  advance  of  its  time,  but 
it  was  the  kind  of  thing  that  was  thrown  out  to  this  group  of 
young  people.  And  the  prospects  for  the  League  of  Nations,  I 
remember,  was  a  subject,  and  the  general  subject  of  war  and 
peace  and  crime  and  punishment,  which  I  think  one  of  the 
Pathfinders  said  was  a  crime  to  write  and  a  punishment  to  read, 
[laughter  at  play  on  words] 

You  were  discussing  the  topics  and  not  the  books  though,  I 
trust. 

Of  course.  Although--.   I  guess  it  was  the  topic  more  than  the 
book  itself.   1  think  we  may  have  pledged  to  read  R.U.R.  in 
order  to  be  able  to  discuss  it.   And  we  discussed  the  prayer 
book  and  what  it  meant,  and  discussed  concepts  of  God  and  soul, 
things  that  were  post-confirmation  but  were  the  kind  of  concepts 
that  were  being  challenged  in  the  universities  to  which  we  were 
going.   So  it  made  quite  a  lively  group. 

In  general,  "Where  does  your  religion  fit  into  present  day 
society?" 


That's  quite  right. 
Judaism. 


It  was  perhaps  a  good  expression  of  reform 


Do  you  recall  other  people  who  were  in  the  group? 

Well,  I  do.   I  remember  James  Moss,  Robert  Blum,  Adolph  Meyer. 
I'm  trying  to  remember  some  of  the  boys  from  Stanford. 

As  you  said,  it  was  a  while  back. 
It  was  a  while  back. 

Meyer's  effectiveness  was  with  high  school  seniors  and 
students  of  college  age.   He  had  a  feeling  that  he  wanted  to 
guide  the  community  leaders  of  the  future,  even  before  the 
Pathfinders.   I  know  Milton  Marks,  Sr.,  who  was  an  assemblyman, 
and  Ben  Peigenbaum,  who  was  another  assemblyman,  were  stimulated 
by  his  influence.   He  died  in  the  early  twenties. 
Unfortunately,  he  had  a  tumor  on  his  brain,  and  he  was  in  great 
anguish.   It  was  quite  a  blow  when  he  left. 

Now,  he  was  succeeded  by  Rabbi  Louis  Newman,  who  was  only 
twenty-eight  years  of  age  when  he  was  chosen  to  lead  this 
congregation  that  had  quite  a  mature  membership.   It  was  a 
little  bit  difficult  for  a  man  that  young  to  be  paternal  to 
people  much  older.   He  too  was  an  extraordinary  man,  brilliant 
and  poetic,  eloquent.   He  was  tall,  and  when  he  ascended  the 


273 


upper  pulpit  at  the  temple- -this  is  the  new  temple  that  was 
completed  in  1926  and  which  is  at  Arguello  and  Lake  Streets  and 
still  flourishes- -he  presented  quite  a  prophetic  figure. 

Hicke:     Wasn't  Lloyd  Dinkelspiel  part  of  raising  the  money  for  that? 
Heilbron:   Emanuel  Heller  was. 
Hicke:     Heller,  oh,  okay. 

Heilbron:  That's  right.  Although  Lloyd  Dinkelspiel,  who  1  believe  was 
also  one  of  Martin  Meyer's  proteges,  became  president  of  the 
temple,  and  much  later  I  became  president  of  the  temple. 

When  Newman  ascended  the  upper  pulpit  and  had  the  Torah  on 
his  arm  and  told  the  congregation,  "Behold,  a  good  doctrine  has 
been  given  to  you,  forsake  it  not!"  with  a  very  rich  voice  and  e 
very  emotional  pitch,  you  thought  Moses  was  there  or  God  was 
handing  the  tablets  down  from  Sinai. 

I  had  a  number  of  relationships  with  him.   In  the  first 
place,  he  felt  that  the  Sunday  school  was  being  taught  by  older 
volunteers  who  had  no  valid  connections  with  the  young  students 
and  who  were  not  likely  to  have  much  influence  on  them,  and  so 
he  selected  a  number  of  nineteen-  and  twenty-year-old  people 
from  the  universities,  who  were  eager,  who  didn't  know  much 
beyond  confirmation  but  to  whom  he  gave  some  training,  to  take 
over  the  school.   I  was  one  of  the  teachers.   So  was  my  wife. 
Indeed,  that's  the  way  we  met,  although  we  also  knew  each  other 
from  Berkeley,  but  we  really  met  as  teachers  in  this  school. 

Hicke:     About  what  year  are  we? 

Heilbron:  Well,  let's  see.  We're  talking  about  maybe  '25. 

I  remember  teaching  a  pre- confirmation  class,  I  think, 
under  his  direction,  and  I  would  go  over  to  his  house  for  some 
discussion.   He  would  talk  to  me  while  he  was  typing  his  sermon. 
He  could  do  both  things  at  once.  He  would  type  an  original 
sermon  while  he  was  talking  to  me ,  and  I  was  the  most  disturbed 
party  of  the  couple.   [laughter] 

He  played  tennis,  and  when  he  went  down  for  his  summers  in 
Palo  Alto,  I  once  went  down  there  and  remember  playing  tennis 
with  him.   I  was  still  fairly  competent,  being  on  the  Berkeley 
team,  and  of  course  he  used  the  sport  as  intermittent  exercise, 
and  I  didn't  know  whether  to  play  it  hard  or  whether  to  show 
some  mercy  to  the  rabbi.   I'm  afraid  sometimes  I  played  it  too 


274 


Hicke : 


hard,  because  he  had  long  legs  and  he  could  be  easily  chased 
around  the  court.   [laughter] 

He  also  was  willing  to  learn  in  this  respect.  Here  was 
this  rather  tall,  somewhat  rigid  character,  who  attended  an 
event  given  for  the  teachers  of  the  school.   This  is  a  weekend 
proposition  I'm  talking  about;  the  whole  teaching  program  was  a 
weekend  proposition,  and  by  that  I  mean  Sundays.   But  Berthold 
Guggenhiae- -an  uncle  of  Richard,  by  the  way- -gave  a  large  party 
at  the  Fairmont  Hotel  for  the  teachers,  and  the  Charleston  was 
the  popular  dance  at  the  time.   My  wife  taught  Rabbi  Newman  the 
Charleston  [laughter]  which  I  assure  you  was  a  spectacle.   But 
he  was  willing  and-- 

I'm  sure  she  was  able! 


Heilbron:   --she  was  able.   We  still  remember  that  occasion  with  pleasure. 

He,  as  I  said,  was  a  young  man,  and  he  had  an  older  flock. 
Among  them  was  Mrs.  Max  Sloss.   She  was  a  poetess.   She  was  the 
wife  of  Judge  Max  Sloss,  the  Supreme  Court  Justice  in 
California.   She  was  a  community  leader  known  to  everybody.   She 
was  president  of  the  Browning  Society  that  devoted  its  literary 
interests  to  nineteenth  century  poets.   She  compiled  a  book  on 
nineteenth  century  poets.   She  was  very  much  interested  in 
social  work,  and  social  workers  enjoyed  her  reading  of  poetry, 
particularly  Browning. 

However,  she  was  an  anti-Zionist,  and  Newman  was  a  Zionist, 
meaning  that  Rabbi  Newman  wanted  the  re-creation  of  a  Jewish 
state  and  Mrs.  Sloss  was  against  it.   The  temple  was  somewhat 
divided  on  this  issue,  as  were  many  American  Jews  during  that 
period.   I'm  talking  about  the  period  of  the  late  twenties  and 
the  thirties  and  even  later.   Furthermore,  Newman  was  interested 
to  be  part  of  the  intellectual  life  of  the  city  from  which  he 
came:  New  York.   When  the  invitation  came  to  lead  one  of  the 
leading  congregations  in  New  York,  he  left  San  Francisco  after 
about  four  years  of  service .   He  had  been  inaugurated  in  1924 
and  he  served  through  1930,  I  believe. 

We  saw  him  in  New  York  on  one  of  our  visits  there,  Mrs. 
Heilbron  and  I.   He  was  very,  very  cordial  and  had  us  sit  with 
him  on  the  pulpit.   We  were  lifelong  friends,  but  he  enjoyed 
being  in  what  he  deemed  to  be  the  middle  of  the  active  life,  and 
San  Francisco  was  lovely,  but  it  was  no  New  York. 

He  was  succeeded  by  Rabbi  Irving  Reichert,  who  was- -not 
surprisingly- -anti-Zionist.   The  board  still  had  Mrs.  Sloss  on 
it,  and  I  think  that  may  have  had  something  to  do  with  the 


275 


appointment.   Reichert  was  an  intellectual.   He  thought  he  was 
going  to  be  a  lawyer,  but  then  he  went  into  the  rabbinate.   I 
don't  know  what  considerations  persuaded  him.   He  would  have 
made  an  excellent  lawyer.   In  fact,  probably  he  was  a  better 
lawyer  than  a  rabbi.   (And  1  don't  mean  to  imply  that  all 
lawyers  are  intellectuals.) 

Hicke:     Well,  being  a  rabbi  requires  some  knowledge  of  law,  doesn't  it? 

Heilbron:   Of  course,  I  say  this  lightly  and  partly  advisedly.   He  was  the 
arbitrator  of  a  big  strike  in  town,  and  he  was  a  very  much 
appreciated  speaker  at  the  Commonwealth  Club;  he  had  general 
community  interests.   He  noted  that  I  had  taught  the  pre- 
conf irmation  and  confirmation  classes.   Incidentally,  a  teacher 
would  teach  them  on  Sundays ,  but  in  the  midweek  during  the  year 
before  their  confirmation,  the  rabbi  would  take  the  class,  but 
then  on  Sundays  one  of  the  teachers  was  selected.   I  did  that 
work  for  a  time,  and  he  asked  me  if  I  would  be  superintendent  of 
the  school,  and  I  accepted.   It  was,  after  all,  a  weekend 
proposition,  and  I  felt  I  could  do  it  on  my  usual  seven-day  week 
schedule;  so  I  did  it  and  found  it  quite  interesting. 

I  went  one  or  two  steps  beyond  the  Newman  program. 
Reichert  gave  me  fairly  free  reign.   First  of  all,  for  the 
confirmation  classes  and  the  upper  classes,  I  selected  young  men 
and  women  who  had  made  something  of  a  name  for  themselves  at  the 
university  or  were  quite  obviously  going  to  be  people  of 
influence  in  the  community:  Stanley  Ueigel,  who  became  a  judge 
of  the  federal  district  court,  and  William  Cher in,  who  I  suppose 
became  the  executive  of  the  forerunner  of  the  Jewish  Community 
Relations  Council  in  San  Francisco.   Then  the  younger  teachers 
like  Larry  Rhine  and  Harold  Levy,  I'll  mention  them  a  little  bit 
later.   I  changed  the  textbooks  pretty  much  completely.   They 
had  been  in  use  for  some  time,  but  they  were  rather  stodgy 
books,  I  thought,  and  new  ones  were  coming  out  with  clearer 
language  and  illustrations,  and  were  more  attractive  to  the 
youngsters.   I  organized  kind  of  a  three-ring  curriculum 
course -- 

M 

Heilbron:   --where  the  first  to  the  third  grades  concentrated  on  heroes  and 
festivals;  then  five  or  six  years  of  various  segments  of  Jewish 
history  from  biblical  to  the  present;  and  then  in  the  pre- 
conf irmation,  a  summary  of  Jewish  history;  and  in  the  final 
confirmation  year,  current  problems.   At  that  time,  I  didn't 
have  too  much  guideline  from  the  Union  of  American  Hebrew 
Congregations,  but  we  sent  the  curriculum  back  to  them,  and  they 
seemed  to  feel  that  it  made  something  of  a  contribution. 


276 


I  recognized  that  It  was  rather  difficult  to  keep  the 
younger  people  of  high  school  grade  interested  in  coming  on 
Sunday.   The  automobile  had  become  a  bit  more  common  for 
everybody.   The  idea  of  going  away  over  the  weekends  was  a 
temptation,  and  we  had  to  develop  means  of  keeping  youngsters 
interested  in  another  day  of  school,  although  it  was  a  different 
kind  of  school. 

I  recall  going  the  last  mile  on  an  assembly  program,  and 
that  was  to  have  a  group  of  young  musicians  entertain  the 
assembly.   The  group  consisted  of  Yehudi  Menuhin,  who  was  then, 
I  guess,  in  his  teens;  Isaac  Stern,  who  was  in  the  fifth  or 
sixth  grade  of  the  school;  and  Ruth  Slezinsky,  who  was  also  in 
the  school.   She  was  a  pianist.   I  think  Shakespeare  said  music 
has  a  quieting  effect  on  everybody,  and  he  almost  was  right  with 
these  youngsters.   Actually,  Yehudi  Menuhin' s  father  had  taught 
Hebrew  at  the  school  during  the  time  that  it  was  on  Sutter 
Street;  so  there  had  been  a  long-term  connection  there.   It  was 
an  extraordinary  event  because  these  were  all  proven  prodigies 
at  the  time,  even  though  the  youngest  children  were  in  a  state 
of  awe  or  suspended  animation. 

Later,  I  divided  the  assembly  into  a  junior  assembly  and  a 
senior  one  so  that  their  separate  interests  would  be  recognized. 

An  addendum  to  this  time  when  I  was  the  superintendent  of 
the  Sunday  school  and  tried  to  do  something  about  making  history 
more  vivid  to  the  children.   I  had  the  help  of  all  of  our 
teachers ,  and  one  of  them  was  Larry  Rhine . 

Rhine  had  his  children  write  a  history  that  they  were 
studying  in  terms  of  a  current  issue  of  Time  magazine.   He  put 
out  an  issue  which  used  the  cover  form  of  Time,  and  I  think  it 
was  a  Passover  issue,  in  which  the  children,  rather  young  ones, 
report  on  all  of  what  Moses  is  doing,  writing  about  his  latest 
exploits  and  leading  the  exodus  and  the  pharaoh  following  with 
his  army  and  so  on.   All  in  vivid  terms  of  the  present.   While 
he  (and  they)  put  out  only  one  issue  of  Time,  his  general  lesson 
procedure  was  of  a  similar  kind.   Rhine  was  creative  and  became 
one  of  the  writers  of  the  very  successful  All  in  the  Family 
show. 

As  I  indicated,  Reichert  was  broadly  interested  in 
intellectual  fields  and  sought  to  take  his  doctorate  at 
Berkeley,  but,  I  think  unfortunately  for  him,  he  was  to  take  it 
under  Professor  Teggart,  whom  I  mentioned  quite  some  time  ago 
when  we  began  these  interviews.   Professor  Teggart 's  demand  of 
scholarship  would  have  required  Reichert  to  leave  the  rabbinate 
and  study  for  some  years;  so  he  never  completed  that  endeavor. 


277 


He  was  very  active  in  the  American  Council  for  Judaism,  the 
anti-Zionist  organization,  and  that  kept  the  issue  with  respect 
to  Israel  a  matter  of  division  among  the  congregants. 

Hicke:      Was  there  a  lot  of  strong  feeling  about  this? 

Heilbron:   A  good  deal  of  feeling  about  it.   However,  notwithstanding  his 
personal  beliefs,  toward  the  end  of  the  thirties,  Reichert  went 
to  Germany,  and  he  was  extremely  upset  by  the  condition  of  the 
Jews  in  Germany  and  what  he  thought  the  future  held  for  them. 
He  came  back  and  made  a  report  to  the  congregation  in  what  was 
probably  one  of  the  great  events  of  the  congregation's  history. 
His  warnings  and  his  predictions,  unfortunately,  became  true. 
But  he  brought  it  quite  home  to  the  congregation.   I  remember 
that  one  of  his  clear  points  was  that  if  Hitler  was  successful 
in  Europe,  he  would  affect  and  influence  and  corrupt  the  United 
States.   He  gave  an  extraordinary  report  at  the  time. 

Hicke:     Did  you  hear  it? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  I  heard  it.   Of  course.   I  was  the  head  of  the  Sunday 

school  from  '32  to  '37.   Then,  number  one  it  was  getting  to  be 
quite  a  burden  for  me  to  carry  with  the  other  things  that  I  was 
doing.   I  had  many  things  in  the  law  and  in  public  service  with 
the  Emergency  Relief  Administration,  and  second,  it  was  time  for 
them  to  get  an  assistant  rabbi,  which  they  hadn't  had  before, 
who  would  take  over  the  educational  function.   That  was  done  in 
'37. 


There  was  something  of  a  hiatus  after  that  with  respect  to 
my  participation  in  the  school.   I  think  I  became  a  member  of 
the  school  committee,  but  it  had  rather  limited  functions  until 
after  the  war.   Then  I  came  back  for  a  while  to  be  chairman  of 
the  school  committee.   I  think  my  biggest  activity  on  return  was 
to  be  chairman  of  the  100th  anniversary  of  the  temple. 

Hicke:     When  was  that? 

Heilbron:   In  1950.   The  congregation  had  been  organized  in  1850. 

Actually,  the  two  reform  congregations  in  the  city  at  the  time, 
Sherith  Israel  and  Temple  Emanu-El,  were  under  the  same  tent  in 
1850  and  then  divided  off,  and  there  has  always  been  a  question 
as  to  whose  incorporation  and  activities  started  first,  but  it 
was  in  1850  as  far  as  the  temple  is  concerned. 

We  had  a  number  of  interesting  events  for  the  100th 
anniversary.   The  temple  had  always  been  known  for  its  musical 
interests  and  activities;  its  choir  has  always  been  an  important 


278 


part  of  its  program.   I  believe  it  was  in  1950  we  had  Mark  Lavry 
write  a  new  holy  day  service  for  the  temple.   He  was  in  Israel. 

Hicke:     In  Israel? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  he  was  an  Israeli  who  was  head  of  the  musical  programs,  I 
think  for  Israeli  radio  and  television.   His  music  was  quite 
interesting,  lively,  and  modern  for  the  temple.   Stern  and 
Menuhin  came  back  and  played.   Dorothy  Warenskjold,  who  had  been 
with  the  choir  and  who  then  was  at  the  Metropolitan  Opera,  came 
back  to  sing. 

The  music  program  really  was  the  achievement  of  Cantor 
Reuben  Rinder,  who  was  well  known  in  local  music  circles,  had 
helped  both  the  great  violinists  in  their  earliest  years,  and  he 
was  able  to  obtain  the  assistance,  musically,  of  anybody  and 
everybody.   He  didn't  know  that  Dorothy  Warenskjold  was  going  to 
appear  at  the  musical  service.   She  sang  in  the  choir  loft  and 
he  was  below  on  the  main  pulpit,  and  he  immediately  said,  "Why, 
that's  Dorothy!"   He  was  a  marvelous  little  man.   I  say  little 
only  because  of  his  physical  size.   I  don't  know  whether  he  came 
in  1911  or  1913,  but  he  represented  the  continuity  of  the  temple 
through  all  of  these  various  rabbis.   In  a  way,  he  was  the 
conscience  and  soul  of  the  temple,  and  the  symbol  of  its 
continuity.   And  helped  many  young  musicians  along.   I  don't 
think  he  had  the  greatest  voice,  but  he  had  the  greatest  spirit. 
Succeeding  cantors  have  carried  on  the  musical  tradition 
extremely  well. 

Hicke:     When  did  he  retire? 

Heilbron:   I  can't  give  you  the  time  of  his  retirement.   He  is,  of  course, 
deceased,  died  in  1967. 

Hicke:     Anything  else  about  this  period? 

Heilbron:   I  suppose  I  did  not  end  with  Rabbi  Reichert  yet.   Somehow  the 
school  (in  the  late  forties)  was  losing  students,  and  the 
pastoral  side  of  the  congregation  was  not  doing  well.   There 
were  other  problems  that  had  arisen  with  the  board,  and  the 
division  with  respect  to  Zionism,  even  though  the  state  of 
Israel  had  been  just  created,  played  a  part.   But  in  any  event, 
Rabbi  Reichert  resigned  toward  the  end  of  the  forties  [1947]  and 
a  new  rabbi  had  to  be  selected. 

Harold  Zellerbach  and  Daniel  Koshland  played  the  most 
active  roles  in  the  selection.   They  went  back  to  Cincinnati  to 
the  Hebrew  Union  College.  The  president  was  Nelson  Glueck,  who 
was  a  well-known  archaeologist.   The  assistant  to  the  president 


279 


was  a  young  man  by  the  name  of  Alvin  Fine.   I  think  he  was  about 
thirty- two  years  of  age.   In  1946  he  got  back  from  World  War  II, 
where  he  had  been  a  chaplain  in  the  China  theater.   Fine  was  in 
charge  of  the  hiring,  but  when  Zellerbach  talked  to  him  about 
candidates  and  discussed  the  future  of  the  temple  with  him, 
Zellerbach  became  convinced  that  the  man  he  wanted  was  the  man 
that  he  was  talking  to. 

This  was  somewhat  embarrassing  to  Rabbi  Fine,  but  the 
matter  was  taken  up  with  Glueck,  and  Fine  accepted.   Now,  Fine 
had  much  of  the  eloquence  and  voice  of  Newman,  but  he  was  much 
more  down-to-earth. 

Hicke:     Was  Zionism  still  an  issue? 

Heilbron:   He  was  a  Zionist  but  was  not  interested  in  making  that  an  issue. 
For  example,  Mortimer  Fleishhacker  was  president  prior  to  my 
time,  just  prior,  and  he  had  a  high  post  in  the  American  Council 
for  Judaism,  which  was  an  anti- Zionist  organization.   They 
wanted  to  use  the  temple  for  a  conference,  and  Fleishhacker  said 
no  even  though  he  was  a  part  of  their  membership.   He  had 
conferred  with  Fine  about  it  and  that  was  the  determination.   So 
that  issue  was  overcome,  although  as  the  years  went  on,  Fine's 
pro-Israel  position  became  much  more  the  position  of  American 
Jews  everywhere.   The  state  was  organized:  the  state  was  a 
state.   I  also  think  that  the  Israel  cause  was  by  far  the 
American  Jewish  cause  and  U.S.  policy  after  the  news  of  the 
holocaust  was  known  to  the  world. 

Hicke:     So  it  was  much  less  of  an  issue? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  that's  right.   And  after  the  state  was  created,  the  anti- 
Zionist  group  wanted  to  distance  itself  from  the  political 
aspects  of  the  state.   It  was  a  state  to  which  they  did  not  want 
to  express  a  special  interest.   It  was  another  state  like  Italy 
or  France. 

In  any  event,  Fine  took  over.   At  the  100th  anniversary, 
Earl  Warren  was  the  banquet  speaker. 

Hicke:     Did  you  invite  him? 

Heilbron:  Oh  yes. 

Hicke:     I  mean,  you,  yourself? 

Heilbron:  Well,  I  suppose  I  did.   I  think  that  I  reached  him  through  Judge 
Wollenberg,  who  succeeded  me  as  president  of  the  temple. 
Although  I  knew  him,  I  went  through  the  judge.   As  a  matter  of 


280 


fact,  the  relationship  of  the  temple  to  the  chief  justice 
continued.   Of  course,  he  was  governor  at  the  time  when  we  asked 
him.   But  when  the  memorial  service  was  held  in  the  national 
cathedral  in  Washington  [D.C.]  for  Earl  Warren,  three 
representatives  of  the  major  Western  religions  were  asked  to 
participate  in  the  service,  and  Alvin  Fine  was  one  of  them.   So 
there  was  that  continuity. 

I  was  the  president  in  the  mid- fifties. 
Hicke:     I  have  1954-57. 

Heilbron:   It  was  either  '54- '56  or  I  don't  know  how  the  months  went. 
Hicke:     Approximately. 

Heilbron:   Yes,  approximately  '54- '57.   It  proceeded  under  Rabbi  Fine.   A 
number  of  important  things  happened  during  his  sixteen-year 
period  of  service,  but  what  particularly  happened  during  my 
administration  I  have  to  think  about. 

I  know  for  one  thing  we  had  Friday  evening  services  in  the 
temple  chapel,  and  instead  of  having  the  rabbi  give  a 
sermonette,  we  determined  to  have  lay  members  of  the 
congregation  give  some  of  their  views,  spiritual  views,  about 
religion  or  social  topics.   It  worked  extremely  well.   People 
were  honored  to  be  selected  and  worked  very  hard  on  their 
meditations. 

** 

Heilbron:   I  remember  I  gave  one  meditation  during  the  period  of  the 

protests  of  students  at  the  colleges,  a  period  of  unrest  and  a 
kind  of  rebellious  period  of  what  is  now  known  as  the  "Baby 
Boom"  generation.   I  talked  about  the  tale  of  Abraham  and  Isaac 
and  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac.   I  said  that  if  the  story  were 
written  as  of  this  time,  it  would  be  Isaac  taking  Abraham  up  to 
sacrifice.   [laughter]   This  meditation  was  not  quite  as  solemn 
as  it  should  have  been,  but  it  struck  a  chord  I  know. 

[tape  interruption] 

Heilbron:   I  also  established  an  Emanu-El  Temple  fund,  which  was  a  capital 
fund  to  which  contributions  could  be  made  for  the  maintenance- - 
serious,  substantial  maintenance --and  capital  needs  of  the 
temple.   Nothing  of  importance  had  been  done  with  respect  to  the 
construction  since  1926,  and  I  felt  that  we  should  begin  to 
provide  for  its  future .   In  subsequent  years ,  this  idea  was 
greatly  expanded,  and  recently  there  has  been  an  enormous  amount 


II 


281 


of  construction  and  expansion  there  with  parts  of  the  Sunday 
school  being  rebuilt  and  the  temple  earthquake -proofed  and  all 
that  has  to  be  done.   At  least  1  had  some  foresight  in 
establishing  the  beginnings  of  a  program  to  take  care  of  the 
continuity  of  the  temple  building. 

A  number  of  new  activities  were  given  effect  during  Fine's 
period,  most  of  them  under  other  auspices  than  my  own  time  of 
leadership.   The  Sunday  school  had  become  so  popular  that  they 
had  to  extend  the  pulpit  area  for  confirmation  by  building  an 
extension  to  accommodate  100  confirmands.   The  school  that  had 
been  languishing  returned  to  full  strength. 

Hicke:     When  did  they  build  this? 

Heilbron:   Well,  they  simply  built  this  extension  for  the  purposes  of 

confirmation  and  took  it  down  immediately  afterwards.   It  was  a 
temporary  extension.   All  I  mean  is  that  the  school  flourished 
at  the  time  and  it  was  partly  due  to  Fine's  selection  of  Rabbi 
Meyer  Heller  to  be  his  associate  rabbi  for  the  temple  and  the 
school. 

He  had  a  very  cooperative  relationship  with  Rabbi  Heller. 
Fine  was  quite  active  in  human  rights;  he  was  a  member  of  the 
Human  Rights  Commission  of  the  city  for  some  sixteen  years.   In 
1958,  he  was  given  a  sabbatical  year,  and  that  was  good  for  him 
and  his  health  and  the  temple. 

He  was  very  much  the  opposite  of  Reichert  in  his  delivery 
of  sermons.   Reichert  wrote  out  his  sermons,  and  the  words  were 
carefully  put  together;  Fine  spoke  out  without  any  notes 
whatever,  and  the  result  was  that  the  sermons  had  more  of  an 
emotional  drive. 

We  encouraged  him  to  participate  in  the  community,  as  we 
did  with  all  of  our  rabbis,  and  he  did.   He  participated  with 
Dean  Julian  Bartlett  at  Grace  Cathedral,  and  1  think  Bishop 
Hurley  on  the  Catholic  side  in  an  interfaith  television  program 
given  on  Sunday  mornings . 

He  was  much  more  deliberate,  I  believe,  in  assembling  his 
Sunday  school  staff  than  we  had  been  by  way  of  necessity.   But 
he  recruited  teachers  who  were  quite  committed  to  teaching  and 
possibly  of  Joining  the  rabbinate.   Five  or  six  of  his  teachers 
did  go  into  the  rabbinate.  He  introduced  a  high  school  program 
that  kept  students  interested  beyond  confirmation.   I  would  say 
it  was  in  the  nature  of  a  similar  program  to  the  Pathfinders  and 
Reviewers  but  included  everybody  who  desired  to  participate. 


282 


Hlcke : 


He  interested  Congregant  Ben  Swig  in  establishing  a  summer 
camp  that  attracted  young  people  to  an  enjoyable  vacation,  but 
at  the  same  tine  to  a  place  of  learning  about  Judaism.  This 
camp  near  Saratoga,  Camp  Swig,  is  still  active. 

Rabbi  Fine  developed  a  heart  condition  and  felt  that  after 
sixteen  years  it  was  a  little  too  difficult  for  him  to  lead  the 
temple.   He  wished,  while  he  was  young  enough,  to  continue  a 
professional  career,  but  not  with  the  pressures  of  leadership  of 
such  a  large  congregation,  and  he  desired  to  teach.   So  I 
introduced  him  to  the  dean  of  humanities  out  at  San  Francisco 
State  [University] ,  and  they  found  themselves  very  much  at  home 
with  one  another,  and  Rabbi  Fine  was  given  a  position  for 
teaching  there  and  stayed  for  quite  a  length  of  time  and  made  an 
enormous  contribution. 

They  had  a  course  out  at  San  Francisco  State  called  "The 
City,"  and  they  would  take  the  students  through  the  history  and 
development  of  various  cities  in  the  world.   That,  of  course, 
could  involve  all  kinds  of  cultural  and  social  conditions  that 
related  to  cultural  developments,  political  history,  and  so  on. 
Rabbi  Fine  said  to  the  dean,  "I'd  like  to  do  one  of  these 
cities,  too."  He  was  asked,  "What  city  do  you  want?"  And  he 
said,  "San  Francisco."  He  developed  a  course  on  San  Francisco 
that  started  with  one  class  and  now  has  seventeen  sections. 

He's  no  longer  teaching,  but  it  was  his  thought  that 
California  history  and  northern  California  history  were  so  tied 
in  with  the  development  of  this  city  that  people  should  know 
about  it  and  could  learn  a  great  deal  from  its  development.   It 
had  all  of  the  color  that  other  great  cities  have.   It  didn't 
have  the  length  of  history;  after  all  it  really  only  started  in 
the  gold  rush  to  mean  anything. 

But  that  probably  means  they  actually  got  up  to  the  twentieth 
century,  which  most  history  courses  don't  do. 


Heilbron:  That's  true,  and  it's  still  a  very,  very  popular  affair.  He's 
now  retired  from  San  Francisco  State,  also,  and  we  continue  to 
see  each  other,  because  he  lives  in  one  of  the  condominium  areas 
of  the  Silverado  Country  Club,  and  we  go  up  there  from  time  to 
time  and  see  him.   In  fact,  I  refreshed  some  of  my  recollections 
about  the  period  of  his  service  last  week  before  our  coming  here 
together  today. 

Hicke:     I  really  appreciate  all  of  the  preparation  you  do  for  these.   It 
helps  so  much. 


283 


Heilbron:   Well,  I'm  not  certain,  and  sometimes  when  I  see  what  happens  to 
this  babble  after  I'm  through,  I  get  very  much  upset. 

But  in  any  event,  we  have  another  rabbi  to  go.   I  suppose 
one  of  my  last  official  acts  with  the  temple  of  any  consequence 
was  to  be  on  the  search  committee  that  selected  Joseph  Asher. 
He  had  an  interesting  history.   He  left  Germany  in  time  to  go  to 
England  before  the  holocaust  was  mounted.   He  left  England  for 
Australia — the  English  didn't  quite  know  what  to  do  with  their 
German  refugees,  and  the  tenseness  of  the  war  was  coming  on. 
His  father  had  been  a  rabbi,  he  was  a  rabbi,  and  he  organized  a 
temple  or  was  selected  for  a  temple,  I  think  in  Melbourne. 

After  the  war,  he  married  an  Australian  woman,  Faye  Asher, 
and  he  occupied  a  pulpit  in  North  Carolina  when  we  were 
interested  in  selecting  a  rabbi.   He  was  a  tall,  angular  man, 
scholarly,  with  a  wonderful  sense  of  humor,  and  after  hearing 
him  and  comparing  him  with  other  candidates,  we  recommended  his 
appointment. 

Hicke:      You  went  back  there  and  interviewed  him? 

Heilbron:   No,  I  didn't.   He  came  out  here.   In  all  of  the  temple  process 

for  selecting  a  rabbi,  some  congregants  go  back  to  hear  him,  and 
then,  if  they  are  duly  impressed,  they  then  ask  the  candidate  to 
address  the  temple.   And  of  course,  besides  that,  to  meet  with 
the  temple  fathers  and  mothers  to  indicate  his  pastoral 
interests  and  his  interests  in  the  young  and  interest  in 
community  involvement  and  everything  else  that  would  go  to  the 
selection.   These  people  are  not  divinely  chosen,  [laughter]  but 
they  are  selected  after  a  considerable  amount  of  investigation, 
much  as  a  university  president.   But  there  is  a  spiritual 
dimension  that  a  university  president  doesn't  have  to  possess. 
The  choosing  of  a  rabbi  is  a  major  event. 

Incidentally,  there  had  been  a  rabbi  for  a  short  period 
before  Asher,  Irving  Hausman,  who,  after  a  very  brief  period 
because  of  a  very  difficult  illness,  had  to  leave.   Asher  was  a 
very  compassionate  man.   His  sermons  were  somewhat  complex  as 
compared  with  the  others  we  had  known.   They  were  always  full  of 
humor  and  they  had  considerable  depth.   Some  congregants  said 
that  they  weren't  understanding  what  he  was  saying,  other 
congregants  enjoyed  listening  to  a  scholar  who  did  not  wish  to 
be  lighthearted  in  his  discussions,  although  his  humor  was 
always  very  lighthearted  and  delightful. 

His  great  contribution,  I  think,  to  the  temple  and  to  the 
country,  was  his  feeling  that  the  time  had  come  for 
reconciliation  with  Germany.   He  went  back  to  Germany  on  several 


284 


occasions,  and  he  was  appointed  as  the  professor  pf  Judaism  in 
the  leading  Berlin  theological  seminary  and  in  due  course  became 
their  most  popular  professor.  This  is  attested  to  by  others  who 
investigated  the  matter.   He  found  the  whole  subject  of--.   You 
know,  we  are  talking  about  a  section  of  the  population  that  is 
not  all  of  Germany  but  is  in  a  position  of  theological 
leadership,  and  he  had  any  number  of  people  deeply  interested 
and  wanting  to  study  more  and  more  about  Judaism. 

Hicke :     These  are  non- Jewish  people? 

Heilbron:   These  are  non-Jews.   In  fact,  he  was  teaching  non-Jews.   That 
was,  he  felt,  the  function  of  his  acceptance.   He  would  let 
these  non-Jewish  theologians  encounter  a  Jewish  theologian  and 
see  for  themselves  what  his  religion  meant. 

Hicke:     He  wanted  to  build  this  bridge,  then? 

Heilbron:   He  wanted  to  build  this  bridge.   In  fact,  he  wrote  an  article 

for  Life  Magazine  which  was  on  the  general  subject  of  the  effort 
to  reconcile  Germany  and  the  Jews  and  the  Jews  with  a  new 
Germany.   Of  course,  the  history  of  Jews  before  Hitler  was  that 
they  were  the  most  assimilated  Jewish  community  in  the  world. 

Hicke:     With  the  Germans? 

Heilbron:   The  Germans,  yes.   But  Hitler's  complete  reversal  of  any  social 
or  human  relationship,  his  savage  treatment  in  his  efforts  to 
destroy  all  Jews  (including  descendants  of  the  so-called 
assimilated  through  intermarriage),  in  his  words,  to  "solve"  the 
Jewish  problem,  left  a  very  small  Jewish  community  in  Germany. 

I  think  that  is  Asher's  contribution.   He  died  a  few  years 
ago,  and  some  of  the  leading  theologians  expressed  their  views -- 
the  Jewish  theologians- -in  a  book  that  was  dedicated  to  his 
memory.   It  seemed  to  be  quite  fitting  that  this  book,  published 
by  the  temple,  should  honor  his  scholarship  in  this  way.  That 
was,  "The  Jewish  Legacy  and  the  German  Conscience."  The 
congregation  also  named  a  court  in  the  temple  compound  after 
him,  but  I  know  his  family  was  very  much  affected  by  the  book. 

Hicke:     That  was  a  wonderful  overview  of  the  history  of  Temple  Emanu-El 
and  the  people . 

## 

Heilbron:   Names  of  congregrants  from  the  nineteenth  and  early  twentieth 
centuries  are  well  known  here--Anspacher,  Ehrman,  Fleishhacker, 
Gerstle,  Guggenhime ,  Gump,  Haas,  Hellman,  Koshland,  Levison, 


285 


Lllienthal,  Sloss,  Steinhart,  Zellerbach- -are  some  of  them.  An  L. 
Dtnkelsplel  was  a  member  of  the  board  1865-1866  and  an  ancestor  of 
my  wife,  Saswon  Rosenblatt,  was  also  a  board  member  1868-1869. 

Perhaps  one  of  the  most  interesting  people  that  I  recollect 
was  a  aan  who  was  president  when  I  first  became  very  active  in 
Sunday  school.  His  name  was  Louis  Haas,  and  he  called  himself 
Louis  the  XIV  because  he  was  a  bachelor,  and  whenever  his 
friends  gave  a  party  and  found  that  they  had  thirteen  people ,  he 
would  be  asked.   [laughter]  He  was  a  lovely  man. 


[Interview  12:  September  12,  1992]  ## 

Hicke :     You  indicated  that  you  had  a  few  more  words  to  say  about  the 
temple . 

Heilbron:  Yes,  I  would  like  to  amplify  a  bit,  particularly  with  respect  to 
the  rabbinate.  First,  with  respect  to  Rabbi  Meyer's  death,  it 
was  more  or  less  accepted  that  it  was  caused  by  a  tumor  on  the 
brain,  but  it  started  with  the  idea  that  he  simply  had  a  heart 
attack,  and  then  no  one  knows  precisely  what  occurred  and  what 
the  anguish  was  that  caused  his  death. 

Now,  Rabbi  Newman  was  inaugurated  in  1924.   He  had  been  a 
protege  of  Martin  Meyer.   He  had  much  to  do  with  the  planning  of 
the  new  temple  at  Arguello  and  Lake  Streets.   It  is,  of  course, 
one  of  the  finest  architectural  works  in  northern  California. 
His  work  was  not  so  much  with  the  architecture  of  the  temple 
itself  but  with  the  temple  house  that  is  part  of  the  temple 
complex.   He  insisted  on  an  auditorium  fully  equipped  as  a 
theater,  a  library,  a  gymnasium,  and  he  almost  obtained  a  pool, 
a  swimming  pool.   His  idea  was  to  build  a  temple  community.   His 
flock  could  pray  and  play  in  and  around  the  synagogue . 

I  recall  that  this  project  ran  counter  to  the  building  of  a 
Jewish  Community  Center,  supported  by  Sidney  Ehrman  and  Lloyd 
Dinkelspiel  and  Harold  Zellerbach,  all  active  congregants  in  the 
temple. 

Hicke:     How  do  you  mean  it  ran  counter? 

Heilbron:   They  felt  a  duplication,  a  duplication  by  the  temple  house  of 
coonunity  activities .   And  yet  Newman  won  out  on  issues  except 
the  pool.   [laughter] 

He  was  deeply  interested  in  the  theater.   He  was  a 
playwright  himself  and  encouraged  the  Temple  Players  to  be 
organized  around  the  temple ,  a  group  that  sprang  from  the 


286 


congregation  itself  under  his  leadership  and  that  of  Mr.  Paul 
Bissinger,  a  congregant.   The  Temple  Players  became  part  of  the 
civic  cultural  scene  in  San  Francisco  in  the  late  twenties  and 
early  thirties. 

Hicke:     What  kind  of  plays  did  they  put  on? 

Heilbron:   Well,  the  most  arresting  and  successful  of  the  plays  was  The 
Dybbuk,  a  play  derived  from  Jewish  medieval  mystic  tradition. 
Caroline  Anspacher  was  the  lead  in  that  play.   She  was  the  lady 
who  became  one  of  the  chief  journalists  later  on  at  the  San 
Francisco  Chronicle.   No  one  would  have  realized  it  as  she 
played  the  part  of  Leah  in  that  play. 

Both  the  temple  and  the  center  were  built,  the  temple  in 
advance  of  the  center;  the  center  completed,  I  think,  in  1931 
and  the  temple  in  1926.   Over  the  years,  the  athletic,  general 
cultural,  dance,  dramatic,  and  group  activities  went  naturally 
to  the  center.   But  the  temple  house  has  been  busy  with  its 
school  assemblies,  lectures,  men's  and  women's  auxiliaries, 
services  to  Russian  emigres  (and  other  emigres,  German  emigres 
particularly,  in  earlier  days);  the  gymnasium  was  turned  into  a 
social  hall  called  Guild  Hall,  after  the  women's  guild.   I  think 
it  still  bears  that  name,  although  it  has  been  recently 
remodeled.   Indeed,  the  temple  facilities  have  been  recently 
remodeled  at  considerable  cost. 

Hicke:     When  you  mean  recently,  do  you  mean  in  the  last  five  years  or 
so? 

Heilbron:   Oh,  within  the  last  couple  of  years.   I'm  not  sure  that  the 
details  are  of  particular  interest,  but  that  theater,  that 
Martin  Meyer  Theater,  has  been  divided,  and  the  social  hall  is 
part  of  the  facility,  and  the  theater /assembly  part  is  simply 
smaller.   A  number  of  other  changes  have  been  made.   The  social 
hall  can  be  one  great  hall  or  divided  into  convenient  sections. 

Martin  Meyer  and  Newman  were  Zionists,  Newman  passionately 
so.   Rabbi  [Irving]  Reichert,  who  succeeded  Newman  after  Newman 
resigned  to  go  to  New  York  in  1930,  was  anti-Zionist  with  all  of 
his  heart  and  soul.   He  felt  that  all  of  the  objectives  and 
ideals  of  the  liberal  Jewish  movement  would  be  met  in  America. 
He  was  against  a  Jewish  state  that  would  lay  claims  to  the 
loyalties  of  American  Jews,  and  he  conceived  that  it  could  be  a 
Communist  country;  it  could  develop  policies  contrary  to 
American  policies.   He  convinced  most  of  the  power  structure  of 
the  temple.   He  became  vice  president  of  the  American  Council 
for  Judaism,  to  which  I  referred  previously,  that  espoused  his 
cause.   And  he  tried  to  convince  the  rabbinate,  but  he  lost. 


287 


Yet  he  was  deeply  distressed  by  the  Holocaust.  He  was 
perhaps  the  first  American  rabbi  to  warn  of  the  probability  and 
consequences  of  the  Hitler  policy,  and  he  was  prophetic  in  his 
sermons  after  his  two  visits  to  Germany  in  the  thirties.   I 
think  I  mentioned  the  first,  and  then  he  made  another  one,  I 
think  toward  the  end  of  the  thirties.   But  he  couldn't 
understand  that  the  Holocaust  survivors  needed  a  place  of  refuge 
and  opportunity  and  identity. 

Hicke:     Israel? 

Heilbron:   Yes.   And  while  much  of  the  argument  was  going  on,  I  was  with 
the  military  government  in  Vienna.   I  had  seen  the  ovens  of 
Dachau  and  Rothschild's  hospital  in  Vienna,  which  was  the 
transit  station  for  the  Polish  and  other  Jewish  survivors 
fleeing  Europe  in  the  thousands  and  perhaps  hundreds  of 
thousands . 

Hicke:     Where  was  that,  the  hospital? 

Heilbron:   The  Rothschild  hospital  is  a  big  hospital  in  Vienna,  and  it  was 
a  place  where  the  Jews  from  Eastern  Europe  came  in  and  were 
registered  and  coordinated,  because  they  had  to  keep  track  of 
families  and  where  they  wanted  to  go.   They  went  from  there  to 
northern  Italy  and  took  ships  to  Palestine.   Of  course,  Israel 
hadn't  been  created. 

Now,  I  have  an  idea  that  during  the  early  period 
immediately  after  the  war,  when  it  was  not  known  and  a  public 
matter,  the  British  actually  helped  facilitate  the  travel  from 
Northern  Italy  to  Palestine.   But  when  it  became  a  known  fact, 
the  British  backed  off,  and  they  felt  their  mandate  for  the 
trusteeship  of  Palestine  required  them  to  restrict  immigration. 
Then  you  had  such  incidents  as  [were  depicted]  in  The  Exodus  [by 
Leon  Uris] . 

But  immediately  after  the  war,  and  I  don't  think  this  is 
particularly  known,  I  believe  that  there  was  cooperation  even 
from  the  British  side.   I  mentioned  that  I  saw  Bart  Crum,  the 
San  Francisco  attorney  who  was  a  member  of  an  American  committee 
of  inquiry  who  were  making  a  survey  with  reference  to  the 
question  of  whether  to  recommend  the  creation  of  a  Jewish  state. 
I  think  I  told  you  it  was  an  accidental  and  casual  meeting,  but 
enough  for  me  to  ask  what  direction  he  thought  that  the  inquiry 
committee  was  taking.  Judge  Proskauer  from  the  American  Jewish 
Committee  was  a  member  of  this  inquiry  committee,  and  I  met  him. 
Crum  gave  me  the  clear  impression  that  the  committee  was 
contemplating  a  state.   Not  that  the  committee  could  create  it, 


288 


but  that  it  could  recommend  consideration  as  a  matter  for  U.N. 
and  American  policy. 

Hicke:     Did  they,  in  fact,  or  do  you  know? 

Heilbron:   Well,  this  first  committee  of  inquiry  was  chiefly  concerned  that 
Palestine  be  available  as  a  place  of  refuge  for  the  surviving 
displaced  Jews  of  war-torn  Europe  and  took  a  firm,  united 
position  on  this  aspect  of  the  matter. 

When  I  returned  to  Heller,  Ehrman  in  1946,  I  heard 
rumblings  of  the  controversy  about  Rabbi  Reichert.   It  was  not 

only  a  question  of  the  division  of  the  congregation  over  the 

issue  of  Zionism,  it  built  up  a  year  or  more  later  when  Harold 

Zellerbach  headed  the  committee  of  investigation  of  his  tenure, 

because  his  contract  was  coming  to  an  end  and  the  question  was 
whether  it  would  be  renewed. 

Lloyd  Dinkelspiel  represented  Rabbi  Reichert  in  what  had 
become  a  question,  as  I  said,  of  contract  renewal.   1  heard  a 
great  deal  from  congregants  about  both  sides  of  the  controversy. 
Zionism  aside,  I  knew  of  Irving  Reichert' s  distaste  for  pastoral 
duties,  and  the  terribly  reduced  enrollment  in  the  Sunday  school 
and  that  there  was  some  issue  of  his  handling  of  the  Martin 
Meyer  library.   I  thought  that  it  was  a  sorry  situation 
considering  the  talents  of  this  man. 

Hicke:     You  mean  it  was  sorry  that  he  was  coming  under  fire? 

Heilbron:   Veil,  yes,  though  understandable.   He  had  the  integrity  of  his 
beliefs.   He  was  stimulating  intellectually  and  had  rendered 
extensive  public  service.   He  was  not  on  the  popular  side  of  the 
Zionist  issue,  of  course,  and  one  had  to  take  into  account  the 
matters  with  respect  to  the  administration  of  the  rest  of  the 
temple . 

In  any  event,  Lloyd  worked  out  a  fair  severance  arrangement 
with  the  temple,  and  Rabbi  Reichert  logically  went  on  to  take  an 
executive  position  with  the  American  Council  for  Judaism. 

I  aay  have  some  supplementary  remarks  with  respect  to  Rabbi 
Fine  at  a  later  time. 

Hicke:     Okay. 


289 


Center 


Hicke:  Do  you  have  tine  to  go  on  a  little  bit? 

Heilbron:  Yea. 

Hicke:  Okay,  what's  next  in  the  Jewish  community? 

Heilbron:  Did  I  ever  talk  about  the  Jewish  Community  Center? 

Hicke:  No,  that's  on  my  list. 

Heilbron:  Well,  all  right. 

Hicke:     You  were  president  from  1949  to  1952,  but  maybe  we  can  go  back  a 
little  bit. 

Let's  see  if  this  Who's  Who  article  tells  when  you  were 
active  in  the  community  center. 

Heilbron:  Yes,  I  was  active,  I  think  in  the  thirties,  and  certainly  during 
the  fifties.   The  center  was  built  so  that  the  Jewish  community 
in  particular  could  have  a  place  for  athletic  and  cultural 
activities  and  social  activities  that  were  not  specifically 
religious  in  character,  but  on  the  other  hand,  definitely  guided 
by  Jewish  interests,  studies,  and  celebrations,  although  it  was 
to  be  a  place  that  would  be  comfortable  for  the  community  to 
participate  in  if  they  so  desired.   Sidney  Ehrman  was 
particularly  active,  and  again  we  find  Lloyd  Dinkelspiel  as  its 
first  president. 

I  think  this  was  developed  in  1931  or  1932.  About  the  same 
time  as  International  House.   It's  still  operative.   It's  across 
from  the  University  of  California,  San  Francisco,  at  California 
and  Presidio  avenues. 

Two  things  come  to  mind  with  reference  to  this  center.  One 
of  them  was  its  executive  leadership.   I  don't  know  whether  I 
have  mentioned  this  before,  but  Louis  Blumenthal  was  the 
director  of  the  Jewish  Community  Center  from  its  creation.   He 
was  a  man  who  was  perhaps  the  best  theoretician  on  the 
administration  of  nonprofit  organizations  that  I  ever 
encountered.   He  knew  the  difference  between  policy  and 
administrative  detail.  He  knew  what  to  bring  to  a  board  and 
what  to  omit  bringing  to  a  board.   He  also  knew  when  to  escape  a 
difficult  decision  and  leave  it  to  the  board.   He  had  an 
associate,  Emma- -I  forget  her  maiden  name.   She  married  him  and 
continued  much  of  his  style  of  directorship  when  she  became 


290 


director  after  his  death.   But  he  taught  us  a  great  deal,  and 
the  lessons  with  respect  to  what  a  board  member  should  deal  with 
and  what  a  board  member  should  not  deal  with,  that  kind  of 
lesson  can  be  learned  by  everybody  who  is  engaged  in  nonprofit 
organization  activity. 

The  one  big  question  was  what  age  groups  the  community 
center  should  deal  with.   Blumenthal  was  not  so  interested  in 
the  elderly.   He  felt  that  they  had  their  special  institutions 
and  that  this  was  an  organization  whose  primary  interest  was  in 
young  people  and  in  people  who  were  primarily  interested  in 
social  and  cultural  programs.   Over  the  years,  this  changed  and 
had  to  change  as  the  elderly  became  obviously  more  prominent  in 
numbers  and  also  their  cultural  interests  were  as  strong,  if  not 
stronger,  than  some  of  the  younger  people.   But  it  was  up  to 
Emma  to  make  the  change  in  program  to  accommodate  this  other 
interest. 

Hicke:     The  elderly,  you  mean? 

Heilbron:   Yes.   Of  course,  it  does  affect  the  schedules,  it  means  that 

there  are  transportation  problems,  that  special  attention  has  to 
be  paid  that  is  not  paid  to  other  groups;  it  is  a  question  of 
allocation  of  funds.   It  was  an  interesting  problem  to  work  out. 
We  didn't  ever  have  that  problem  to  work  out,  because  there  was 
never  a  special  program  for  the  elderly- -except  as  they  would 
join  in  with  the  community- -during  the  period  of  my  activity. 

One  big  question  that  always  confronted  the  Jewish 
Community  Center  was  how  nonsectarian  should  it  be?  What  made 
it  a  Jewish  Community  Center?  Why  wasn't  it  just  a  community 
center?   It  was  agreed  that  there  should  be  an  essential  element 
or  ingredient  of  Jewish  content,  but  what  should  that  content 
be?  One  board  member  said,  "When  a  Jewish  man  or  woman  is  in 
the  swimming  pool,  it  has  Jewish  content."   [laughter]   Well, 
the  observation  of  Jewish  holidays  and  cultural  programs  in  the 
Jewish  tradition  were  presented,  and  adjustments  were  made  down 
the  line  in  program.   But  a  person  could  be  a  member  and  enjoy 
the  center  and  not  feel  committed  to  the  Jewish  aspects  of  the 
center. 

Hicke:     Was  it  more  or  less  self  supporting  or  was  it  supported? 

Heilbron:   My  recollection  is  that  in  the  beginning  it  was  self-supporting 
in  membership  dues  and  contributions.   Then  in  1941  the  old 
Jewish  Federation  of  Charities  with  seven  beneficiaries  was 
reorganized  into  the  Jewish  Welfare  Federation  and  the  Community 
Center  became  a  beneficiary  of  its  united  fundraising  for  fifty 
beneficiaries.   Subsequently  it  has  become  the  Jewish  Community 


291 


Federation  of  San  Francisco,  the  Peninsula,  Marin,  and  Sonoma 
Counties,  raising  funds  for  a  myriad  of  agencies  in  these 
counties  and  Israel.   I  recall  participating  in  the  first  or 
second  of  these  reorganizations. 

I  believe  that  this  consolidated  community  fundraising 
proved  to  be  the  model  for  the  United  Vay. 

I  know  that  the  Jewish  Community  Center  was  one  of  Mr. 
Ehnum's  favorite  agencies.   I  think  Mr.  Ehrman  preferred  to 
give  to  it  directly  rather  than  through  the  federation,  which 
would  give  part  of  its  funds  to  overseas  activities. 

Hicke:     Okay,  does  that  cover  the  Jewish  Community  Center  then? 

Heilbron:   Well,  with  possibly  two  additions.   One  was  that  the  Jewish 

Community  Center  established  a  camp  called  Camp  Tawonga  in  the 
Lake  Tahoe  area,  and  that  reflected  for  the  summer  (but  with 
vacation,  social,  and  recreational  events)  what  was  being  done 
in  the  city  at  other  times  of  the  year.   But  then  another  camp 
was  developed,  and  that  was  in  back  of  the  center  itself,  in  San 
Francisco.   The  Blumenthals  felt  that  there  were  some  people  who 
couldn't  take  advantage  of  going  to  the  country  for  a  number  of 
weeks  and  yet  they  had  their  children  out  of  school,  and  that 
there  was  a  need  for  a  city  camp.   Emma  Blumenthal  developed 
that  camp  quite  beautifully  in  San  Francisco. 

Hicke :     A  day  camp? 

Heilbron:  A  day  camp.   It  was  quite  a  successful  enterprise, 
[tape  interruption] 


American  Jewish  Committee 


Heilbron:  Well,  I'll  go  to  a  subject  which  I  may  also  amplify  later,  but 
I'd  like  to  get  the  framework  started. 

This  is  concerning  the  American  Jewish  Committee.   Edgar 
Sinton,  an  old-line  attorney  from  an  old-line  family  in  San 
Francisco,  interested  oe  in  this  organization.   It  is  a  very 
effective  institution  in  our  national  life.   The  premise  is  that 
what  is  good  for  American  democracy  is  good  for  its  Jewish 
population;  what  is  good  American  foreign  policy  is  usually 
supportive  of  Israel,  though  the  committee  can  be  critical  of 


292 


Israel  on  the  merits  of  an  issue.   When  I  was  most  active  in  the 
San  Francisco  chapter,  we  had  little  influence  on  AJC  policy. 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Can  you  just  tell  m 
start  from  scratch. 


what  their  main  function  is?   I  have  to 


Hicke : 


Veil,  they  were  organized  way  back  in  the  early  1900s  because  of 
pogroms  in  southern  Russia,  and  it  was  determined  that  American 
Jews  should  constitute  themselves  in  an  organization  that  would 
seek  to  protect  the  position  of  Jews  everywhere  in  the  world. 

So  it  had  a  world- - 

It  had  a  world  orientation  from  the  start,  but  then,  recognizing 
that  its  influence  would  be  more  or  less  proportionate  to  its 
participation  in  the  affairs  of  the  United  States,  it  acquired  a 
human  relations  perspective  within  the  country,  an  understanding 
and  relationship  to  civil  rights  activities  and  regarding  the 
social  and  economic  fabric  of  the  country,  wherever  they  touched 
upon  democratic  aspirations  and  institutions. 

I  mentioned  that  the  local  chapters  or  provincial  chapters 
throughout  the  country  had  little  influence  but  seemed  to  give 
the  benefit  of  a  constituency  of  an  organization  that  was  really 
controlled  in  the  East.   I  believe  the  situation  has  changed  to 
some  considerable  extent  over  the  years,  although  the  program 
has  been  and  still  is  controlled  by  influential  industrialists 
and  bankers  and  professionals  in  the  East,  in  New  York  and 
Boston  and  Washington  and  Philadelphia. 

It  is  basically  liberal  with  respect  to  domestic  social 
programs  and  the  treatment  of  minorities  and  women.   It  engages 
in  a  great  deal  of  interfaith  activity.   It  reaches  out  to 
blacks,  Hispanics,  and  Asians  here  both  on  the  national  and 
local  levels  and  gives  a  constructive  support  to  Israel.   Its 
procedure  is  the  quiet  approach:  no  grand  demonstrations.   It 
relates  openly  but  rationally  with  those  in  power  politically 
and  economically.   And,  as  I  said,  the  local  action  and 
community  affairs  reflects  this  national  policy. 

The  national  officer  with  whom  I  had  the  most  contact  was 
Morris  Abram,  originally  an  Atlanta  lawyer,  later  a  New  Yorker 
who  was  appointed  as  an  ambassador  to  the  United  Nations.   He 
was  a  Democrat  appointed  by  President  Reagan  to  the  United 
States  Civil  Rights  Commission,  probably  because  of  his 
opposition  to  quotas  as  the  objective  of  affirmative  action. 
This,  of  course,  was  President  Reagan's  position. 

What  was  your  position  with  the  American  Jewish  Committee? 


293 


Heilbron:  Well,  I  was  the  chair  of  the  local  chapter  for  several  years, 

and  all  ex-chairmen  are  on  an  advisory  committee  whose  advice  is 
rarely  sought. 

Hicke:     Let  alone  taken?   [laughter] 

Heilbron:   I  don't  know  about  that.  They  are  always  courteous.   I  always 
receive  notice  of  the  board  meetings,  but  unfortunately  they 
conflict  with  the  sane  day  of  our  firm's  meetings,  and  I'm  not 
able  to  attend  many  of  them.   I  attended  two  national 
conferences  in  New  York  and  was  deeply  impressed  with  the 
thoroughness  with  which  position  papers  and  resolutions  were 
prepared. 

1  know  that  I  had  some  good  times  at  the  national 
conferences  of  the  centers  gathered  together  under  the  Jewish 
National  Welfare  Board  and  of  the  American  Jewish  Committee.   In 
one  case  they  had  a  substitute  entertainer  at  a  luncheon,  and  he 
was  supposed  to  make  us  feel  good  about  coming  to  New  York  and 
spending  three  days  at  our  discussion.   This  was  scheduled  as 
comic  relief,  and  they  got  a  new  man,  but  this  new  man  was 
Johnny  Carson.   [laughter]   In  connection  with  another 
conference,  I  recall  attending  the  second  or  third  performance 
of  My  Fair  Lady,  which  was  certainly  not  part  of  the  policy 
program  of  the  organization,  but  it  was  a  welcome  diversion. 

I  mentioned  the  purpose  of  protecting  Jews  from  oppression 
and  injustice  anywhere  in  the  world.   It  is  a  noble  purpose,  but 
it  hasn't  been  possible  to  achieve.   Witness  Hitler  and  the 
Holocaust.   But  many  efforts  have  met  with  success.   Perhaps  I 
will  leave  it  there  for  further  development.   I  did  want  to 
indicate  my  appreciation  and  respect  for  the  agency.  As  you 
know,  a  few  other  things  prevented  me  from  being  more  active. 
On  a  national  scale,  I  think  I  could  have  been,  if  I  had 
indicated  the  time  and  interest,  but  these  were  not  available. 


294 


VII  OTHER  COMMUNITY  SERVICE 


[Interview  16:  March  22,  1994] 


Vorld  Affairt  Council 


Hicke:     I'd  like  to  start  this  afternoon  with  a  discussion  of  the  World 
Affairs  Council  of  Northern  California,  and  I  want  to  reference 
the  "Fortieth  Anniversary  Review."  which  you  wrote  in  1987. 
It's  a  history,  it's  a  marvelous  booklet  with  pictures  and 
sidebars,  and  it  starts,  of  course,  forty  years  ago  in  1947, 
when  the  Vorld  Affairs  Council  was  formed.   I  wonder  if  you 
could  tell  me,  first  of  all,  how  you  got  interested  and  when  you 
became  active  in  this. 

Heilbron:   Well,  I  got  a  postcard  from  Emma  McLaughlin,  who  was  a  founding 
member  of  the  World  Affairs  Council.   I  don't  know  where  they 
obtained  my  name,  but  they  asked  if  I'd  be  interested  in 
joining.   Since  it  involved  world  affairs  and  I  had  just 
returned  the  year  before  from  my  experience  in  occupied  Austria, 
I  did  express  an  interest  and  did  join. 

Hicke:     So  this  was  1947? 

Heilbron:   Close  to- -it  was  in  '48.   I  think  the  correspondence  was  in  late 
'47. 

Hicke:     Okay.   And  your  little  booklet  delineates  the  history  pretty 
well. 

Heilbron:  Yes.   I  did  not  write  the  booklet,  I  just  wrote  the  history  part 
of  it,  which  involved  the  history  of  the  World  Affairs  Council 
since  its  beginning,  for  all  the  years  up  to  the  fortieth 
anniversary  and  actually  since  that  time,  too. 

Hicke:     So  you're  still  actually  a  member? 


295 


He  il.br  on: 


Hicke : 


Hellbron: 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 

Heilbron: 

Hicke: 

Heilbron: 

Hicke : 

Heilbron: 
Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Yes,  I'm  a  menber,  and  I'm  still  a  member  of  the  board,  because 
they  have  their  past  presidents  continue  as  permanent  board 
members . 

Now,  I  wonder  if  you  could  just  illustrate  some  of  this  history 
with  a  few  more  details.   It's  grown  quite  a  bit  in  membership. 

Yes  it  has.   It  now  has  ten  thousand  members,  and  is  the  largest 
world  affairs  council,  citizens'  council  interested  in 
international  affairs ,  in  the  United  States .   For  many  years , 
the  Chicago  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  was  the  larger,  and 
we  were  second,  but  in  the  past  couple  of  years,  we  have  passed 
Chicago . 


What  was  it  when  it  was  formed? 
that's  in  here,  too. 


Do  you  have  any  idea?  Maybe 


No,  no.   I  don't  think  that  there  were  more  than  two  or  three 
councils  of  this  kind  in  the  country.   Groups  were  beginning  to 
be  formed  that  expressed  an  interest  in  foreign  relations,  but 
they  were  varied  groups.   Some  people  were  interested  in  Europe, 
some  people  in  Asia,  some  people  particularly  in  Russia,  in  the 
developing  Soviet  Union.   But  the  merging  together  of  those  in 
the  Bay  Area  who  were  interested  in  the  international  field 
started  the  council's  organization  in  1947. 

Do  you  have  any  sense  of  what  the  membership  was  like  when  it 
was  formed? 

Well,  it  was  in  the  hundreds.   By  1949  it  was  over  2,500. 
So  that's  a  huge  growth. 

It  is,  it  is  indeed,  and  it  reflects  the  understanding  and 
growing  interest  of  the  people  in  this  country  that  we  are  not 
living  isolated  from  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  that  our 
problems  are  theirs  and  theirs  are  ours. 

I  know  there's  information  in  the  booklet  about  the  programs, 
but  I  wonder  if  you  could  give  me  some  illustrations  of  some  of 
the  key  programs  that  were  presented. 

I  believe  that  they  now  run  about  250  programs  per  year. 
That ' s  one  a  day . 

It  began  with  a  heavy  emphasis  on  study  seminars,  and  at  the 
close  of  the  seminar,  an  effort  was  made  by  those  who  were 
members  of  it  to  write  a  report.   The  report  was  not  intended  as 


296 


an  activist  report,  because  the  council  is  devoted  to  a 
nonpartisan  study  of  international  issues  and  not  to  become  an 
advocate  of  a  particular  side  on  these  issues.   But  a  group  was 
interested  in  coming  to  such  consensus  as  it  could,  and 
indicating  such  dissent  as  it  could.   I  remember  I  headed  the 
group  on  the  possibilities  of  European  integration.   A  good  deal 
of  effort  was  made  at  the  time  of  the  Marshall  Plan  to  develop  a 
kind  of  United  States  of  Europe,  and  we  studied  that  program, 
that  project. 

Hicke:     Well,  that  may  or  may  not  be  coming  to  fruition. 

Heilbron:  We  came  to  a  couple  of  conclusions,  and  that  was  that  there 

would  be  increased  economic  integration  in  Europe ,  but  that  in 
the  next  fifty  years,  there  would  be  no  political  integration. 

Hicke:     Well,  you  were  right  on  the  money. 

Heilbron:   And  that  was  pretty  accurate.   Wild  Bill  Donovan  went  over  to 
Europe  with  the  idea  of  pressing  for  political  integration. 
Someone  had  the  nerve  to  send  him  our  report  through  a  mutual 
friend.   This  was  absolutely  contrary  to  his  mission,  so  I  don't 
think  it  affected  his  activities,  but  I  think  that  it  indicated 
that  this  citizens'  group  had  a  pretty  reasonable  idea  of  what 
was  going  to  happen. 

Hicke:     Prophetic. 

Heilbron:   We  started  with  the  Iron  and  Coal  Community,  and  [it]  has 

developed  into  the  European  Community  and  has  certainly  got  a 
strong  economic  basis,  that  is,  European  cooperation  and 
integration.   But  the  politics  of  it  are  still  quite  clear. 
There  is  no  United  States  of  Europe,  which  Napoleon  imagined, 
which  Mr.  Hitler  was  going  to  impose,  or  democratically,  which 
ideally,  a  lot  of  people  would  have  liked  to  see  happen. 

Hicke:     That's  very  interesting. 

Heilbron:   The  Asilomar  annual  conference  is  extremely  interesting  and 
worthwhile.   Usually,  a  theme  is  chosen.   It's  not  simply  a 
general  discussion  of  current  international  affairs.   It  may  be 
the  United  States 's  relationship  with  China.   It  may  be  the 
status  of  the  United  Nations.   It  may  be  developments  in  Africa. 
But  it  stays  with  that  theme. 

And  almost  a  thousand  people  each  year  go  down  to  Asilomar 
to  hear  leading  authorities  develop  and  debate  their  views  of 
what  the  current  situation  is  and  what  problems  there  are  and 
what  solutions  they  envision.   It's  extremely  worthwhile. 


297 


People  have  a  good  time;  there  are  social  events  mixed  in.   It 
begins  on  a  late  Friday  afternoon  and  ends  on  a  Sunday  noon. 
There  are  many  programs  in  between. 

The  Council  has  been  fortunate  not  only  at  Asilomar,  but  in 
its  own  general  programming  of  being  able  to  attract 
authoritative  speakers  in  the  international  field.   Every 
secretary  of  state  has  addressed  the  council,  since  the 
beginning. 

Hicke:     Yes,  there's  some  good  pictures  in  here  of  guests. 
Heilbron:   Many  chiefs  of  state  have  addressed  the  council. 
Hicke:     Senator  [John  F.]  Kennedy. 

Heilbron:   Yes,  Senator  Kennedy,  I  remember,  was  asked  whether  he  was  going 
to  run  for  president,  and  he  said  that  he  could  not  reply,  but 
he  had  a  favorite  candidate.   [laughter] 

Hicke:     Once  again,  you  are  ahead  of  the  rest  of  us. 

Heilbron:   Actually,  as  a  senator,  he  was  very  much  the  center  of 

attraction  because  of  the  possibility  that  he  was  going  to  seek 
the  nomination. 

He  was  extremely  quick  at  remembering  names,  or  calling 
people  by  their  names,  even  though  he  had  scarcely  met  them. 
The  council  always  had  receptions  for  these  participants.   He 
came  into  the  building  where  we  were  located,  where  we  had  our 
particular  reception  for  speakers,  and  it  happened  that  Delphine 
was  at  the  door  and  he  came  in  and  put  out  his  hand  and  said, 
"Mrs.  Heilbron,  it's  very  good  to  meet  you."   She  had  on  a 
little  card  with  her  name,  and  in  that  moment  he  saw  that  name 
so  quickly  and  expressed  himself  in  that  way. 

Hicke:     Amazing,  that's  amazing.   I  also  see  pictures  of  Prime  Minister 
Nehru,  Nikita  Khrushchev,  Charles  de  Gaulle;  they  were  all  here. 

Heilbron:   Oh  yes,  they  were  all  here.   In  the  history,  I  have  told  about 
their  coming,  perhaps  not  in  any  expanded  way.   I  can  say  that 
Khrushchev  had  had  a  rather  stormy  time  at  the  Los  Angeles  World 
Affairs  Council,  and  almost  decided  to  go  home  because  of  the 
kind  of  hostility  that  was  expressed.   And  then  he  came  up  here 
and  he  was  extremely  well  received  in  the  sense  that  he  was 
cordially  received. 


298 


I  remember  as  we  vent  into  dinner,  walking  down  the 
corridor,  a  New  York  journalist  was  saying,  "What  are  these 
people  all  so  enthusiastic  about?  Didn't  he  say  he  wanted  to 
bury  us?"   [laughter]  And  of  course  that  was  true,  but  he  was 
quite  mellow  in  San  Francisco,  and  even  referred  to  God 
favorably,  and  wanted  all  of  us  to  destroy  our  respective 
munitions . 

I  don't  know  whether  this  should  be  included  or  not.   You 
can  take  it  out,  because  it's  of  no  importance.  At  the 
reception- -the  cocktail  reception  before  the  dinner,  big  dinner 
--he  was  receiving  and  shaking  hands.   A  line  formed,  and 
Virginia  Myer  and  Delphine  were  in  about  the  same  place  in  the 
line.   And  it  was  rather  tiring,  and  Delphine  took  off  her  shoe 
just  about  three  or  four  people  away  from  Khrushchev.   Virginia 
Myer  was  Theodore  Myer's  wife.  Mr.  Myer  was  the  head  of 
Brobeck,  Phleger  and  Harrison  and  also  was  a  [University  of 
California]  regent.  Virginia  said  to  her,  "Delphine,  what  are 
you  going  to  do  if  you  can't  get  your  shoe  on  and  you're  meeting 
with  the  Prime  Minister?"  And  Delphine  said,  "I'm  going  to  say, 
'How  do  you  do?  My  name  is  Virginia  Myer.'"   [laughter] 

Hicke:     That's  a  great  story,  that's  super.   I  think  the  character  of 
the  visitors  indicates  the  significance  of  the  World  Affairs 
Council. 

Heilbron:   Well,  that's  true.   And  now  there's  a  community  arrangement  with 
respect  to  chiefs  of  state  so  that  there  will  be  no  competition 
between  the  Commonwealth  Club  and  the  World  Affairs  Council. 
They  have  agreed  that  they  will  jointly  sponsor  chiefs  of  state. 

However,  there's  something  else  I'd  like  to  say  beyond 
prime  ministers,  secretaries  of  state,  ambassadors  who  have 
addressed  the  council,  and  other  people  in  government  who  speak 
to  us.   The  most  effective  speakers,  the  ones  you  usually  get 
the  most  information  from,  who  demonstrate  the  objectivity  you 
want,  are  not  from  people  currently  in  government,  our  own  or 
foreign.   The  most  penetrating  analyses  come  from  people  who 
have  had  high  places  in  government,  but  who  have  terminated  or 
left  service,  and  from  journalists,  from  academicians,  from 
people  who  haven't  got  a  stake  in  any  official  or  party  line. 

So,  if  you'll  just  give  me  that  little  booklet,  and  I'll  go 
over  some  of  the  speakers  that  we  had  in  the  fortieth 
anniversary  to  illustrate  what  I'm  talking  about.   [pause]   Let 
me  see,  maybe  you  ought  to  hold  that  while  I  find--. 

In  the  order  of  their  appearance,  these  were  the  people  who 
spoke  to  us:  Marshall  Shulman,  professor  and  director-emeritus 


299 


of  the  W.  Averill  Harriman  Institute  for  Advanced  Study  of  the 
Soviet  Union  at  Columbia  University;  Charles  William  Maynes, 
editor  of  Foreign  Policy  magazine  and  former  assistant  secretary 
of  state  for  international  organizations  in  the  Carter 
adainistration;  McGeorge  Bundy,  professor  of  history,  New  York 
University,  former  president  of  the  Ford  Foundation,  and  former 
special  assistant  for  national  security  affairs  to  Presidents 
Kennedy  and  Johnson;  Walt  Rostow,  professor  of  history  and 
economics,  University  of  Texas  at  Austin,  and  former  special 
assistant  for  national  security  affairs;  Sanford  Ungar,  dean  of 
the  School  of  Communications,  American  University,  and  former 
managing  editor  of  Foreign  Policy  magazine;  Gary  Sick, 
international  affairs  program  officer  for  the  Ford  Foundation 
and  the  former  principal  White  House  aide  for  Iran  during  the 
Iranian  revolution  and  ensuing  hostage  crisis;  Stanley  Hoffmann, 
chairman  of  the  Center  for  European  Studies;  and  Douglas  Dillon 
Professor  of  the  Civilization  of  France  at  Harvard  University; 
William  Colby,  former  director  of  the  Central  Intelligence 
Agency  and  former  U.S.  ambassador;  Robert  Scalapino,  Robson 
Research  Professor  and  director  of  the  Institute  of  East  Asian 
Studies  at  UC  Berkeley;  Dianne  Feinstein- -now  there's  an 
exception,  but  of  course,  her  duties  were  not  in  foreign 
relations,  and  she  spoke  as  leader  of  the  city  delegation  to 
Pacific  Rim,  Latin  American,  and  European  countries  to  develop 
trade  relations  with  the  city  of  San  Francisco;  James  Chace, 
senior  associate  of  the  Carnegie  Endowment  for  International 
Peace,  and  former  international  affairs  editor  for  the  New  York 
Times  Book  Review;  Edmund  G.  Muskie,  former  U.S.  senator  from 
Maine  and  former  secretary  of  state;  John  Kenneth  Galbraith,  the 
Paul  M.  Warburg  Professor  of  Economics  emeritus,  Harvard 
University,  and  former  United  States  ambassador  to  India;  Brian 
Urquart,  he's  a  scholar  in  residence  in  the  Ford  Foundation, 
former  undersecretary  general  of  the  United  Nations,  who  was 
known  as  "Mr.  Peacekeeping";  and  Andrew  Young,  mayor  of  Atlanta, 
former  United  States  congressman  from  Georgia,  former  United 
States  ambassador  to  the  United  Nations;  and  one  more  exception: 
Richard  Lugar,  who  at  that  time  was  senator  from  Indiana  and  a 
member  and  former  chairman  of  the  Senate  Foreign  Relations 
Committee. 

I  don't  mean  to  indicate  that  people  who  have  the 
responsibility  for  managing  our  governmental  affairs  have  not 
got  a  great  deal  to  say  and  are  not  extremely  important  in 
telling  us  what  is  in  the  minds  of  the  administration  and  what 
foreign  policies  they  believe  the  United  States  should  follow 
and  are  following.   But  the  general  experience  is  that 
observations  in  depth  come  from  the  kind  of  people  I  have 
identified.   I  didn't  give  you  their  topics  because  I  think  just 
their  titles  and  their  experience  would  indicate  that  they  were 


300 


responsible  people  and  they  were  not,  at  the  time  they  spoke, 
bound  by  any  conditions  that  were  current  at  the  time  and  which 
would  inhibit  their  willingness  to  express  their  own  views. 

Hicke:     It  also  Bakes  me  think  that  we're  making  some  use,  I  hope  good 
use,  out  of  the  skills  and  expertise  that  people  acquire, 
because  nost  of  those  people  have  gone  on  to  teaching  jobs  or 
other  positions  where  they're  going  to  pass  along  their 
knowledge . 

Heilbron:   That's  correct,  that's  correct.   One  of  the  most  important 

program*  the  council  has  deals  with  education.   They  have  suoner 
training  retreats  for  high  school  teachers  in  northern 
California,  from  Monterey  to  Eureka.   And  hundreds  and  hundreds 
of  teachers  have  gone  through  their--!  won't  say  training,  but 
their  exposure- -to  the  international  concerns  and  issues  of  the 
day. 

Hicke:     Who  conducts  that? 

Heilbron:  Well,  experts  of  the  kind  that  I've  indicated.   Not  of  such  high 
status  as  some  of  those,  but  people  from  the  universities,  and 
experienced  people  from  the  council  itself.   And  the  teachers, 
in  turn,  are  able  to  alert  and  inform  their  students  in 
elementary,  middle  school,  and  upper  classes  in  the  high  school, 
and  that  means  hundreds  of  thousands  of  students.   I  don't  know 
by  this  time  whether  we're  in  the  millions  or  not,  but  the 
program  has  been  in  existence  long  enough  (fifteen  years)  to 
have  had  an  effect  on  a  great  deal  of  education  in  international 
affairs  in  our  schools.   Certainly  the  quality  of  the 
instruction  to  students  should  be  greatly  improved  by  the 
quality  of  the  instruction  that  the  teachers  have  received,  or 
if  not  instruction,  at  least  informed  exposure  to  what  the 
issues  are. 

Hicke:     Am  I  correct  in  assuming  this  is  a  mostly  nonpartisan  body? 

Heilbron:   That  is  extremely  important.   It  seeks  only  to  disseminate 

information  concerning  world  affairs  and  its  platform  is  open  to 
advocates  over  a  wide  spectrum  of  programs . 

Hicke:     Okay.  Are  there  any  more  programs  that  you  want  to  talk  about? 
Heilbron:   No. 

** 

Heilbron:   I  might  say  a  word  about  the  organization  and  leadership  of  the 
council.   It's  had  the  same  kind  of  financial  problems  as  other 


301 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


nonprofits  that  cannot  be  supported  simply  by  the  dues  of 
members.   It  has  to  have  other  resources.   Of  course  its  members 
do  respond  to  annual  fund  drives ,  and  there  is  corporate 
support,  particularly  those  corporations  that  have  international 
interests.  And  there  is  foundation  support  that  makes  many  of 
its  programs  possible. 

But  still  there  would  be  a  gap  in  earnings ,  because  they 
have  to  charge  for  certain  of  their  programs  even  if  you're  a 
member;  you  don't  get  in  free  to  all  of  the  programs.   They  have 
an  annual  dinner  where  from  seven  hundred  to  a  thousand  people 
attend,  honoring  some  person  in  the  Bay  Area  usually,  and  that 
event  has  produced  a  good  deal  of  money. 

But  the  wise  thing  that  the  council  decided  to  do  was  to 
buy  the  building  in  which  it  is  housed  and  to  rent  space  to 
other  agencies,  nonprofits  particularly,  in  the  international 
field.   So  they  purchased  the  building,  which  is  now  called  the 
World  Affairs  Center,  on  Sutter  Street,  about  two  doors  below 
the  Sutter-Stockton  garage,  making  it  very  convenient  for  people 
to  attend  even  evening  meetings.   From  the  net  earnings  of  the 
rentals,  they  are  able  to  fill  that  important  operational  gap 
that  threatens  most  nonprofit  agencies  with  financial  trouble  or 
disaster. 

And  what  it  seems  to  indicate  is  this:  that  many  nonprofits 
in  order  to  survive  should  have  some  basis  of  related  or 
nonrelated  income,  whether  it  be  the  part  of  the  building  they 
own  and  don't  occupy,  or  whether  it  be  operating  a  gift  shop 
such  as  the  Museum  of  Modern  Art  provides .   Apparently  such  a 
resource  can  be  the  key  to  success  or  failure  of  nonprofits  that 
are  having  a  harder  and  harder  time . 

T-shirts  are  popular. 

Yes,  yes.   The  council  does  not  have  any  shop.   It  does  have  the 
largest  and  most  current  international  library  in  the  area,  and 
members  have  the  privilege  of  borrowing  books . 

You  can  actually  check  books  out? 

You  can  check  books  out,  yes.   The  books  are  obtained  in  large 
measure  from  publishers  who  want  exposure  of  their  books  to 
people  interested  in  international  affairs  so  that  the  costs  are 
reduced  by  that  fact. 

It  has  a  very  large  board  comparatively- -seventy -five 
members  elected  and  then  the  chairmen  of  committees 
automatically  become  members  of  the  board  so  that  we've  got 


302 


perhaps  close  to  a  hundred  board  members.   That  should,  under 
conventional  wisdom,  be  the  worst  thing  to  do.   How  can  you  get 
any  kind  of  consensus  from  so  many  people?   For  a  long  time,  an 
executive  committee  of  the  board  of  about  twenty-three  members, 
or  a  little  less,  did  the  spadework  and  the  everyday  work.   But 
they've  come  to  the  conclusion  that  by  reason  of  the  status  and 
responsibility  of  the  kind  of  board  members  they've  been  able  to 
attract,  that  the  board  as  a  whole  should  have  more  to  say,  and 
the  number  of  meetings  has  been  extended  from  four  per  year  to 
six.   The  attendance  is  close  to  70  percent. 

Hicke:     That's  impressive. 

Heilbron:   I  think  one  of  the  reasons  is  that  they  get  a  summary  report  of 
the  most  important  international  developments  as  the  director 
sees  them  and  another  is  that  they  are  advised  as  to  all  the 
programs  that  they  may  wish  to  attend.   And  they  do  deal  with 
policy  questions- -with  whom  should  the  council  co-sponsor 
programs,  what  principles  should  govern  the  choice  of  topics  and 
speakers,  important  budget  decisions. 

In  certain  situations,  major  donors  are  invited  to  dinners 
with  the  key  international  authorities  as  they  pass  through  the 
city. 

Hicke:     The  idea  of  having  a  large  board  was  to  add  stature  and-- 

Heilbron:   The  idea  was  to  add  stature  and  also  to  add  to  the  financial 

support  of  the  institution.   As  you  know,  if  you  want  to  raise 
money  from  others,  your  board  had  better  raise  money  on  its  own. 
If  you  have  a  board  that  materially  can  begin  a  financial  effort 
to  raise  capital  monies  for  its  needs,  it  helps  greatly- -the 
precedent  of  the  board's  participation  is  very  important  from 
the  standpoint  of  getting  foundation  support  and  other  support 
from  the  community.   But  you  have  to  have  people  who  not  only 
support  and  serve  the  programs  and  the  cultural  aspects  of  your 
organization,  but  themselves  either  can  contribute  or  cause 
other  people  to  contribute.  And  that's  the  other  reason  for  the 
large  board. 

And  maybe  I'll  just  close  this  area  by  referring  to  the 
kind  of  leadership- -the  executive  directors- -that  we've  had.   We 
began  with  Eugene  Staley,  who  was  an  economist  at  Stanford 
University.   I  think  he  was  actually  part-time,  but  he 
established  rather  high  standards  for  the  council.   Howard  Cook 
did  everything  for  the  council,  including  painting  and 
decorating  the  walls  of  the  first  council  headquarters,  which, 
as  it's  pointed  out  in  the  history,  was  under  the  Arthur  Murray 
Dance  Studio,  in  a  building  on  Sutter  Street.   Garland  Farmer, 


303 


Hicke: 


who  once  occupied  the  African  desk  at  the  State  Department,  who, 
after  he  left  the  council,  administered  very  substantial  mining 
Interests  in  Europe,  Africa,  and  Brazil.   Eugene  Bur dick,  who 
was  the  co-author  of  a  best-selling  novel,  The  Ugly  American. 

In  one  of  the  difficult  financial  periods,  Easton  Rothwell, 
who  had  been  president  of  Mills  [College]  and  who  formerly  had 
been  in  the  State  Department  and  had  a  particular  interest  in 
Southeast  Asia,  served  as  a  Do  liar- a- Year  man  to  pull  the 
counc  i 1  through . 

The  person  with  the  longest  service  is  Richard  Heggie: 
twelve  years  of  service  between  1971  and  '83.   He  had  a  good 
deal  of  experience  in  Asia  with  the  Asia  Foundation,  and  also 
started  in  the  early  days  as  an  assistant  to  the  director  of  the 
council.   He  was  a  splendid  administrator.   (Other  posts: 
president  of  UC  Alumni,  mayor  of  Orinda,  now  on  council  board.) 
Peter  Tarnoff,  who's  now  the  third  position  with  the  Secretary 
of  State.   Casimlr  Yost,  who  is  now  in  Washington  with  one  of 
the  think-tank  schools  at  Georgetown  University. 

Yes.   Research  organization  of  some  kind. 


Heilbron:   He  wrote  excellent  columns  for  Bay  Area  newspapers  on  current 
foreign  affairs  issues.   And  now  Ambassador  David  Fischer,  who 
was  consul  general  in  Munich  and  also  U.S.  ambassador  to  the 
Seychelles.   He  has  a  broad  international  background,  is  very 
creative  in  programming,  also  gives  commentary  to  the 
newspapers,  and  is  president  of  the  national  association  of 
world  affairs'  councils. 

Hicke:     Well,  that's  quite  a  record  of  leadership. 

Heilbron:   Yes,  that's  right.   They've  been  dedicated  men  to  the  cause  of 
the  council.   And  quite  correctly,  the  council  has  changed  the 
title  of  director  to  president,  and  the  old  president  has  become 
the  chairman  of  the  board. 

Hicke:     Is  the  presidency  a  full-time  job? 

Heilbron:   Oh,  yes.   It's  a  full  overtime  job- -made  manageable  for  many 
years  by  the  assistant  director,  now  vice  president,  a  superb 
organizer  of  organizers,  Jean  Fowler. 

I  think  that  the  history  in  itself  takes  care  of  the  rest. 

Hicke:     Okay,  that's  a  very  good  addition  to  the  history  that  you  wrote. 
So  I'm  glad  we  have  it  on  tape. 


304 


[Note:  Every  year  the  council  gives  about  125  scholarships  to 
Asilomar  at  $250  each  for  the  weekend  to  college  students 
interested  in  attending  the  conference.  When  the  president  of 
the  council  went  to  Washington  on  a  trip  this  year,  a  young 
person  in  one  of  the  departments  there  dealing  with 
international  affairs  recognized  him  and  told  him  what  he  was 
doing  and  that  nine  of  the  former  Asilomar  scholarship  students 
were  in  Washington  working  in  the  international  area.] 


California  Historical  Society 


Hicke:     Okay,  well  let's  switch  then  to  the  California  Historical 
Society.   When  did  you  get  involved  with  it? 

Heilbron:   This  is  relatively  a  more  recent  interest  than  the  others  that 
we've  been  discussing.   Eleanor  Anderson- -she  was  Mortimer 
Fleishhacker' s  sister--was  on  the  board  of  the  California 
Historical  Society  and  was  leaving  the  board  but  was,  I  believe, 
chairman  of  the  nominations  committee  and  asked  me  in  1978  if  I 
were  interested.   I  had  very  little  understanding  of  the  status 
or  the  program  of  the  society.   I  knew  it  was  organized  to 
preserve  and  disseminate  information  about  California  history. 
I  knew  Mr.  Ehrman  had  served  as  a  trustee,  and  I  remember  his 
receiving  books  published  by  the  society  when  I  came  into  his 
room  one  day.   I  realized  that  it  was  a  rather  old  institution 
in  the  community  and  after  I  joined  it,  I  was  informed-- 

II 

Heilbron:   After  I  had  joined  it,  I  understood  it  was  over  100  years  old--I 
think  organized  in  the  1870s--counting  periods  of  discontinuity; 
when  they  ran  out  of  money,  the  society  stopped  and  when  it, 
maybe  four  or  five  years  later,  accumulated  further  interest  and 
money,  it  began  again.   So  I  suppose  that  there  are  100  full 
years  by  this  time,  and  I  think  its  last  reorganization  was  in 
1921. 

I  joined  a  board  that  was  quite  dedicated  to  its  purposes. 
In  fact,  I  would  like  to  say  that  I  have  been  on  many  boards  in 
the  community,  and  I  have  been  impressed  by  the  volunteerism  in 
our  community.   I  think  that  San  Francisco  has  been  most 
fortunate  in  the  people  that  it  has  interested  in  its  cultural 
activity — in  its  symphony,  its  opera,  and  in  these  cultural 
activities.   These  "points  of  light"  existed  long  before  Mr. 
Bush  quite  correctly  talked  about  them.   But  nevertheless  these 
activities  organized  by  volunteers,  I  think,  considering  the 


305 


scope  of  work  done,  are  unique  in  the  world.   The  British  have  a 
good  many  activities,  too,  but  I  don't  believe  that  they  have 
the  force  and  influence  of  the  American  activities,  and 
certainly  the  Bay  Area  must  be  pretty  well  up  to  the  highest 
level . 

Well,  when  I  came  aboard,  the  long-time  director  had  left, 
Pamela  Seager  was  the  acting  director.   She  was  doing  two  or 
three  jobs.   She  was  administering  the  agency,  she  was  a  curator 
of  the  art,  particularly  the  paintings  that  were  owned  by  the 
society  or  were  on  loan  to  the  society. 

Let  me  outline,  for  a  moment,  what  the  society  really 
consisted  of. 

Hicke:     You  went  on  the  board  in  '79? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  my  active  time  began  in  '79;  I  believe  I  was  invited  in  the 
late  fall  of  1978.   I  think  I  served  for  two  years  as  a  trustee 
and  two  years  as  a  vice  president,  and  then  in  1983  I  became 
president  of  the  organization. 

The  physical  plants  consisted  of  the  Whittier  Mansion 
located  at  Jackson  and  Laguna  Streets,  a  fine  residence  of  a 
successful  merchant,  erected  around  the  early  1900s  or  maybe 
just  before  that  in  1895  or  1896;  anyway  during  what  you  might 
call  the  late  Victorian  period.   The  woods  in  the  building  were 
beautiful,  and  that's  where  all  of  the  luxury  of  the  building 
rested  and  made  it  notable. 

At  one  time,  it  was  the  German  Consulate.   In  fact,  we  lived 
two  doors  away  from  there  in  the  late  thirties  and  up  to  1942. 
Come  to  think  of  it,  when  Fritz  Wiedeman  was  the  German  consul,  we 
occasionally  were  able  to  look  through  the  outside  window  and  see  a 
big  swastika  inside.   As  mentioned  before,  when  Wiedeman  and  the 
consulate  were  thrown  out  by  the  U.S.  government,  which  was 
emptying  the  German  embassies  and  consulates  from  the  United 
States,  Wiedeman  left  in  style:  thirty-seven  taxicabs  and, 
according  to  the  story,  a  $10,000  tip  to  make  people  think  that  the 
Germans  at  the  time  were  nice  people. 

In  any  event,  there  was  a  kind  of  historic  association  with 
this  building.   It  was  acquired,  I  believe,  in  1963  when  the 
society  was  fortunate  to  receive  a  rather  substantial  legacy. 

In  addition,  there  was  an  older  building  at  the  corner  of 
Pacific  and  Laguna,  and  next  door  to  it  another  building  that 
was  acquired  for  the  purpose  of  using  it  as  an  annex  to  the 
library,  buildings  that  had  been  put  up  by  the  Spreckels  family 


306 


Hicke: 


for  their  sons  or  daughters.   These  all  were  acquired  by  the 
society,  I  believe  in  the  sixties  and  possibly  one  of  the 
buildings  in  the  early  seventies. 

The  society  has,  I  think,  the  fourth  largest  historical 
library  in  California,  particularly  some  very  valuable  diaries 
and  communications  and  letters  from  the  earliest  Mexican  period. 
The  library  has  been  widely  used.   Of  course  it  is  not  nearly  as 
extensive  as  The  Bancroft  Library  [at  the  University  of 
California].  At  one  time,  there  was  a  thought  that  the 
economics  of  the  situation  would  have  been  favored  if  The 
Bancroft  acquired  this  library,  and  The  Bancroft  was  interested 
in  the  best  selected  items,  but  not  to  take  in  the  library  as  a 
whole.   One  of  the  most  interesting  people  to  use  the  library 
was  James  MIchener. 

What  did  he  use  it  for,  do  you  know? 


Heilbron:   I  don't  know  which  book  he  used  it  for.   My  guess  would  be 
Hawaii.   Possibly  Iberia,  but  I  think  Hawaii. 

The  paintings  are  of  early  California,  and  a  number  of  them 
are  quite  valuable  and  have  recently  been  exhibited  in  the 
Crocker  Gallery  in  Sacramento.   But  they  have  occasionally  left 
the  premises  for  exhibits  elsewhere,  at  the  De  Young  [Museum] 
and  other  places.   And  they  have  old  costumes  in  use  in  early 
California. 

The  society  has  a  window  in  the  south,  El  Molino  Viejo,  in 
Pasadena,  near  the  Huntington  Library,  the  old  mill,  which  it 
leases  for  a  dollar  a  year  from  the  city  of  San  Marino,  but 
brings  exhibitions  to  the  mill  to  warrant  the  value  of  the 
leasehold. 

I  think  it  was  during  the  earliest  period  of  my  association 
that  the  legislature  recognized  the  society  as  the  official 
historical  agency  for  the  state  of  California. 

Hicke:     They  did  not,  however,  fund  it. 

Heilbron:   This  is  the  deceptive  part.  We  are  recognized,  but  not 

supported.   Therein  lies  much  of  the  tale  of  the  society. 
Almost  every  historical  society  of  a  state  in  the  United  States 
is  supported  by  its  state.   I  think  Michigan  is  the  only  one 
that  has  a  similar  situation  of  dependence  on  private  support. 

Now,  it  did  originate,  as  I  understand  it,  differently  from 
most  other  societies.   That  is,  a  group  of  amateur  historians 


307 


net  together  and  enjoyed  each  other's  company  and  read  each 
other's  work  and  kept  the  whole  affair  a  very  closed  matter,  a 
closed  organization.   I  think  there  is  a  club  in  San  Francisco 
called  the  Chit  Chat  Club  that  also  elects  its  members,  reads  to 
each  other  the  writings  and  creative  works  of  its  members,  and 
that's  pretty  much  what  this  group  did.   They  didn't  want  any 
outside  interest.   They  called  themselves  the  California 
Historical  Society,  [but]  were  completely  a  San  Francisco 
organization.   Well,  when  they  started,  what  was  California  but 
San  Francisco  and  its  environs,  in  their  opinions.   I  think  they 
thought  nothing  about  attaching  the  name  of  California  when  San 
Francisco  was  a  city  and  Los  Angeles  was  a  village. 

Hicke:     Also,  probably  they  took  California  for  their  subject. 

Heilbron:  Yes,  for  their  subject.  And  they  did,  of  course,  have  subject 
matter  in  the  library  from  southern  California.   I  am  not  sure 
where  their  art  contributions  came  from.   The  society  was 
relatively  homogeneous  in  the  kind  of  membership  it  had,  but  I 
understand  there  were  great  political  rivalries  within  the 
organization.   It  wasn't  until  rather  late  in  its  hundred-year 
life  that  the  society  spread  out  and  was  interested  in  a  larger 
membership  and  was  interested  in  the  preservation  and 
dissemination  of  history  for  the  citizens  of  California. 

Hicke:     Were  they  still  arguing  about  Drake's  Plate? 

Heilbron:  Yes,  it's  quite  amazing  that  history  can  produce  such  bitter 
controversy.   [laughter] 

Hicke:     True. 

Heilbron:  And  Drake's  Plate  is  one  example.  A  gentleman  who  was  the  owner 
of  the  Nut  Tree  later  was  the  great  advocate  of  the  authenticity 
of  this  plate. 

Hicke:     Was  it  Robert  Powers? 

Heilbron:   Powers  is  the  name  of  the  man  who  is  from  the  Nut  Tree. 

Hicke:     I  think  Alan  Checkering  was  involved  in  it. 

Heilbron:   And  even  in  recent  years,  Dr.  [J.S.]  Holliday--and  I'll  come  to 
him  in  a  few  moments- -was  supportive  of  Robert  Powers,  who  had 
been  president  of  our  society,  too.   He  wanted  new  chemical 
tests  to  be  made  of  the  plate  to  see  if  the  earlier 
determination  by  Dr.  [James  D.]  Hart  that  it  was  not  genuine  was 
correct.   So  even  during  the  time  when  I  was  active,  this  was  a 
revived  matter. 


308 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Then  another  matter  that  Dr.  Holliday  introduced  almost 
casually  in  an  address  when  he  resumed  the  presidency- -and  I'll 
describe  that  in  a  few  minutes --still  caused  quite  a  stir.   Dr. 
Holliday  Indicated  that  there  was  too  much  attention  paid  to  the 
mission  period  of  California  history  and  then  even  that  was  not 
quit*  accurately  presented.  A  monsignor  from  Los  Angeles  took 
offense  at  what  he  felt  was  an  injustice  in  statements  with 
respect  to  the  missionaries  and  the  church's  contribution  to 
early  history.   That  caused  quite  a  number  of  communications 
back  and  forth  with  near  apologies  and  explanations.   So  history 
can  become  quite  an  issue . 

Look  at  Columbus.   The  matter,  practically  dead  for  five 
hundred  years,  suddenly  has  become  a  national  issue.   A  moving 
picture  now  has  been  made  of  Columbus.   I  haven't  seen  this 
picture,  it  recently  has  been  issued,  but  there  is  bitter 
criticism,  people  protesting  that  he  shouldn't  be  honored.   I 
don't  know  what's  going  to  happen  to  our  statue  of  Columbus  at 
Land's  End.   It's  pointed  the  wrong  way  as  far  as  welcoming  is 
concerned  to  the  new  land,  but  there  it  is.   These  issues  do 
come  up. 

For  some  time ,  the  idea  of  this  kind  of  controversy  was 
used  by  society  members  as  stating  why  we  should  never  accept 
subsidies  from  the  state,  because  the  state  would  politically 
control  the  history.   Here  we  are  independent  and  can  do  what  we 
please  and  so  on.   That  must  mean  that  all  of  the  other  states' 
histories  are  politically  written  and  so  on. 

Skewed? 

And  that's  not  true.  After  about  twenty- five  years,  the  truth 
can  come  out  without  injuring  many  people.   I  will  say  that 
current  history  can  be  affected  by  the  fact  that  the  state 
subsidizes  and  appropriates  for  the  support  of  an  historical 
society,  but  in  the  long  term,  I  don't  think  that  what  Hiram 
Johnson  did  in  California  will  be  affected  by  who  writes  and 
publishes  these  days,  nor  will  anybody  resent  the  publication. 

So  that  gives ,  perhaps ,  the  general  background  of  the  plant 
and  the  program.  Now,  for  most  of  the  four  years  in  my  period 
at  the  society,  Pamela  Seager  was  the  acting  director,  and  as  I 
explained,  did  the  work  of  at  least  two  people  if  not  three. 
But  it  was  recognized  that  the  society  needed  a  professional 
historian  to  be  its  head.   We  had  two  searches,  both  of  them 
nationwide.   We  almost  acquired  two  people,  one  from  the  Midwest 
and  one  from  Arizona,  but  when  the  conditions  were  negotiated, 
they  were  simply  not  conditions  we  could  afford. 


309 


The  search  was  quite  earnest  and  complete,  and  people  did 
want  to  come  to  San  Francisco,  but  as  I  have  learned  from 
searching  for  other  organizations ,  people  want  to  come  to  San 
Francisco,  but  soon  they  find  out  what  the  cost  of  houses  is, 
and  unless  an  agency  is  prepared  to  make  special  arrangements 
for  people  coning  from  particularly  the  Midwest,  it  becomes 
quite  costly.   While  these  costs  may  not  bother  wealthy 
organizations  like  the  symphony  and  the  opera  so  much,  they  do 
concern  the  smaller  organizations. 

Dr.  J.  S.  Holliday  had  been,  for  seven  years  in  the 
seventies,  the  director  of  the  society.   He  was  and  is  an 
excellent  writer.   He  is  passionately  concerned  with  California 
history.   I  certainly  think  he  and  Kevin  Starr  are  among  its 
leading  historians.   Jim  Rawls  is  also  well  known,  all  of  them 
associated,  incidentally,  with  the  society  at  one  time  or 
another. 

Well,  for  reasons  never  entirely  made  clear  and,  I  think, 
better  understood  as  time  went  on,  Dr.  Holliday  resigned  from 
his  first  period  of  service  from  the  society.   The  story  was 
that  he  couldn't  quite  control  the  expenditures  against  the 
revenues.   But  on  looking  the  situation  over,  there  were  some 
board  members  who  had  been  with  the  old  board  and  felt  that  he 
had  not  been  properly  treated  and  that  he  was  certainly  the  most 
creative  and  most  familiar  with  California  backgrounds  and 
history  of  any  of  the  people  whom  we  interviewed  and  that  he 
should  be  our  choice.   I  negotiated  his  new  contract  of  service 
with  us. 

When  he  came  on  board  in  March  of  '83,  I  had  just  begun  my 
service  as  president.   I  had  inherited  a  budget  that  was 
constituted  on  the  theory  that  if  you  are  going  to  make  money, 
you  are  going  to  have  to  spend  money.   It  is  perhaps  a  little 
bit  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  national  spending  during  the 
eighties,  [laughter]  but  the  government  can  do  things  that 
private  organizations  can't  do  after  a  while,  and  yet  this  was  a 
budget  $300,000  in  deficit.   Regarding  the  budget,  Holliday  said 
that  he  felt  certain  the  deficit  could  be  met  and  we  went  into  a 
combined  campaign.  We  were  going  to  raise  $7  million  for  an 
endowment,  which  a  consulting  agency  thought  feasible.   With 
that  amount  of  money,  we  believed  that-- 

ff 

Heilbron:  --our  deficit  could  be  taken  care  of  from  the  earnings.  Now  we 
already  had  an  unrestricted  endowment  of  close  to  $750,000  that 
had  been  eaten  into  during  the  past  years,  but  we  were  all  very 
anxious  to  see  if  this  campaign  could  be  successful. 


310 


I  was  encouraged  by  two  trustees  who  were  friends  of  David 
Packard,  who  had  seen  him  and  who  perhaps  were  overconfident  in 
what  they  would  able  to  obtain.  They  thought  that  he  was 
prepared  to  subscribe  $300,000  as  the  beginning  of  our  campaign 
solicitation,  but  Mr.  Packard  had  never  made  such  a  commitment. 
He  did  finally  give  us  $25.000. 

I  found  that  I  was  in  the  money-raising  business  instead  of 
the  historical-society  business.   During  that  first  year,  by  a 
big  effort  among  our  trustees  and  through  a  substantial  gift 
from  North  Baker,  who  always  was  a  supporter  of  the  society,  and 
through  foundations  and  individuals,  we  did  raise  $300,000,  a 
good  part  of  which  I  raised  on  my  own  and  knew  that  that  could 
not  be  repeated. 

We  raised  about  as  much  money  during  that  first  calendar 
year  of  my  operation  as  we  spent.   I  could  see  that  we  would 
have  to  cut  down  administratively  if  we  were  going  to  come 
anywhere  near  balancing  the  budget.   We  had  expanded  in  southern 
California;  as  a  California  society,  we  felt  that  we  had  to  have 
more  than  El  Molino  Viejo,  we  had  to  be  in  Los  Angeles,  and  we 
rented  a  place  in  Los  Angeles.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  rent 
was  zero- -a  title  company  had  given  us  the  first  floor  of  a 
building  on  Uilshire  Boulevard- -and  we  had  a  branch  down  there 
with  an  exhibit.   At  least  it  gave  some  visibility  to  our  Los 
Angeles  trustees.   And  yet  we  had  the  cost  of  an  administrator 
and  assistants,  and  we  had  traveling  exhibits,  we  had  our  art 
exhibit  down  at  El  Molino  Viejo.   We  met  down  in  Pasadena  as 
well  as  in  San  Francisco. 

During  the  earlier  days,  before  I  was  president,  we  met  in 
Monterey  and  then  in  Sacramento.  The  meetings  were  well 
organized,  mostly  due  to  Pamela's  expertise  in  organization. 
Everything  that  was  done  by  the  society  was  done  with  grace. 
The  invitations  that  went  out  were  always  engraved,  and  they 
were  beautifully  done,  but  I  had  a  feeling  that  this  was  part  of 
our  problem:  we  had  more  grace  than  money. 

I  did  introduce  the  idea  that  we  had  this  lovely  mansion 
and  nobody  used  it  for  a  social  purpose.   We  did  have  luncheons 
catered  in  the  mansion  and  invited  our  targets  for  solicitation 
to  these  luncheons,  and  it  produced  some  results.   We  got 
capital  funds  for  the  improvement  of  the  library.  The  Hewlett 
Foundation  was  most  helpful  in  making  it  possible  for  us  to  use 
these  new  collapsible  frames  for  shelves,  and  the  Cowell 
Foundation  was  helpful,  too.   And  what  was  the  foundation  that 
helped  in  the  blood  bank  in  San  Francisco?   [Flood]  They  were 
helpful  with  the  money  transfusion.   [laughter] 


311 


But  we  had  to  count  on  all  of  these.   The  membership 
floated  around  7,000  or  8,000  in  those  days  and,  as  Holliday 
quite  correctly  said,  it's  ridiculous  that  a  society  that  is 
supposed  to  be  the  custodian  of  California  history  should  have 
8,000  members.   It  should  have  at  least  25,000  members.   But 
it's  a  different  issue  to  raise  money  for  history  where  the 
consumer  takes  a  book  to  read,  and  a  performing  arts 
organization  that  gives  a  good  deal  back  for  what  it  receives. 
The  performing  arts  give  mass  enjoyment  and  have  either  an 
operatic  tradition  or  a  symphony  tradition,  and  it  is  partly  a 
spectacle- -ballet  included.   Performing  arts  can  raise  money 
that  historical  societies  can't,  and  that's  the  reason  why  such 
societies,  if  they  are  going  to  be  successful,  have  to  have 
state  subsidy.   I  assume  that  the  university  understands  that 
quite  well  at  this  moment.   But  a  private  organization,  like  the 
historical  society,  has  its  own  particular  problems. 

On  the  asset  side  of  the  society,  through  the  years  1  find 
that  we  did  publish  a  fine  quarterly  that  has  been  recognized 
throughout  the  United  States,  and  I'm  glad  to  see  that  the 
present  is  even  better  than  it  has  ever  been.   That's  because  of 
an  arrangement  made  after  I  left  with  Hayward  State  [University] 
where  their  history  department  is  part  of  the  process  of  the 
publishing  of  the  magazine.   While  I  had  urged  the  relationship 
between  the  state  university  and  the  society,  I  had  never 
brought  it  about  completely.   Now  I  believe  that  Robert 
Corrigan,  president  of  San  Francisco  State,  has  served  on  the 
board,  so  that  situation  was  improved. 

In  my  second  year,  when  we  started  substantial 
retrenchment,  Dr.  Holliday  was  both  happy  and  unhappy.   He  was 
happy  that  his  book,  The  World  Rushed  In,  was  such  a 
success  —  and  we  were  happy  for  him  too,  but  I  believe  he  felt  we 
might  be  liquidating  the  society's  empire.   Apart  from  this,  he 
had  advised  us  that  he  planned  a  change  in  the  direction  of  his 
career- -he  wanted  to  concentrate  on  writing  and  a  lecture 
program- -though  he  would  always  support  the  society.   He  did 
resign  during  the  year  and  was  awarded  executive  director 
emeritus  in  recognition  of  his  contributions. 

We  replaced  him  with  a  director,  Joseph  Giovinco,  who  was  a 
professional  in  history—of  course  he  didn't  have  the  stature 
that  Holliday  had— and  he  thought  that  he  could  manage  to  run 
the  operation  at  a  lesser  cost.   He  made  quite  a  number  of 
personnel  changes,  but  even  the  changes  he  made  ultimately— this 
is  after  I  left— even  the  changes  he  made  did  not  content  the 
people  whom  he  employed.   It  was  like  Mr.  [Mikhail]  Gorbachev; 
he  got  all  of  his  people  that  he  thought  were  his  people,  but 
they  turned  out  not  to  be  his  people.   I  understand  that 
ultimately  Joseph  left. 


312 


I  felt  that  the  most  important  thing  I  could  do  was  to  get 
our  debts  paid  off.   We  had  borrowed  money  for  operations  and 
secured  it  with  a  mortgage  on  one  of  our  houses.   We  had  a  line 
of  credit;  because  of  the  type  of  people  who  were  on  the  board, 
the  Bank  of  California  was  quite  supportive  and  generous  in 
lending  us  money.   We  were  always  quite  wealthy  at  the  beginning 
of  the  year  when  the  dues  first  came  in;  it  gave  us  a  false 
sense  of  security.   When  the  summer  came  and  the  revenues  dried 
up,  we  had  to  borrow  to  get  through  the  year.   The  borrowing,  I 
felt,  meant  we  would  never  get  to  face  a  balanced  budget  until 
we  got  our  debts  paid  off  and  began  anew. 

So  that  annex  building  that  we  thought  was  going  to  be 
necessary  for  the  library,  in  view  of  the  new  ways  of  storing 
books  and  getting  tapes  and  so  on,  did  not  prove  to  be 
essential.   Although  there  was  some  debate  about  it,  we  sold 
that  building,  and  I  think  after  paying  off  mortgages  and 
everything  else,  we  netted  $390,000;  and  that,  together  with  our 
unrestricted  endowment,  put  us  pretty  much  in  the  same  position 
we  were  in  a  good  many  years  ago  when  all  of  these  properties 
were  acquired. 

The  deals  were  completed  after  I  left,  but  I  followed 
through  the  deals  until  they  were  completed,  and  the  conditions 
in  the  escrow  were  written  so  that  various  people  got  paid  off; 
so  I  knew  that  when  the  transaction  was  over,  we  would  be  in  the 
position,  let's  say,  to  start  a  new  life.   I  knew  that  the  first 
year,  the  year  that  I  left  in  November--!  had  an  extended  term 
of  about  two-and-a-half  years  because  of  a  change  in  the  fiscal 
year—that  we  would  be  out  somewhere  above  $25,000,  but  that  was 
a  small  cost  compared  to  what  we  were  losing  previously. 

When  my  term  was  up,  I  left,  though  I  was  offered  another 
year  on  the  board.   I  declined  and  was  given  president  emeritus 
status  and  got  involved  in  other  community  services.   By  that 
time,  Golden  Gate  University  was  becoming  increasingly  demanding 
of  my  pro  bono  time.   Of  course  I  followed  the  fortunes  and 
misfortunes  of  the  society  with  great  interest.   My  successor, 
Nancy  Maushardt,  was  totally  dedicated  and  had  high  objectives 
but  lost  the  battle  of  the  budget,  and  there  was  a  succession  of 
new  executives. 

However,  I  have  noted  that  the  current  executive,  that  is 
the  director,  Michael  McCone,  is  an  experienced  administrator, 
had  extended  experience  in  the  city  government  of  San  Francisco, 
is  sensitive  to  public  relations,  is  creative  in  his  approach  to 
north-south  relations  —  and  by  that  1  mean  recognizing  that  we 
are  a  California  society.   The  society's  albatross  around  the 
neck,  the  mansion,  has  been  sold,  and  a  new  site  for  operations 


313 


Hlcke: 
Heilbron: 


Hicke : 

Heilbron: 

Hicke: 

Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


secured  near  the  Yerba  Buena  cultural  center,  and  certainly  the 
society  has  been  helped  by  North  Baker's  key  legacy  of  $2 
million.   I  don't  know  what  the  total  amounts  to  that  he  has 
given  over  the  years.   The  library  is  now  named  after  him,  as  it 
should  be,  and  I  think  that  the  society  is  now  in  a  position 
where  it  can  go  to  the  state  and  say,  "We  are  a  viable 
institution  worthy  of  support,  and  not  of  a  bailout."   I'm 
hoping  against  hope  that  that  is  what  happens  with  the  society. 

Unfortunately  the  state  is  not  in  good  shape  to  help. 

Absolutely.   The  trouble  is  that  the  state  has  other  priorities, 
which  I'm  sure  it  will  recognize,  and  this  is  simply  not  a  good 
time  to  facilitate  that  relationship.   I  believe,  as  I  have 
advised  informally  when  asked,  that  they  may  be  in  for  another 
period  of  retrenchment. 

If  you  have  any  thoughts  or  questions,  maybe  I  could 
respond  to  them,  but  I  think  I  have  given  an  overview  of  the 
society. 


It  has  been  an  excellent  overview.   It  is  really  good, 
you  have  answered  all  of  my  questions  in  advance. 


I  think 


What  was  the  other  thing  that  we  were  going  to  talk  about? 
The  Human  Rights  Commission. 

Let  me  see  if  I  can  find  the  notes  somewhere  on  that.   But 
first,  I'd  like  to  say  a  word  about  the  program  of  the  society 
which  recognizes  businesses  and  professions  that  have  been  in 
continuous  existence  in  California  over  100  years.   The  rule  is 
that  if  the  antecedent  of  a  company  sold  out  to  a  successor  who 
continued  the  business,  you  could  aggregate  the  years. 

Sold  to  a  California  business? 

Yes,  that's  right.   So  that,  for  example,  there  are  many  ranches 
in  California  and  agricultural  interests  that  go  back  over  100 
years,  but  naturally  the  people  changed,  although  the  families 
very  often  are  intact.   These  100 -year  certificates  have  been 
given  to  businesses,  especially  at  the  State  Fair.   But  I  think 
some  ten  law  firms  have  been  given  these  certificates.   As  you 
know,  we  received  ours  (Heller,  Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe)  a 
couple  of  years  ago,  in  1990. 

I  would  like  to  say  a  word  about  some  of  the  trustees  who 
have  been  contributors  to  the  organization  in  time  and  funding 
and  who  were  devoted  to  its  interests.  Besides  North  Baker,  who 


314 


was  also  active  in  the  World  Affairs  Council  with  me,  there  was 
Robert  J.  Banning  of  an  old  southern  California  family,  and  the 
town  of  Banning  bears  their  name.   George  Hale  was  treasurer;  he 
has  been  active  with  the  symphony.  Mrs.  Dix  Boring  has  been 
particularly  active  for  a  long  period  of  time. 

Richard  Otter  from  Belvedere  is  a  collector  of  Califomiana 
and  a  prominent  broker.   At  the  time  of  this  oral  history,  he  is 
president  of  the  Commonwealth  Club.   Mrs.  Earnest  Bryant,  from 
Laguna  beach;  Mrs.  Robert  Carter  of  Colusa,  a  representative  of 
large  agricultural  interests;  J.  Hughes  Crispin  of  Santa 
Barbara,  who  at  one  time  was  president  of  the  San  Francisco 
World  Trade  Club;  George  Dietz,  who  was  an  executive  at 
McKesson'  s;  James  Galbraith,  who  was  an  executive  with 
International  Hilton;  James  Green,  who  was  the  senior  partner  at 
the  time  at  the  O'Melveny  law  firm  in  Los  Angeles;  Donald  Hata, 
who  had  been  associated  with  the  administrations  of  Sacramento 
State  [University]  and  Dominguez  Hills  State  University;  Richard 
Reinhardt,  a  writer;  Mrs.  John  D.  Relfe,  very  active  with  the 
symphony,  but  she  had  great  expertise  in  running  auctions  and 
raised  considerable  money  in  the  biannual  auctions  that  the 
society  had;  Rodney  Rood,  who  was  an  executive  with  ARCO  in  Los 
Angeles;  Earl  F.  Schmidt  had  an  avid  interest  in  history; 
Lockwood  Tower,  who  came  from  Virginia  and  wrote  a  book  about 
the  Civil  War;  Charles  Wollenberg,  himself  an  historian-  - 


Heilbron:   --a  California  historian  of  note;  and  of  course  Albert  Shumate, 
whose  avocation  is  history  and  is  also  a  president  emeritus,  and 
a  luncheon  honoring  him  will  be  held  later  this  autumn  of  1992. 

I  have  named  people  who  were  active  at  the  time  when  I  came 
into  the  presidency,  and  these  have  been  replaced  by  people  of 
equal  interest,  and  I  will  say  that  they  have  solved  the  problem 
of  north-  south  trustee  meetings.   That  is,  they  hold  a  meeting 
with  the  trustees  of  the  city  where  the  principal  meeting  is 
held  gathered  together,  say  Los  Angeles,  and  then  the  trustees 
who  are  near  Sacramento  meet  at  the  same  time  there  around  a 
table,  and  the  same  is  true  of  San  Francisco,  and  of  course  if 
San  Francisco  is  the  place  of  the  meeting,  everything  is 
reversed,  but  the  meeting  is  held  on  conference  calls  with 
loudspeakers  and  everybody  chimes  in  on  this  basis.  '  That  has 
meant  a  great  deal,  I  assume,  in  eliminating  the  problem  of 
absenteeism. 

I  have  omitted  the  names  of  good  people,  but  these  are  some 
who  come  to  mind  and  are  representative  of  the  kind  of  people 
who  were  active  in  the  society. 


315 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Western  Jewish  History  Center 

Did  you  participate  in  any  history  group  besides  the  California 
Historical  Society? 

I  served  for  a  number  of  years  on  an  advisory  board  to  the 
Western  Jewish  History  Center  of  the  Judah  L.  Magnes  Museum 
located  in  Berkeley.   Janes  Hart  of  The  Bancroft  Library  was  a 
distinguished  member. 

When  did  it  start  and  what  does  it  do? 

This  history  center  started  in  1967.   James  Gerstley  was  the 
first  chairman.   His  family  and  the  Sloss  family  had  operated 
the  Alaska  Commercial  Company,  a  sealing  company  that  had 
supervised  the  gathering  of  seal  skins  for  commercial  trade  in 
the  Pribilof  and  Komandorskiye  Islands.   Sue  Warburg  is  the 
present  chair,  Dr.  Moses  Rischin,  the  director,  and  Ruth  Rafael, 
the  head  archivist. 

The  center  gathers  diaries,  oral  histories,  photographs, 
memorabilia,  and  reports  of  Jews  and  Jewish  religious  and 
community  organizations  in  the  thirteen  western  states  and  their 
impact  on  the  life  of  these  states,  from  pioneer  days  to  the 
present. 

A  notable  achievement  has  been  the  publication  by  archivist 
Rafael  of  an  index  to  all  of  the  center's  holdings  entitled 
Western  Jewish  History  Center:  Guide  to  Archival  and  Oral 
History  Collections.   The  center,  under  the  imprimatur  of  the 
museum,  has  published  Architects  of  Reform,  a  History  of 
Congregation  Emanu-El,  1849-1980,  by  F.  Rosenbaum. 

Does  the  center  reach  out  to  the  public? 

Definitely.   Staff  give  lectures,  seminars,  and  workshops  on 
western  Jewish  history  and  prepare  traveling  exhibits. 

Researchers- - 

Find  it  a  superb  resource . 


315a 


Tribute  to  Louis  Heilbron  Planned  for  October  29 


Mark  your  calendars  for  Friday, 
October  29  and  join  us  in  honoring 
Louis  Heilbron  at  a  luncheon  at  the 
Sheraton  Palace  Hotel  in  San  Fran 
cisco.  The  event  is  sponsored  by  the 
CHS  Activities  Council.  Mrs.  John 
C.  Williams,  Council  chair,  and  Mrs. 
Dix  Boring,  Luncheon  Patron  chair, 
are  organizing  the  event. 

Louis  Heilbron  is  a  man  who  has 
served  many  organizations  and  insti 
tutions  throughout  the  state  with 
distinction.  He  is  President  Emeri 
tus  of  the  Board  of  CHS,  and  we  are 
pleased  to  have  an  opportunity  to 
express  our  appreciation  to  him  and 
to  benefit  the  Society  to  which  he 
has  given  so  many  years  of  service 
and  counsel.  Our  keynote  speaker 
for  the  luncheon  will  be  Dr.  Clark 
Kerr,  former  president  of  the  Uni 
versity  of  California. 

Mr.  Heilbron  may  be  best  known  for 
his  contributions  to  higher  education 
in  California  and  is  much  admired 
for  his  role  in  negotiations  with 
striking  students  and  faculty  at  San 


Francisco  State  University  in  the 
1960s.  A  1969  San  Francisco  Chron 
icle  editorial  calling  for  his  reap- 
pointment  to  the  State  College 
board  of  trustees  praised  him  for  his 
"moderate,  flexible  approach."  A 
retired  partner  of  the  Heller, 
Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe  law 
firm,  Mr.  Heilbron  was  first  presi 
dent  of  the  California  State  Colleges 
board  of  trustees  and  is  an  author 
and  community  leader. 

He  has  served  as  president  or  chair 
of  many  organizations  in  the  state, 
among  them  the  California  State 
Board  of  Education,  San  Francisco 
State  University,  Golden  Gate  Uni 
versity,  the  World  Affairs  Council  of 
Northern  California,  and  Congrega 
tion  Emanu-El  in  San  Francisco. 
Among  the  tributes  he  has  received 
are  an  honorary  doctorate  from  U.C. 
Berkeley  and  distinguished  service 
awards  from  several  universities,  the 
San  Francisco  Examiner,  and  the 
NAACP  Legal  Defense  Fund.  He  is 
a  1928  graduate  of  U.C.  Berkeley 
and  was  awarded  a  law  degree  from 
the  University  of  California  Boalt 
School  of  Law  in  1931.  Mr. 
Heilbron  resides  in  San  Francisco 
with  his  wife  Delphine.  His  sons 
David  and  John-one  an  attorney, 
the  other  a  University  of  California 
administrator-share  common  inter 
ests  with  their  father. 


316 


1975 


Lon  for  San  Francisco  Cltv  and  County.  1969- 


Hicke:     Okay,  let's  witch  gears  again  and  tell  me  about  your  work  with 
the  Hunan  Rights  Commission. 

Heilbron:   Well,  I  was  pleased  to  be  appointed  to  the  Human  Rights 
Commission. 

Hicke:     Now  let  me  Just  ask,  is  this  national? 

Heilbron:   No,  this  is  local.   I  had  served  on  state  boards  and  had  been 
engaged  in  national  organizations,  but  I  had  never  served  on  a 
public  institution  in  San  Francisco. 

Hicke :     Really? 

Heilbron:   Well,  I  had  been  in  many  private  organizations,  but  this  was  a 
public  institution. 

Hicke:     When  was  this? 

Heilbron:   I  think  the  appointment  was  in  1969  or  1970.   It  was  a  [Mayor 
Joseph]  Alioto  appointment.   I  joined  with  a  very  effective 
group  of  people:  Leonard  Kingsley,  who  has  since,  I  believe, 
been  president  of  the  symphony;  Earl  Raab,  who  was  probably  the 
most  effective  sociologist  in  Jewish  affairs  in  this  area- -he's 
got  a  national  reputation;  Dean  Julian  Bartlett,  from  Grace 
Cathedral;  Rabbi  Alvin  Fine;  Reverend  Victor  Hedearis;  Sister 
Bernadette  Giles;  Joseph  Garcia;  and  Eduardo  Sandoval. 

The  agency  was  advisory  to  the  mayor  and  the  public  in  most 
matters,  but  it  did  have  control  over  minority  contracts  with 
the  city.   If  the  city  made  a  contract  with  a  supplier  that  did 
not  have  the  appropriate  antidiscrimination  policies,  the 
contract  would  not  be  approved  by  the  Human  Rights  Commission, 
or  it  could  be  cancelled  by  the  Human  Rights  Commission.   That's 
where  its  clout  was  with  respect  to  city  contracts. 

With  reference  to  nondiscrimination  generally,  it  has 
simply  had  persuasive  authority,  but  publicity  is  a  strong  tool, 
and  while  the  agency  was  not  quite  in  a  position  to  argue  with 
everybody,  it  could  argue  with  a  few.  And  also  it  could,  Just 
by  calling  attention  to  a  situation,  be  persuasive.   For 
example,  it  discussed  matters  with  Wells  Fargo  Bank,  and  they 
became  really  the  first  banking  institution  in  the  city  to  have 
a  full  employment  policy  regarding  the  employment  of  minorities, 
and  that  led  other  competitors  to  do  the  same. 


317 


Hicke : 


One  of  the  Issues  that  came  before  us  was  bilingual 
education.  There  were  people  in  the  Chinese  and  Hispanic 
communities  who  insisted  that  the  only  fair  program,  considering 
new  immigrants  particularly,  was  to  have  bilingual  education 
from  the  kindergarten  through  twelfth  grade,  K-12.   I  recall 
that  the  board  of  education  was  engaged  in  establishing  a  policy 
that  was  sympathetic  to  this  point  of  view  and  was  going  to 
adopt  it  as  the  policy  of  the  city.  As  a  matter  of  routine,  it 
came  over  to  the  Human  Rights  Commission.   I  opposed  this 
concept.   I  felt  that  it  was  entirely  proper  that  the  school 
system  devote  a  number  of  years  to  children  to  equip  them  to  be 
competitive  with  other  children  so  that  by  the  time  they  were  in 
the  fourth  or  fifth  grade,  they  would  be  competing  in  English. 
But  I  felt  that  continuing  this  program  through  the  high  school 
would  simply  prolong  the  period  when  they  would  not  be 
competitive.   It  seemed  to  me  an  erroneous  procedure,  although 
well  motivated. 

The  board  of  education  nevertheless  adopted  three  huge 
volumes  of  programs  and  policies  supporting  the  idea  of  this 
continued  bilingual  education.   That  might  have  been  their 
political  answer,  but  it  has  never  been  implemented.   In  the 
first  place,  it  would  be  an  extremely  costly  program;  in  the 
second  place,  getting  teachers  to  be  competent  and  keep  up  the 
quality  of  education  would  be  a  very  difficult  matter. 

I  remember  that  when  I  was  president  of  the  State  Board  of 
Education,  I  met  with  James  Conant,  and  I  told  him,  not  with  the 
purpose  of  bilingual  education  but  with  the  purpose  of  improving 
foreign  language  education  in  the  United  States,  I  said, 
"Goodness,  with  all  of  the  people  who  come  from  foreign 
countries  and  of  course  are  fluent  in  their  own  languages,  why 
can't  these  people  be  used  on  a  special  project  basis  in  the 
public  schools?"  He  said,  "It  won't  work."   He  said  that 
because  a  person  is  fluent  in  his  language  does  not  make  him  a 
good  teacher,  does  not  give  him  the  background  or  the  basis  of 
teaching,  does  not  give  him  a  substantive  understanding  of  what 
the  subject  is.   He  said,  "It's  not  going  to  work,  beyond  the 
fact  that  none  of  the  teachers'  organizations  will  let  them  in 
and  that  it  would  be  a  political  hot  potato." 

But  he  was  approaching  it  from  the  theory  of  education 
viewpoint,  too.   I'm  not  so  sure  that  that's  the  entire  story. 


Heilbron:  Well,  I  hope  I  have  quoted  him  correctly,  but  I  do  know  that  he 
opposed  what  I  thought  was  possibly  a  good  idea. 


Hicke : 


I  would  agree  with  you. 


318 


Heilbron:   But  this  would  be  doubly  the  case  where  you  had  big  subject 
courses.  We  are  not  talking  about  language  teachers. 

Hicke:     Oh  yes,  you  would  have  to  teach  chemistry  and  history- - 

Heilbron:   You  are  talking  about  history  and  mathematics  and  everything 
else. 

Another  problem  that  was  beginning  to  manifest  itself  more 
and  more  and  which  I  think  later  on  took  over  a  good  deal  of  the 
tia*  of  the  Human  Rights  Commission  was  the  question  of 
discrimination  against  homosexuals.   I  remember  dealing  with  one 
of  the  utility  companies  that  had  an  absolute  prohibition 
against  employment  of  homosexuals .  We  worked  out  a  compromise 
arrangement  that  I  think  is  holding  to  this  day. 

Hicke:     Well,  if  they  had  an  absolute  prohibition,  they  must  have  given 
up  that  idea. 

Heilbron:  Well,  they  opened  it  up  to  homosexuals.   The  only  thing  that 

they  were  going  to  draw  the  line  on  was  exhibitionists:  people 
who  in  manner  dressed  in  drag  or  something  like  that  would  be  a 
disturbing  element  in  the  operation.   That  was  the  only  line 
that  they  preserved. 

Hicke:     So  you  effected  a  virtual  turn-around? 

Heilbron:   Certainly  there,  and  before  considerable  specific  legislation. 
Of  course,  with  legislation  and  with  the  .whole  situation 
developing  in  the  city  and  elsewhere,  the  pressures  are  a  great 
deal  different  now  to  do  the  work  of  the  Human  Rights 
Commission,  which  could  only  act  in  a  persuasive  capacity. 

Then  we  had  a  big  argument  over  the  International  Hotel, 
which  was  a  hotel  housing  elderly  Filipinos  on  Kearny  Street, 
Kearny  and  Pacific,  I  think.   In  any  event,  the  owners  wanted  to 
tear  down  the  hotel  and  throw  out  all  of  these  people,  evict 
them,  and  they  were  owners  outside  of  the  state.   We  did  all  we 
could  to  defer  the  permit  for  the  destruction.   It  worked  for  I 
guess  several  years,  but  finally  it  was  destroyed,  and  they  left 
that  hole  in  the  ground  for  years  and  years,  and  still  remains! 

Once  again  I  had  the  problem  of  chairing  a  committee  to 
select  a  new  director  in  the  field,  and  it  was  a  hard  choice. 
We  went  national  in  our  search,  but  it  wound  up  being  an  issue 
between  a  very  good  Hispanic  and  a  very  good  black  who  was 
already  in  the  city  government- -both  of  whom  were  already  in 
city  government.   The  Hispanic  was  an  acting  executive,  but  the 
black  was  most  impressive.  We  employed  him. 


319 


One  of  the  unhappy  parts  of  the  experience  was  to  find  out 
how  bitter  coapetition  is  between  these  minorities  for  any  job, 
particularly  for  an  executive  job.   The  person  we  employed 
lasted  for  thirteen  years  through  several  mayors ,  so  I  guess  we 
made  the  right  choice. 

Hicke:     Indeed. 

Heilbron:   And  I  think  this  is  about  the  story  I  would  tell  of  the  Human 
Rights  Comaission.   The  relationships  among  the  board  members 
were  quite  cordial,  supportive,  and  these  were  people  who  felt 
that  they  were,  in  a  way,  acting  out  part  of  their  mission  as 
theologians  as  well  as  the  moral  commitment. 

Hicke :     How  long  were  you  on  that? 

Heilbron:   About  six  years.   I  had  two  terms  of  three  years  each. 

Hicke:     Was  the  religious  diversity  deliberately  arranged  for,  as  well 
as  the  cultural  diversity? 

Heilbron:  Well,  you  had  Fine  and-- 

Hicke:     I  didn't  know  if  there  was  a  Catholic  and  a  Protestant  and  that 
kind  of  thing. 

Heilbron:  Sister  Giles  certainly  and  probably  the  Hispanics  were  Catholic. 

Hicke:  Oh,  yes.   That's  right. 

Heilbron:  And  Dean  Bartlett  and  the  others  were  Protestants. 

Hicke:  Well,  it  was  deliberately  arranged  for  that? 

Heilbron:   I  assume  so.   On  the  original  appointments  as  they  were 

organized,  the  mayor  undoubtedly  gave  it  careful  consideration. 

Hicke:     Do  you  have  any  idea  how  long  it  had  been  in  existence? 

Heilbron:   Not  too  long.   My  impression  is  that  it  was  organized  in  the 

sixties.   I  believe  Mr.  Becker  was  the  first  executive,  a  very 
able  person  who  went  to  some  higher  job,  and  he  brought  the 
staff  together,  which  was  a  varied  staff  of  minorities. 

Hicke:     Would  you  say  it  has  been  fairly  effective  overall? 

Heilbron:   In  the  specific  area  of  city  contracts,  yes.   The  scope  of  its 

persuasiveness,  I  don't  know.   During  the  militant  period  of  the 
homosexual  situation  after  the  assassination  of  the  mayor,  I 


320 


Hicke: 


don't  know.   It  operates  rather  quietly.   I  suppose  it  was 
designed  as  an  outlet  for  concerns  and  pressures,  and  it  is  a 
place  where  minorities  can  go  and  get  on  the  agenda  and  have 
their  say  and  bring  issues  to  the  attention  of  the  city.   It  may 
well  be  that  while  the  Human  Rights  Commission  cannot  address 
the  problems,  it  can  redirect  them  and  make  the  mayor  and  board 
of  supervisors  conscious  of  a  situation  for  them  to  deal  with. 
It  is  not  an  agency  that  gets  into  the  headlines  and  doesn't 
want  to,  so  I  would  find  it  difficult  to  evaluate.   I  think  that 
during  the  period  I  was  active  on  it,  it  had  the  respect  of 
minority  groups  and  was  considered  to  be  sincere  and  caring,  but 
its  jurisdiction  was  limited  and  its  influence  was  limited. 

That's  it. 
Thank  you. 


Golden  Gate  University;  Board  of  Trustees.  1969-oresent 


[Interview  13:  October  28,  1992 ]## 


Hicke:     I  thought  we  could  start  today  with  Golden  Gate  University.   Was 
it  the  board  of  trustees  you  were  on? 

Heilbron:   It  was  the  board  of  trustees  and  has  been  a  very  interesting 
experience. 

Hicke:     Could  you  start  by  telling  me  when  you  were  appointed  and  how 
that  came  about? 

Heilbron:   Well,  I  joined  the  board  in  1969,  not  long  after  I  completed  my 
services  with  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  state  colleges. 
Samuel  Stewart,  who  was  the  general  counsel  of  the  Bank  of 
America,  met  with  me  and  told  me  about  Golden  Gate  and  believed 
that  I  would  be  interested  and  satisfied  with  the  experience  of 
being  part  of  it.  After  a  luncheon  and  a  few  calls  and  a  little 
investigation,  I  agreed  to  serve  on  the  board  if  elected,  and  I 
was  elected,  so  I  began  my  services. 

Hicke:     What  was  it  about  it  that  appealed  to  you? 

Heilbron:   First  of  all,  I  had  not  been  engaged  in  a  program  with  a  private 
university,  and  second  it  was  in  San  Francisco,  and  it  meant 
that  I  didn't  have  to  move  back  and  forth  over  the  state  for 
trustee  meetings,  and  it  was  a  downtown  institution  in  San 


321 


Francisco,  chiefly.   So  these  were  attractive  elements.  Most  of 
all,  as  Stewart  pointed  out,  the  university  was  tied  to  the 
community  in  industry,  in  business,  and  in  law  so  that  one  could 
feel  that  he  was  doing  something  related  to  the  community  by 
participating  in  this  enterprise. 

As  I  indicated,  it  was  a  different  experience  from  an 
institution  of  nineteen  campuses  that  were  comprehensive  in 
nature,  though  they  stressed  the  liberal  arts  very  much  in  the 
traditional  sense. 

Hicke:     You  are  referring  to  the  state  college  system? 

Heilbron:   Yes.   Here  was  a  practical,  entrepreneurial  college  that  was 
chiefly  graduate  and  oriented  to  the  business  and  industrial 
needs  of  the  Bay  Area.   Currently,  I  believe  40  percent  of  the 
tuition  is  paid  by  corporations  interested  in  having  their 
personnel  move  upward  in  responsibility  with  the  additional 
knowledge  and  academic  experience  they  receive  through  this 
institution.   It  has  been  primarily- -still  is  primarily- -a 
graduate  professional  institution  with  three  areas  of  particular 
interest:  business,  public  administration,  and  law. 

Until  recently  the  prevailing  view  was  that  it  began  as  a 
law  school.   Only  a  law  school;  a  kind  of  part-time  law  school, 
commenced  by  the  YMCA  in  1901.   For  quite  some  time,  it  remained 
in  that  position,  but  it  slowly  expanded,  still  under  YMCA 
auspices,  into  the  economic  and  public  administration  fields. 
For  a  considerable  period  during  the  earlier  parts  of  the 
century,  it  was  a  slow  expansion.   It  was  known  as  the 
university  or  college  of  the  last  chance;  that  is,  people  who 
otherwise  didn't  have  the  funds  to  go  to  college,  who  were 
disadvantaged,  could  go  to  this  place  which,  after  all,  had  a 
charitable  foundation  through  the  YMCA,  and  become  a  lawyer, 
become  an  accountant  and  in  that  way  have  an  opportunity  they 
otherwise  would  not  get.   The  new  president,  Tom  Stauffer,  has 
traced  the  institution's  beginnings  back  to  1853  when  the  YMCA 
offered  a  lecture  series  and  essay  readings. 

Hicke:     Was  it  mostly  part-time? 

Heilbron:   It  was  night  and  part-time  and,  except  for  the  law  degree,  took 
some  time  to  have  [the  right  to  award]  any  degrees.   It  had  its 
main  quarters  for  a  long  period  on  Golden  Gate  Avenue  in  the 
YMCA  building  there.   It  broke  away  from  the  YMCA,  but  the 
arrangement  has  always  been  that  three  of  the  trustees  be 
nominated  by  that  institution.   I'm  not  certain  it  is  still  a 
requirement  in  the  by-laws,  but  it  is  honored,  and  some  of  the 
strongest  trustees  have  come  from  that  source. 


322 


Hicke:     How  are  the  others  nominated? 

Heilbron:   The  others  are  nominated  as  in  the  case  of  almost  any  other 
institution  with  self -perpetuating  trustees:  nominated  by  a 
board  committee,  reviewed  by  the  board,  and  then  appointed  by 
action  of  the  board,  as  are  the  YMCA  candidates  themselves. 

For  a  long  time ,  the  school  was  operated  under  directors , 
but  they  became  presidents  after  a  while.   The  stability  of  the 
institution  is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  since  1930  there  have 
only  been  three  presidents. 

Hicke:     That's  unusual. 

Heilbron:   Since  1930  there  was  Nagle  T.  Miner,  who  served  as  a  director 
previous  to  his  presidency.   Then  Russell  T.  Sharp,  who  served 
for- -I  know  one  twelve -year  stretch;  he  came  back  into  the 
institution  for  a  time.   I  don't  know  whether  the  twelve  years 
is  aggregate  or  not.   Most  recently,  Dr.  Otto  Butz,  who  retired 
after  twenty- two  years  of  service  this  July  1,  1992. 

I  would  say  that  during  the  period  of  these  last  two 
presidencies,  if  not  before,  the  slogan  of  "The  School  of  the 
Last  Chance"  has  been  abandoned  because  of  the  changes  that  had 
to  be  made  for  the  purposes  of  accreditation  and  because  tuition 
costs  have  mounted  to  enable  the  institution  to  continue.   The 
students  who  come  to  the  graduate  programs  are  not  students  who 
are  of  the  kind  that  were  admitted  in  the  first  years  of  the 
institution.   In  that  sense,  the  institution  has  changed,  I 
guess  as  all  American  universities  in  one  way  or  another  have 
changed.   After  all,  the  great  Ivy  League  institutions  began 
under  theological  auspices  and  they,  too,  have  had  marked 
changes  through  their  careers. 

I  might  say,  however,  that  Golden  Gate,  through  its  three 
presidents,  has  had  somewhat  the  same  experience  that  the  older 
institutions  in  the  country  had  during  the  nineteenth  century. 
They  were  developed  by  single  presidents  who  had  been  delegated 
considerable  amounts  of  authority  and  were  able,  pretty  freely, 
to  establish  the  program  of  their  institution. 

Hicke:     And  so  there  is  a  parallel  here? 

Heilbron:   There  is  a  parallel  in  that  apparently  it  takes  one  dominant 

personality  to  push  an  institution  into  prominence,  and  then  it 
takes  about  eleven  to  thirty- five  people  to  maintain  the 
operation  as  trustees  and  to  be  careful  about  their  appointment 
of  presidents,  and  the  career  of  the  modern  president  is 


323 


approximately  five  years.   So  it  has  shared  in  the  developing 
experiences  of  American  higher  education  institutions. 

[tape  interruption] 

Heilbron:   I  might  say  that  the  university  currently  has  an  enrollment  that 
makes  it,  in  numbers,  the  third  private  California  university  in 
the  state:  Stanford  [University],  USC  [the  University  of 
Southern  California],  and  Golden  Gate. 

Hicke:     Are  you  going  to  tell  me  what  the  differences  are  that  you  found 
between  the  private  university  and  the  public  system? 

Heilbron:  Yes.   I  think  I'll  get  to  that. 

The  board  has  consisted  mainly  of  representatives  of  the 
business  power  structure  of  the  Bay  Area.   Board  chairmen  have 
included  Samuel  Stewart,  as  I  mentioned,  and  he  also  became  the 
executive  vice  president  of  the  Bank  of  America;  Fred  Drexler, 
who  was  president  of  the  Industrial  Indemnity  Insurance  Company; 
Stanley  Skinner,  who  has  been  executive  vice  president  of  PG&E 
[Pacific  Gas  &  Electric  Company] ;  John  Neukom  came  from 
McKesson' s.   Somehow  I  got  in  there  between  1979  and  1981. 

I  mentioned  about  the  presidents,  and  the  history  of  the 
institution  has  been  and  is  being  written  by  the  presidents, 
with  respect  to  their  periods  of  office.   Nagle  Miner  has  given 
the  years  up  to  his  departure  from  the  presidency,  and  Russell 
Sharp  has  completed  and  published  his  book,  and  now  Otto  Butz  is 
beginning  on  his  book  covering  his  period  of  presidency. 

Hicke:     Is  he  still  the  president? 

Heilbron:   No,  he  retired  as  of  July  1,  1992,  so  he  is  just  beginning.   I 
mention  this  because  I  don't  want  to  repeat  a  lot  of  material 
that  will  be  available  to  anybody  through  these  books.   They  are 
written  in  some  detail,  and  considerable  effort  was  made  to  make 
them  accurate  with  reference  to  what  occurred,  when  it  occurred, 
why  it  occurred.   But  of  course  these  books  are  likely  to  be  a 
good  and  favorable  record  of  the  institution  from  the  executive 
point  of  view  and  not  too  likely  to  be  critical  of  any  of  the 
leadership  that's  writing  the  books.   But  they  will  be  pretty 
objective  nevertheless.   So  my  comments  should  be  from  the 
viewpoint  of  the  trustee  engaged  with  policy  and  will  not  be  too 
involved  with  the  administrative  detail. 

Hicke:     It's  good  to  have  that  in  the  record,  though:  the  fact  that 
there  are  these  books  that  can  be  referred  to. 


324 

Heilbron:   Yes,  that's  why  I  mentioned  it.   Because  if  people  are 
interested,  this  will  be  called  to  their  attention. 

I  told  you  that  there  was  the  attraction  of  the  board  as 
being  a  local  body  within  the  city.   It  met  approximately  ten 
times  a  year  for  one-and-a-half  hour  noontime  sessions  on  the 
last  Friday  of  each  month.   The  board  was  able  to  handle  its 
business  with  expedition,  due  primarily  to  two  conditions:  first 
most  of  the  detail  and  policy  were  developed  between  sessions  by 
the  executive  committee  of  the  board,  consisting  of  the  chairmen 
of  its  standing  committees,  and  the  other  committees. 

Hicke:     Were  you  an  officer  of  this  board? 
Heilbron:   Well,  I  was  chairman  in  1979- '81. 

As  I  indicated,  the  bulk  of  the  administrative  decision- 
making,  spilling  over  into  policy,  was  delegated  to  the 
presidents  in  more  or  less  the  nineteenth  and  early-twentieth 
century  tradition.   Let's  compare  it  a  little  bit  to  the  [Robert 
Gordon]  Sproul  era  [at  the  University  of  California] .   Of 
course,  that  was  well  into  this  century. 

Now,  in  a  book  I  wrote  about  college  and  university 
trustees  in  1973,  I  wrote  that  I  had  admired  this  one-and-a-half 
hour  efficient  board  meeting  program,  always  ending  at  1:30  p.m. 
after  a  working  business  luncheon.   One  of  the  chairmen,  Harry 
Lange,  used  to  proudly  say,  "...and  we've  concluded  at  1:29!" 
[laughter]   I  commented  favorably  on  the  procedure,  but  soon 
after  publication,  as  enrollments,  curriculum,  financial 
considerations  became  more  complex,  I  realized  that  the  board 
was  not  engaged  as  much  as  it  should  be  in  the  program  of  the 
university.   Its  hold  on  finances  continued  to  be  effective  and 
always  has  been,  though  the  institution  is  tuition  driven  (about 
85  percent  of  the  operational  expense  is  derived  from  tuition) . 

Hicke:     And  the  rest  comes  from  the  YMCA  foundation? 

Heilbron:   No,  the  rest  comes  from  income  derived  from  a  small  endowment 
and  from  contributions  through  estates  and  by  individuals. 

The  expertise  and  interests  of  the  board  were  almost 
entirely  business,  and  the  board's  relationships  to  faculty,  to 
planning,  and  to  development  were  limited.   In  the  past  two 
years,  the  situation  has  changed  materially.   Board  meetings  do 
not  adjourn  within  an  hour  and  a  half  after  lunch,  and 
committees  have  revived  with  their  activities  in  some  depth. 

Hicke:     I  would  say  that  is  more  important  than  adjourning  at  1:29. 


325 


Heilbron:  Of  course.  As  I  pointed  out,  it  was  because  the  committee 

structure  was  rather  strong,  with  an  executive  committee  meeting 
rather  frequently,  that  made  it  possible  for  these  shorter 
meetings.   But  the  board  has  thirty-five  people,  the  attendance 
is  quite  good,  and  they  enjoy  the  meetings  and  that's  why  the 
attendance  is  quite  good,  but  as  I  will  detail  a  little  bit 
later  when  the  accreditation  problems  come  up,  the  board  needed 
to  be  more  active  and  involved  in  the  whole  university  program. 

Now,  Russell  Sharp,  the  second  president,  was  a  graduate  of 
Harvard  [University] ,  a  literary  man,  and  improved  the  area  of 
the  general  subject  matter,  although  he  did  not  change  the 
emphasis  of  the  school.  He  had  good  wit  and  humor,  was  a  very 
attractive  speaker,  and  he  kept  the  college  running  effectively 
during  a  period  of  gradual  expansion. 

Hicke:     He  was  a  good  administrator? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  he  was  a  good  administrator.   He  was  particularly 

interested  in,  outside  of  the  university,  the  accreditation 
field.   He  was  the  chairman  of  the  Western  Association  of 
Schools  and  Colleges,  and  during  his  period,  we  stood  very  high 
with  the  accrediting  agency.   But  this  changed  a  little  bit 
later. 

Dr.  Butz  was  a  Princeton  [University]  graduate.   He  had 
been  vice  president  of  Sacramento  State  College  and  had  served 
at  San  Francisco  State,  and  he  was  the  embodiment  of  the 
entrepreneurial  spirit.   He  didn't  like  the  bureaucracy  of  the 
academy,  although  he  was  dedicated  to  the  principles  of  the 
academy.   By  that  1  mean  that  he  had  the  greatest  respect  for 
academic  life,  for  the  challenges  of  economic  and  political 
theory,  but  he  didn't  care  too  much  about  the  traditional 
administrative  set-up  of  the  institutions,  of  higher  education 
institutions.   Thus,  he  didn't  maintain  very  good  relationships 
with  the  accrediting  agency. 

Hicke:     Did  he  maintain  the  academic  standards  of  the  school? 

Heilbron:   Oh,  yes.   I'll  get  into  that.   He  sensed  the  flexibility  of  a 

private  university.   If  he  felt  there  was  a  need  for  instruction 
in  transportation  in  the  Bay  Area,  he  authorized  courses  to  meet 
the  need  and  graduate  degrees  to  be  given  in  this  specialty. 
Thus  any  number  of  MBAs  [Master  of  Business  Administration 
degrees]  became  subdivided  into  specific  areas.   Deans  were 
encouraged  to  identify  and  develop  programs  to  meet  the 
interests  of  local  industry,  and  he  was  very  successful  in  this. 
But  the  idea  of  giving  an  MBA,  let's  say  in  transportation 


326 


because  of  some  short  concentration  in  that  degree,  didn't  sit 
well  with  the  traditional  accreditors. 

Hicke:     Did  this  have  to  do  with  fund  raising,  too? 

Heilbron:  Well,  it  had  to  do  with  attracting  students  to  the  institution, 
particularly  those  who  would  be  paid  for  by  the  interested 
corporations.   It  was  good  marketing.  Actually,  if  you  simply 
removed  the  particular  degree  and  just  called  it  an  MBA,  you 
were  doing  no  harm  to  anybody,  but  giving  the  MBA  as  though  you 
had  done  careful  concentrated  research  in  this  particular  area 
of  business  or  industry  in  a  way  was  not  as  precise  and  correct 
as  it  should  be.   Most  of  your  courses  were  general  management 
courses,  not  necessarily  in  transportation,  not  necessarily  in 
telecommunications,  and  so  on.   Now  this  has  been-- 

a 

Hicke:     You  Just  started  to  say  this  has  been  corrected? 

Heilbron:   The  degrees  have  been  considerably  reduced  in  the  past  few  years 
so  that  the  problem  raised  by  this  issue  is  well  on  its  way  to 
solution.   But  it  illustrates  that  an  imaginative  approach  to 
marketing  increases  student  body  enrollment.   One  course  in 
transportation  an  expert  in  transportation  does  not  make.   It 
may  have  been  two  courses,  but  the  standard  of  instruction  was 
not  depreciated. 

Take  another  area.   Dr.  Butz  noted  that  there  was  a  great 
military  buildup  in  camps  established  throughout  the  country  and 
these  presented  another  opportunity.   The  army  was  emphasizing 
the  idea  that  its  soldiers  should  learn  a  civilian  job  or 
specialty  while  learning  the  skills  of  defense  and  soldiery,  and 
he  entered  into  agreements  with  army  commanders  at  the  various 
posts,  and  some  navy  and  air  force  installations,  establishing 
degree  programs  in  camps  and  forts  throughout  the  country. 

Hicke:     Good  for  him. 

Heilbron:  A  great  many  veterans  got  a  head  start  in  civilian  life  through 
this  program,  and  I'll  talk  more  about  this  a  little  later.   The 
college  turned  into  a  university  in  the  seventies,  I  think, 
following  the  lead  of  many  of  our  public  institutions.   I  think 
I  commented  on  this  development  when  I  dealt  with  the  state 
colleges  and  I'll  not  repeat  those  statements.   Somewhere  I 
learned  that  if  you  had  three  graduate  schools,  I  believe,  you 
were  entitled  to  identify  the  institution  as  a  university.   Be 
that  as  it  may,  Golden  Gate  did  have  business,  public 
administration,  and  law. 


327 


The  university  has  an  undergraduate  division,  but  its 
thrust,  day  and  night,  Is  In  Its  graduate  programs. 

Hicke:     Perhaps  you  are  going  to  get  to  this  later,  too,  but  I  know  that 
it  attracts  many  distinguished  people  who  teach  part- tine. 

Heilbron:  That  Is  correct.   The  practical,  the  real-life  issues,  are 
emphasized,  rather  than  the  theoretical,  in  its  curriculum. 
This  decision  partly  derives  from  the  university's  origins  and 
partly  from  the  extensive  use  of  adjunct  faculty.   I  think 
that's  what  you  were  referring  to.   They  get  very  many 
distinguished  people  in  their  part-time  faculty.   Some  700 
practitioners  constitute  the  academic  pool  for  much  of  the 
teaching,  although  I  suppose  no  more  than  half  of  them  are 
teaching  in  any  one  semester. 

It  is  estimated,  nevertheless,  that  full-time  instruction 
staff  teach  half  of  the  courses,  except  in  the  law  school,  which 
is  practically  entirely  full-time,  that  is,  its  professors.   The 
question  of  the  resulting  education  quality  is  met  head-on  by 
the  Golden  Gate  community.   What  better  instruction  can  you  have 
if  your  teacher  is  an  interested  CEO  setting  forth  the  problems, 
the  issues,  the  solutions,  the  failures  of  his  experience  when 
dealing  with  the  substantive  matters  of  the  subject?  How  does 
that  instruction  compare  with  the  professor's  lecture  at  a 
traditional  university  followed  by  discussion  sections  led  by 
graduate  students?  Of  course,  every  adjunct  teacher  is  not  an 
established  CEO  past  or  present,  but  he's  had  considerable  field 
experience  as  well  as  some  teaching  background.   The  institution 
is  carried  by  its  adjunct  faculty.   Take  that  away  and  you 
wouldn't  have  the  kind  of  institution  it  is. 

Hicke:     I've  heard  the  question  debated  as  to  whether  the  art  of 

teaching  is  more  important  or  whether  the  science  of  knowing 
what  you  are  teaching.   Perhaps  that  depends  on  who  and  what  age 
you  are  teaching. 

Heilbron:  Well,  it  brings  up  the  old  question  of  methodology  as  against 
substance.   I  have  always  felt  that  in  the  usual  situation  the 
man  who  knows  his  subject  makes  it  interesting  and  the  man  who 
does  not  know  it  might  make  it  interesting  through  superficial 
expression  of  his  talents.   But  I  think  there  is  definitely  a 
place  for  both.   I  think  that  a  man  must  know  his  subject  in 
order  to  be  an  effective  teacher,  but  there  are  creative  methods 
of  teaching,  and  some  people  who  do  know  their  subject 
nevertheless  are  not  very  able  to  be  interesting,  to  arouse 
interest,  to  appeal  to  students.   So  I  am  not  against  some 
methods  of  teaching.   In  fact,  I  felt  in  many  cases  that  while 
elementary  and  secondary  teachers  probably  get  an  overdose  of 


328 


method  in  their  training,  university  teachers  practically  get 
none  and  many  see  no  commitment  or  obligation  to  be  interesting 
to  their  students.   [laughter]   I  felt  a  little  introductory 
course  or  two  with  respect  to  how  to  shape  a  lecture  might  not 
be  amiss,  even  among  those  who  know  their  subjects. 

Maybe  I  should  talk  about  some  interesting  problems  that 
have  come  along  the  way.   The  law  school,  for  a  good  period  of 
time,  was  engaged  in  public  interest  law  as  against  traditional 
subjects—well,  not  so  much  against  traditional  subject  matter 
as  interesting  students  to  participate  in  public  interest  law 
after  they  graduated.   For  quite  some  time  during  that  period  of 
expansion,  when  civil  liberties  were  most  attractive  to 
students  — 

Hicke:     The  sixties? 

Heilbron:   --the  sixties—they  attracted  considerable  enrollment  because  of 
that  emphasis. 

Hicke:     Would  you  say  they  differed  from  other  law  schools  perhaps  a  bit 
in  that  emphasis? 

Heilbron:   Only  perhaps  in  giving  courses  and  stressing  courses  in  the 
area.   Real  estate  law  is  real  estate  law,  whether  you  are 
negotiating  a  lease  for  a  millionaire  or  trying  to  get  a  rental 
for  a  disadvantaged  person,  and  the  essential  courses  that  make 
up  a  law-school  curriculum  as  a  professional  curriculum  are 
pretty  much  the  same  no  matter.   It  just  is  in  some  cases  you 
would  give  one  or  two  more  courses  in  antidiscrimination  fields 
and  the  labor  area  than  other  institutions  do. 

Now  it  is  quite  a  traditional  school.   It  has  visiting 
professors  who  are  outstanding  in  their  field.   The  ABA 
[American  Bar  Association]  thought  perhaps  we  had  too  many 
visiting  professors,  which  cuts  down  on  the  need  to  have  tenured 
professors,  but  that  is  a  balance  that  has  been  worked  out. 

The  school  ran  into  financial  difficulties  about  five  years 
ago  or  more.   In  other  words,  its  tuition  didn't  carry  its 
operations,  and  it  was  a  fairly  serious  deficit.   So  the  board 
had  to  decide  whether  to  take  from  the  net  earnings  of  the  other 
parts  of  the  university  and  support  the  school  with  a  plan  for 
gradually  expanding  enrollments  and  making  it  self-sufficient. 
I  believe  we  did  that  to  the  extent  of  $5  million.   Before  the 
end  of  the  period— it  was  a  five-year  period  and  I  don't  know 
whether  the  figure  is  correct  here,  but  I  know  we  guaranteed  the 
deficiency  for  a  five-year  period — the  school  righted  itself, 


329 


and  within  four  years  was  making  ends  meet  and  within  five  years 
was  developing  net  earnings.   And  still  does. 

Hicke:     By  raising  tuition? 

Heilbron:   Well,  its  tuition  has  always  been  competitive  with  other  law 

schools,  that  is  USF  [University  of  San  Francisco],  Santa  Clara 
[University],  McGeorge  [Law  School],  and  it  simply  put  more 
energy  into  its  program  and  interested  more  students.   It  always 
had  more  applicants  than  it  admitted;  it  always  had  that.   But 
you  have  to  have  a  certain  quality  to  a  law  school  to  have  it 
endure,  because  if  you  admit  everybody  and  carry  everybody  and 
everybody  flunks  the  bar  examination  or  almost,  you  are  not 
going  to  have  a  law  school  for  very  long. 

Hicke:     No,  you  will  be  out  of  business. 

Heilbron:   What  the  law  school  finally  hit  upon  was  to  be  liberal  in  its 
admissions  but  very  strict  on  its  retention  after  the  first 
year.   In  other  words,  give  opportunity,  but  close  it  down  if 
there  isn't  obvious  potential.   They've  followed  that  pretty 
well  although  now,  within  the  last  few  years,  they  have  been 
able,  with  their  enrollment  applications,  to  maintain  fairly 
high  quality  in  their  first-year  students  as  well  as  in  the  rest 
of  the  school.   They  don't  have  this  curtailment  at  the  end  of 
the  first  year,  and  the  law  school  is  doing  quite  well.   As  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  has  cut  down  on  the  total  number  of  students 
it  will  accept  for  the  entire  law  school.   That  gets  reflected 
in  the  costs  of  operating  the  school,  the  more  students  you 
have.   In  order  to  be  more  certain  of  its  viability,  they  cut 
down  on  the  total  number  in  the  school  at  any  one  time . 

The  ABA  has  taken  an  interest;  it's  an  accredited  school. 
But  after  the  financial  issue  developed,  the  ABA  said  that  all 
net  earnings  from  the  law  school  must  be  put  into  its  own 
account  and  used  only  for  purposes  of  the  law  school.   If  there 
is  a  surplus,  that  surplus  simply  gets  added  to  it,  with  the 
idea  that  if  the  time  of  depression  occurs  again,  as  it  did  five 
to  eight  years  ago,  there  will  be  a  cushion  to  see  the  school 
through.   And  this  prevents  the  rest  of  the  university,  no 
matter  what  its  financial  condition,  from  utilizing  the  monies 
developed  by  the  law  school. 

Hicke:     Is  this  the  ABA  acting  as  an  accrediting-*? 

Heilbron:   It  is  the  ABA  acting  as  an  accrediting  body  and  making  it  a 

condition.  Of  course,  the  reverse  answer  of  the  board  to  begin 
with  was,  "Look,  there  is  a  law  school  because  we  bailed  it  out. 
We  used  the  other  people's  money  in  order  to  do  it.   Now,  if  we 


330 


Hicke: 


Hellbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


meet  a  problem  in  the  business  school,  you  say  that  the 
university  can't  take  funds  from  another  part  of  the  university 
which  at  that  time  is  having  substantial  success?"  Veil,  that's 
what  happens  when  you  have  a  professional  school  attached  to  a 
general  university.   Both  the  AMA  [American  Medical  Association] 
and  the  ABA  are  similar  in  this  respect.  They  like  the  idea  of 
being  attached  to  a  university  so  that  there  is  the  prestige  in 
the  co«mmity--it's  the  Stanford  Medical  School,  the  UC  Medical 
School,  or  similarly  the  law  schools—but  they  want  the 
professional  schools  to  be  as  independent  as  possible. 

And  what  do  they  do?  They  withhold  the  accredit? 

They  can  put  you  on  probation  until  you  implement  the 
requirements . 

Whatever  requirements  they  decide  to  make? 

Well,  the  requirements  are  specifically,  usually,  for  the 
curriculum  of  the  law  school,  the  compensation  of  the 
professors,  the  adequacy  of  library  and  the  usual  elements  of 
accreditation. 


I  guess 
power . 


I  didn't  realize  that  the  accrediting  body  had  such 


Accrediting  bodies  have  a  great  deal  of  power,  and  some  suspect 
that  maybe  there  is  some  abuse  of  power.  The  critics  of  the 
American  Bar  Association's  position  indicate  that  they  are  the 
most  effective  union  for  professors,  law  school  professors,  that 
could  possibly  be  imagined,  because  if  you  don't  pay  your  law 
school  professors  a  certain  amount,  they  can't  be  that  good, 
they  can't  be  that  effective.   I  believe  that  we  almost  had  to 
double  the  salaries  of  the  same  professors  in  order  to  maintain 
the  ABA  accreditation.   Now,  it  may  be  that  some  of  these 
professors  were  doing  outside  practice  to  an  extent  not 
permitted  by  ABA  regulations  when  applied  to  law  school 
teaching,  but  not  too  much  of  that  was  taking  place. 

I  have  been  on  both  sides  of  this  problem.  Naturally,  we 
want  the  best  possible  law  school  and  so  we  have  to  pay 
competitive  prices  for  our  professors ,  but  when  I  was  on  the 
COPA  board,  I  always  felt  that  the  ABA  was  perhaps  going  too  far 
in  cutting  the  law  school  off  from  the  university,  making  it  an 
independent  body  except  for  the  minimal  purposes.   It  is  still 
an  interesting  relationship. 

The  ABA  does  not  oppose  the  idea  that  there  should  be  a 
relationship  between  the  law  school  and  the  university;  in  fact, 


331 


Hicke : 


I  think  we  don't  have  enough  of  it  in  Golden  Gate  and  probably 
in  many  other  universities.   By  that  I  mean  I  think  that  some 
courses  in  introductory  political  science  concerning  the 
Constitution  probably  should  be  given  by  the  law  school 
professors  in  the  undergraduate  field,  and  there  should  be  more 
of  a  free  flow  of  academic  relationships  between  the  law  school 
and  the  rest  of  the  university.   I  think  that  the  model  of  such 
a  relationship  was  symbolized  by  Justice  [Roger]  Traynor,  the 
chief  Justice  of  the  California  Supreme  Court  who  got  his  Ph.D. 
in  political  science  and  his  J.D.  in  law  in  the  same  year. 

Another  area  of  interest  has  been  the  public  administration 
side.  When  I  first  came  into  the  Golden  Gate  program,  there 
were  a  number  of  police  officers  and  people  from  the  civil 
service  departments  in  the  city  taking  courses  that  would 
upgrade  them  in  knowledge  and  effectiveness.   That  area  of 
public  administration  fell  off  for  a  while;  I  understand  it  has 
revived.   To  me,  there  should  be  great  possibilities  in  public 
administration. 

You  mean  for  the  school,  for  the  university? 


Heilbron:   For  the  university.   Here  we  are,  in  a  presidential  election, 

arguing  about  how  costs  should  be  reduced  in  government,  and  in 
every  segment  of  our  governmental  operations- -city,  state,  and 
federal- -they  say  there  are  too  many  bureaucrats.   Are  there? 
Just  what  can  be  done  with  respect  to  streamlining  the 
government?  Without  making  any  kind  of  a  judgment  on  it,  it  may 
be  that  research  has  developed  what  should  be  done  all  over  the 
country  through  the  universities.   That  is  simply  not  paid 
attention  to  by  government  itself.   It  may  be  that  government  is 
not  as  bloated  as  it  is  reported  to  be.   It  may  be  that  some 
parts  of  government  are  bloated  and  other  parts  are  terribly 
under -represented.   It  just  seems  to  me  that  the  universities 
should  have  a  partnership  here  with  government  that  would  be 
beneficial  to  both.   It  is  a  problem  that  has  arisen,  and  I  hope 
that  is  the  direction  that  we'll  take. 

I  know  that  when  I  was  on  the  state  university  board,  at  a 
very  early  stage  when  they  were  still  colleges,  the  board  said 
that  Sacramento  State  [College]  should  be  the  place  where  the 
programs  of  public  administration  should  be  developed.   It 
should  be  in  somewhat  the  same  position  as  [the  University  of 
California  at]  Davis  is  with  respect  to  agriculture  in  the 
graduate  field.  And  now  it  is,  but  it  took- -I  don't  know  how 
long. 

Hicke:     They  now  have  that  Center  for  California  Studies,  but  that's 
fairly  recent,  maybe  five,  six,  seven  years  ago? 


332 


Heilbron:   That's  right. 

Hicke:     And  that's  what  you  are  referring  to? 

Heilbron:   That's  what  I'm  referring  to.   Let  me  see.   I  would  say  that  it 
certainly  took  from  twenty-  five  to  thirty  years  to  have  it 
occur,  and  it  wasn't  due  to  anything  that  I  did  or  the  board 
did.   It  finally  developed  within  the  institution  that  that's 
what  they  should  do. 

Hicke:     Lat  me  just  ask  a  question  here.   I've  talked  to  people  in 

Sacramento  who  have  tried  to  set  up  relationships  between  the 
University  of  California,  say,  and  state  legislators  or  staff  of 
the  legislators,  and  there  seems  to  be  a  certain  amount  of 
suspicion  or  distrust  between  the  two. 

Heilbron:   Well,  I  don't  know  the  story  with  the  University  of  California 
and  I  don't  really  know  the  present  situation  with  Sacramento 
State  [University],  as  there  may  be  that  suspicion,  too.   There 
is  always  suspicion  when  government  enters  into  a  partnership 
with  private  industry  or  the  education  field,  because  the 
question  is,  who  is  trying  to  influence  whom?  Is  the  university 
trying  to  get  its  position  and  ideas  across  to  the  bureaucracy, 
or  is  the  bureaucracy  trying  to  utilize  the  instrument  of  the 
university  to  promote  its  own  interests?  Similarly  with 
business;  is  it  going  to  make  the  academic  more  material  in 
attitude  to  the  detriment  of  creative  scholarship? 

So  these  partnerships  are  always  rather  difficult,  but  that 
doesn't  mean  that  they  shouldn't  be  encouraged  and  made  to  work 
if  they  can  be,  because  each  has  a  lot  to  offer  the  other. 


Heilbron:   We'll  go  to  another  problem,  that  is,  research. 

Any  university  worth  its  salt  is  supposed  to  have  a 
research  program  that  will  keep  its  curriculum  up  to  current 
needs.   If  you  have  a  small,  full-time  faculty  and  they  have  a 
teaching  load  of  twelve  units  for  the  week,  and  they  must  in 
addition  attend  to  counseling,  and  they  must  participate  in 
faculty  governance,  there  isn't  a  great  deal  of  time  left  for 
research.   However,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  really  interested 
teacher  who  wants  to  keep  up  with  his  field  is  able  to  do 
research  and  publish.   And  I  don't  mean  overpublish.   But  even  a 
teaching  institution  requires  or  needs  faculty  who  keep  up  with 
their  subjects  through  essential  research.   This  has  been 
something  of  a  problem  at  Golden  Gate,  as  it  has  been  in  the 
California  State  University  system. 


333 


Hicke:     So  would  the  board  discuss  the  requirements  for  research? 

Heilbron:   Yes,  the  board  has  discussed  and  has  encouraged  the  effort  to 

obtain  grants  for  particular  research  projects  and  also  has  been 
willing  to  authorize  release  tine  for  a  full-time  faculty  member 
who  engages  in  research.   It's  not  an  insoluble  problem,  but  it 
is  one  that  exists . 

I  mentioned  that  perhaps  Golden  Gate  has  had  too  many 
degrees,  and  these  are  being  reduced,  have  been  greatly  reduced 
already.   It's  all  right  to  have  your  MBA,  for  example,  showing 
a  concentration  in  a  subject,  but  nevertheless  it  should  be  an 
MBA.   There  is  some  effort  to  say,  "Veil,  why  should  an 
institution  of  this  kind  be  solely  a  degree  institution?  Maybe 
industry  is  interested  to  have  the  people  learn  those  things 
that  apply  to  their  particular  industry.   Maybe  they  are 
interested  in  the  management  aspects  of  telecommunications  and 
not  much  else."  This  particularly  is  a  problem  with  respect  to 
undergraduate  programs.   Corporate  institutions  do  not  wish  to 
pay  for  general  education. 

Hicke:     No  art  history? 

Heilbron:   They'll  pay  for  what  they  believe  assists  them.   However,  I  do 
hope  that  there  isn't  fractionalizing  of  the  university  through 
Just  spotty  concentrations  to  assist  individual  companies.   It 
may,  however,  be  part  of  the  wave  of  the  future,  as  companies 
cut  down  on  their  participation  and  the  amount  of  tuition 
they'll  pay. 

Hicke:     So  maybe  some  specialized  center  or  small  schools -- 

Heilbron:   Veil,  what  we  are  talking  about  is  simply  non-degree  students, 
that's  all  we  are  talking  about.   That  kind  of  an  operation 
makes  it  difficult  to  estimate  enrollments,  difficult  to  predict 
financial  needs  and  requirements,  difficult  to  know  what  space 
needs  there  are. 

Golden  Gate  University  first  moved  into  a  warehouse  during 
Dr.  Sharp's  time,  which  became  remodeled  into  the  university 
building.  Then  its  main  campus  building  on  Mission  Street  was 
built  during  Dr.  Butz's  time,  a  very  fine  building.   Alan  Temko, 
who  does  not  usually  praise  architecture  in  this  community, 
considered  it  one  of  the  best  adaptations  of  land  building  use 
in  town.   One  of  the  current  problems  is  that  the  earthquake  in 
1989  did  severe  damage  to  the  old  warehouse  building,  and  it  is 
costing  us  a  great  amount  of  money  to  restore  and  earthquake- 
proof  that  building. 


334 


With  over  40,000  alumni,  It  Is  hoped  that  the  endowments 
will  greatly  improve.   They  are  now  getting  older,  more 
successful,  more  affluent  and  should  support  the  institution. 
They  do,  to  some  considerable  extent,  but  this  commuter  school 
doe*  not  have  the  traditions  of  the  homecoming  queen  and  the 
football  victories  and  the  dormitory  life  and  the  tree- lined 
paths  that  the  traditional  institution  has.   The  nostalgia  for 
night  school  [laughter]  is  not  likely  to  develop.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  people  who  can  point  back  to  their  service  and 
their  student  days  at  Golden  Gate  and  who  feel  a  great 
obligation  to  the  kind  of  instruction  they've  had.   George 
Christopher,  who  was  mayor,  had  that  feeling  and  is  most 
supportive  of  the  university,  and  Dick  Rosenberg,  who  is 
president  of  the  Bank  of  America- - 

[tape  interruption] 

Hicke:     --Dick  Rosenberg,  you  were  saying,  is-- 
Heilbron:   --is  a  very  loyal  supporter. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  developments  is  the 
establishment  of  branch  campuses  throughout  the  state,  1  think 
even  outside  as  far  as  Seattle.   These  do  not  give  the  full 
complement  of  courses  that  the  San  Francisco  campus  does  but 
meet  the  needs  of  the  particular  area  and  are  established  in 
places  that  the  great  universities  of  the  state  don't  reach,  nor 
the  state  university  system.   I'm  talking  about  Monterey  and 
Contra  Costa  and  San  Jose,  although  that's  alongside  San  Jose 
State.   But  even  where  it's  alongside  or  near  an  established 
university,  it  concentrates  in  an  area  that  that  university,  at 
least  at  this  time,  does  not  cover,  or  fully  cover. 

With  the  budgetary  crisis  and  the  cutting  down  of  classes, 
students  increasingly  turn  to  places  where  they  can  get  the 
classes  they  want  when  they  want  them.   One  of  the  great 
advantages  of  an  institution  like  Golden  Gate  is  that  its 
classes  are  small,  and  if  you  have  a  class  of  fifteen  or  twenty 
in  a  course  that  you  want  at  a  time  you  can  get  it,  if  you  can 
afford  it  or  get  somebody  else  to  pay  the  tuition,  you  are 
perfectly  happy.   That  seems  to  be  the  source  of  enrollment  at 
this  time. 


Hicke : 


Do  you  have  a  scholarship  program  that  helps  out  with  tuition? 


Heilbron:   Well,  of  course  we  engage  with  the  federal  and  state  scholarship 
programs ,  and  we  have  individual  scholarships  granted  by 
institutions,  by  individuals,  and  are  constantly  promoting 
scholarships  because  a  scholarship  is  part  of  a  tuition- driven 


335 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


institution,  whoever  pays  for  it- -the  student,  the  parent,  the 
donator . 

Most  of  the  problems  that  I  have  been  talking  about,  and 
others,  have  developed  as  a  result  of  recent  accreditation 
experiences  with  the  western  association. 

Beginning  in  1986,  WASC  had  warned  the  university  of 
certain  deficiencies,  as  they  saw  them,  in  the  operation  of  the 
institution.   The  faculty  did  not  have  a  basic  responsibility 
for  the  institution,  as  they  saw  it.   The  board  was  not 
sufficiently  involved  in  the  operations  of  the  university; 
faculty  research  was  not  sufficiently  supported;  the  institution 
was  what  they  called  "market-driven";  the  university  required 
development  from  outside  sources  to  lessen  its  tuition 
dependency;  there  should  be  more  full-time  faculty,  particularly 
with  respect  to  supervising  the  branch  campuses,  that  is,  more 
resident  faculty  at  the  branches  to  assure  academic  quality; 
they  didn't  believe  that  the  adjunct  faculty  was  sufficiently 
tied  into  the  life  of  the  university;  they  thought  that  there 
wasn't  the  kind  of  review  of  the  president  each  year  that  there 
should  be. 

This  started  not  all  at  once,  all  of  these  items  at  once, 
but  developed  over  a  period  of  five  years,  1986  to  1991.   In  '91 
the  tone  of  the  review  by  the  accrediting  agency  was  hostile  and 
I  didn't  think  consistent  with  the  objectives  of  accreditation. 

Are  they  supposed  to  be  helpful? 

They  are  supposed  to  be  constructively  helpful,  and  it  may  be 
that  they  didn't  feel  that  sufficient--.   Well,  things  had  been 
changing  in  accordance  with  warnings  previously  issued,  but  not 
fast  enough  to  satisfy  them.   And  there  were  certain  elements  of 
the  faculty  who  were  not  happy  with  the  way  things  were  going, 
and  the  inspection  more  or  less  tied  in  with  one  element  of  the 
faculty.   The  president  permitted  a  self-study  to  be  made  by  the 
faculty  without  any  real  supervision,  and  so  all  of  the 
complaints  mounted  up  into  quite  an  unflattering 
characterization.   The  result  was  that  the  institution  was  put 
on  probation. 

What  year  was  this? 

This  was  '91.   Dr.  Butz  resigned,  but  he  had  advised  previously 
that  he  had  only  stayed  to  eliminate  the  problems  with  respect 
to  accreditation.   But  since  it  was  going  to  be  quite  some  time 
before  these  things  could  all  be  attended  to,  he  thought  he  had 
just  as  well  discontinue.   Indeed,  he  said  he  had  planned  to  do 


336 

it  previously.   Some  people  questioned  that,  but  nevertheless 
that's  what  occurred,  and  we  have  a  new  president  by  the  name  of 
Stauffer,  Tom  Stauffer,  who  has  had  a  great  deal  of  experience 
with  accreditation.  He  came  from  one  of  the  Houston 
universities.  He  had  developed  strong  liaison  with  the  space 
industry  in  Houston.   He  had  been  the  head  of  the  Association  of 
American  Colleges  and  Universities,  a  well-known  educator 
throughout  the  country.   He  has  been  organizing  a  complete 
attack  on  problems  which  the  accrediting  agency  has  raised. 

Now,  some  of  these  problems  were  perfectly  legitimate 
issues.   The  objection  could  have  been  more  to  the  tone,  to  the 
way  that  they  were  presented  than  whether  they  were  legitimate 
questions.   So  the  situation  at  present  appears  to  be  quite 
under  control  after  all.   USF  has  been  put  on  probation;  the 
University  of  the  Pacific  is  also  on  probation.   These  things 
occur  while  an  accrediting  agency  flexes  its  muscles;  so  there 
is  nothing  really  threatening  that  I  see  in  the  situation. 

But  there  is  a  fundamental  problem  for  both  the  accrediting 
agency  and  the  university  that  has  to  be  resolved.   They  have 
standards  which  are,  in  many  respects,  quantitative.   You  know, 
your  library  is  adequate  if  it  has  got  so  many  books;  I  don't 
know  how  they  fit  in  the  computers  with  the  situation  or  tapes 
for  the  situation;  you  have  to  have  so  many  full-time 
professors,  and  meet  other  standards.   Although  they  are  phrased 
in  terms  of  quality,  they  are  frequently  applied  in  terms  of 
quantity.   At  the  same  time,  the  accrediting  agency  believes 
that  the  university  has  an  excellent  chance  to  become  a  kind  of 
a  model  for  specialized  institutions  in  American  education,  and 
they  recognize  that  there  are  special  problems  related  to  a 
university  dependent  on  adjunct  faculty,  and  so  on.   They  are 
going  to  have  to  make  some  adjustments  in  their  standards,  and 
the  university  is  going  to  have  to  make  some  adjustments  in  its 
operations  to  be  certain  of  its  educational  quality. 

Although,  the  peculiar  part  throughout  this  whole 
investigation  is  that  there  seems  to  be  no  questioning  of  the 
quality  of  the  education  that  is  being  produced.  Here  is  an 
institution  that  has  never  been  otherwise  than  in  the  black, 
that  has  a  narrow  endowment  base,  that's  true,  but  its  financial 
assurance  comes  into  question  because  its  endowment  Is  not  great 
and  it  depends  on  tuition.   Most  of  the  accrediting  people  come 
from  public  agencies ,  and  look  what  has  happened  to  their 
financial  base.   There  is  practically  no  existing  basis  for 
estimating  long-term  planning  in  state  institutions.   At  least 
there  is  some  basis  for  private  institutions  to  estimate  their 
long-term  needs  and  what  they  have  to  do  for  the  future.   So  I 
think  that  this  whole  issue  with  respect  to  this  institution  is 


337 


going  to  be  resolved  beneficially  for  both  accreditation  and  for 
the  institution.   They  both  need  to  look  differently  on  the 
higher  education  program. 

Hicke:     I  guess  I  was  under  somewhat  of  a  misapprehension  because  I 

thought  that  accrediting  had  only  to  do  with  academic  standards, 
but  you  are  saying  they  reach  into  other  aspects  of  the 
operation. 

Heilbron:   They  are  primarily  academic,  but  they  reach  into  the  financial 
aspects  as  well,  because  how  can  you  assure  that  your  present 
students  will  pass  through  the  four  years  that  they  plan  to  pass 
through  if  you  haven't  got  the  financial  background  in  order  to 
assure  that  future?  They  do  go  into  the  financial  aspects  now. 
How  qualified  they  are  to  do  it  may  be  another  question. 

Recently,  or  not  so  many  years  ago,  I  had  occasion  to 
borrow  money  for  an  institution,  a  nonprofit  agency,  and  the 
bank  didn't  want  to  take  the  real  estate  of  the  institution  as 
security,  because  they  felt  that  the  last  thing  they  wanted  to 
do  publicly  was  to  foreclose  on  the  institution's  real  estate. 
It's  like  a  religious  institution  borrowing  money.   But  they 
simply  looked  to  see  what  its  income  was  and  how  they  might 
expect  to  be  paid  from  its  income.   But  more  than  anything  else, 
they  gave  a  line  of  credit  for  one  year  because  they  looked  at 
the  board  and  they  said,  "These  people  on  the  board  are  simply 
not  going  to  let  an  institution  like  this  go  and  their 
reputations  go  with  it."   Similarly,  part  of  the  financial 
integrity  of  Golden  Gate  are  the  people  who  occupy  positions  of 
status  in  the  community;  how  can  they  afford  to  let  an 
institution  like  that  down?  No  matter  if  they  have  to  go  to 
their  own  boards  or  go  through  all  of  their  contacts  in  order  to 
deal  with  the  university's  problems,  they'll  do  it.   So  you  have 
to  weigh  that  in  the  balance  and  not  merely  cash  on  hand. 

Hicke:     That's  an  interesting  insight  also. 

Heilbron:   It  is  very  difficult  to  raise  money  for  endowments.   Walter 

Haas,  Sr.,  whom  I  knew  pretty  well,  was  against  giving  money  for 
endowments.   He  said,  "What  you  are  doing  is  to  take  succeeding 
generations  problems  and  try  to  absorb  them  by  your  own  efforts. 
Let  each  generation  pay  its  own  way."  Now,  that  may  be  an 
extreme  point  of  view,  and  it  is  a  peculiar  point  of  view  for 
the  Haases  who  give  everything  to  everybody,  but  on  the  other 
hand,  I  think  if  you  analyze  their  projects,  they  are  all 
specific.   You  give  $15  million  to  a  building,  but  that  is  not 
money  that  you  draw  from  for  income,  that  is  capital  investment. 


338 


Hicke:     For  a  specific  purpose. 

Heilbron:   That's  right.  Yes.  Well,  I  don't  know.   I'm  sure  that 

everybody  wants  endowments  and  if  it  weren't  for  endowments  some 
of  our  major  universities  these  days  would  have  collapsed. 

M 

Heilbron:   I  have  no  views  against  endowments  except  that  they  are 
extremely  hard  to  raise  at  this  time. 

I  think  that  probably  what  is  interesting  about  this  Golden 
Gate  University  is  that  it  raises  questions  about  what  the 
university  of  the  future  will  be  like.   This  applies  to  public 
as  well  as  private  universities.   The  great  institutions --the 
Harvards,  the  Yales,  the  Berkeleys,  the  Michigans- -will  probably 
pretty  much  continue  in  their  present  ways.   But  the  small, 
private,  liberal  arts  college  will  have  tough  sledding.   The 
kind  of  equipment  that  will  be  necessary  in  future  institutions 
will  be  very  expensive. 

I  don't  think  we  realize  what  is  going  to  happen  with 
respect  to  the  access  to  libraries  through  computers  and  the 
access  to  lectures.  You  can  get  the  greatest  lectures  in  the 
world  through  telecommunications.   I'm  not  sure  you  will  need 
the  spacious  plants  that  you  now  need  if  part  of  education  is 
going  to  be  derived  in  the  home  through  contacts  with  your 
central  institution  and  maybe  beyond.  At  least,  plenty  of 
periodicals  have  discussed  this  question  and  indicate  to  me  that 
there  are  going  to  be  changes,  particularly  because  of  the  costs 
of  education  that  will  have  to  be  considered  and  met.   The 
capital  requirements  are  going  to  be  considerable. 

It  would  be  unfortunate,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  liberal 
arts  elements  of  higher  education  should  suffer  on  account  of 
this,  because  even  the  highest  business  executives  say  they 
prefer  a  person  who  has  not  only  his  professional  background  but 
a  general  liberal  arts  background  to  the  person  who  has  only  a 
professional  background.  As  Golden  Gate  tries  to  work  out  what 
its  undergraduate  core  courses  should  be,  the  core  programs 
can't  be  as  extensive  as  they  are  in  most  of  our  institutions, 
but  what  will  they  be?  Economics?  Political  and  social 
institutions?  Some  basic  science  and  the  scientific  method? 
Ethics?  Literature?  To  what  depth  has  to  be  determined,  but 
these  are  some  of  the  core  subjects  that  it  seems  to  me  have  to 
be  covered  for  higher  education  to  be  as  significant  as  it  has 
been. 


339 


Hicke : 


The  ethics  aspect  is  rather  interesting.   Law  schools  have 
changed  considerably  in  this  respect  and  have  an  ethics 
component  in  many  of  their  courses  and  in  separate  courses. 
Medical  education  is  also  reflecting  this  situation.   All  of 
these  anti- discrimination  statutes  have  alerted  education  to 
this  necessity.  To  continue  your  bar  license,  you  have  to 
undergo  instruction  in  ethics  that  you  have  never  gone  through 
before.  After  all,  ethics  is  a  kind  of  application  of  the  old 
morality  in  philosophy.   It  is  revived  in  a  kind  of  a  different 
form  and  Bade  specific  and  taken  partly  over  from  religion,  but 
has  now  become  not  merely  something  that's  part  of  core 
education- -but  I  don't  know  that  this  is  something  so  new.   The 
ethical  conduct,  it  would  seem  to  me,  was  part  of  the  Greek 
philosophical  discourse,  an  important  part  of  it.   It  occupied  a 
lot  of  Socrates'  thinking  and  Plato's  Republic,  so  I'm  not  sure 
that  this  is  particularly  new  in  concept,  but  it  probably  is 
quite  new  in  application  considering  the  emphases  in  higher 
education. 

Maybe  we  just  lost  sight  of  it  for  a  while? 


Heilbron:   We  lost  sight  of  it  for  a  while,  yes.   Or  it  got  buried  in  other 
courses . 

I  haven't  made  any  allowance  here  for  multicultural  course 
programs.   I  would  imagine  that  a  somewhat  restricted  core 
curriculum  at  an  institution  like  Golden  Gate  would  have  them  in 
its  undergraduate  area.   Its  cultural  information  and  discussion 
would  be  part  of  its  political  and  economic  classes  and  its 
ethics  component  included  rather  than  have  lots  of  multiplicity 
of  courses  giving  separate  cultural  instruction  in  African, 
Asian,  Indian  and  so  forth.   I  wouldn't  be  a  bit  surprised  if 
there  isn't  some  relaxation  of  that  emphasis,  or  at  least  not  so 
much  a  relaxation  of  emphasis  as  a  distribution  of  cultural 
considerations  in  all  of  the  areas  that  it  legitimately  applies 
to.   The  important  African  literature  should  be  included  in 
literature. 

Hicke:     Mainstreaming? 

Heilbron:  Mainstreaming,  well,  yes.   In  dealing  with  social  problems  the 
cultural  differences  between  groups  have  to  be  noted.   In 
history,  the  injustices  done  to  certain  cultural  elements  should 
be  part  of  it.   But  fractionalizing  it,  cutting  it  into 
segments--!  don't  know- -ghettoizing  culture  seems  to  be  not  the 
wave  of  the  future . 

Well,  do  you  think  that's  it? 


340 


Hicke:     That's  an  encouraging  note.   But  I  have  one  more  question:  we 
talked  about  the  University  of  Phoenix  that  offers  a  degree 
program  by  video  or  computer.   I  think  it's  an  MBA  program, 
actually. 

Heilbron:   Th«  University  of  Phoenix  operates  without  any  adjunct  faculty, 
I  believe,  or  practically  any  regular  faculty.  Maybe  it  does 
operate  with  adjunct  faculty. 

Hicke:     What  do  you  think  of  that  as  a  possibility  for  the  future? 

Heilbron:   In  the  end,  the  greatest  teaching  is  the  teacher  and  the  student 
over  a  bench. 

Hicke:     Interaction,  yes. 

Heilbron:   If  you  have  a  television  lecture,  for  example,  and  you  are  at 

hone  and  the  phone  rings  and  it  is  something  that  you  forgot  you 
have  to  do  and  you  leave  the  lecture  for  a  while.   Then  maybe 
you  put  it  off  or  put  it  on  hold  and  come  back  to  it,  and  it  is 
all  coming  at  you,  that  is,  the  information  is  coming  at  you 
from  the  screen,  do  you  write  it  down  as  you  would  in  a 
classroom?   Is  there  an  atmosphere  conducive  to  an  academic 
discipline  when  you  are  by  yourself?   Some  people  can  do  it 
well.   Nobody  wrote  better  than  Abraham  Lincoln,  but  how  many 
Lincolns  are  there? 

Hicke:     As  I  recall  it  now,  this  was  a  course  done  by  computers  so  that 
the  lessons  were  all  on  your  computer,  and  you  communicated  with 
other  members  of  the  class  and  the  professor  by  the  computer  and 
modem . 

Heilbron:  Well,  that's  different  from  television.   It  may  be  a  big  thing 
in  the  future,  although  it  will  be  very  complicated. 

Hicke:     Good  for  special  kinds  of  work,  I  suppose,  and  for  special 

people.   I  think  these  students  were  people  who  worked  all  day 
and  found  it  very  difficult  to  drive  across  town  to  get  to  a 
class. 

Heilbron:  Well,  it  is  certainly  better  than  not  having  anything  at  all. 
Whether  it  is  the  equivalent  of  a  class  discussion,  I  don't 
know.   I  would  say  it  is  better  than  a  class  discussion  in  a 
huge  class  where  there  is  very  little  discussion  and  a  few 
people  get  up  and  air  their  particular  views.   I've  often 
compared  the  conference  meeting  over  the  phone  with  a  meeting 
that  would  be  held  with  all  of  the  people  around  the  table.   It 


341 


accoaplishec  a  great  deal  and  it  saves  all  of  that 
transportation.   The  question  is,  is  it  as  good? 

Hi eke:     What  is  your  answer? 

Heilbron:  Well,  my  answer  is  that  you  can't  have  the  free  flow  of 

discussion  with  only  the  voices  over  a  distance  that  you  do  when 
you  are  around  the  table.  You  don't  see  the  person,  you  don't 
see  how  the  person  feels  when  he  is  talking,  the  interaction 
isn't  as  good.   But,  in  the  net  it  is  maybe  better  than  having 
people  running  all  over  the  country  to  meet  for  a  short  time  and 
waste  all  of  the  rest  of  the  time  in  hotels  and  transportation. 

Hicke:     What  about  with  a  video  component? 

Heilbron:   I  think  the  video  component  improves  it  a  great  deal.   It  also, 
I  think,  produces  a  little  bit  of  tension.  When  you  are  talking 
and  you  want  to  get  it  all  in  as  best  you  can,  you  can  stop  and 
start  better  when  the  person  is  opposite  you  than  when  he  or  she 
is  part  of  a  group  on  a  screen.   When  you  are  on  camera,  you  may 
be  in  a  little  different  situation,  but  everybody  will  learn  the 
mediua  and  give  a  better  message. 

Hicke:     That  has  interesting  implications  for  the  art  of  negotiation, 
though,  for  your  special  expertise.   Could  you  ever,  do  you 
think,  negotiate  by  a  conference  call  like  that? 

Heilbron:  Well,  you  do  a  good  deal  of  negotiation  over  the  telephone,  now, 
as  it  is. 

Hicke:     That's  true. 

Heilbron:  There  are  just  certain  times  when  face-to-face  becomes  essential 
because  you  can't  accomplish  it  any  other  way.  You  do  negotiate 
by  letters. 

Hicke:     That's  right,  so  it  is  just  one  more  added  dimension,  I  guess. 

Heilbron:   But  I  don't  think  that  you  can  have  a  court  trial  with  the 

defendant  in  one  place,  the  judge  in  another,  and  the  attorneys 
arguing  in  two  other  places . 

Hicke:     Now  that  is  an  interesting  thought.   [laughter] 

Heilbron:   I  think  that  there  are  certain  things  that  you  have  to  do  when 
you  are  all  present  and  seeing  each  other  and  noting  each  other. 


342 


Hicke: 

Heilbron: 
Hicke: 


Okay,  well,  this  has  been  an  outstanding  overview  of  Golden  Gate 
University,  with  lots  of  information  about  education  in  general, 
so  I  thank  you. 

A  little  bit  free-flowing,  but  maybe  we  got  somewhere. 
1  think  so. 


IQKD  Television:  Its  History 
[Interview  14:  November  11,  1992]  ## 

Hicke:     The  topic  for  today  is  KQED,  and  let's  just  start  with  how  you 
got  involved  and  what  your  official  positions  were. 

Heilbron:   I  got  involved  during  the  fifties  with  KQED  in  a  nonofficial 
way,  which  I  will  explain  later,  and  in  the  course  of  that 
involvement  learned  something  of  the  beginnings  and  the  history 
of  the  organization. 

Hicke:     Oh,  good.   Can  you  elaborate  on  that? 

Heilbron:   Well,  in  1951  the  Federal  Communications  Commission  (FCC) 

proposed  a  rule  that  would  set  aside  Channel  9  for  educational 
use,  and  seven  school  districts  outside  of  San  Francisco- -not 
including  San  Francisco- -with  Stanford  [University]  and  Mills 
[College]  met  to  support  and  implement  that  rule  if  possible. 
The  Public  School  Council  was  formed  and  the  Bay  Area  Television 
Commission  started,  and  they  petitioned  for  such  a  channel  to  be 
established  in  the  Bay  Area. 

The  mover  and  shaker  in  this  program  was  Vaughn  D.  Seidel, 
who  was  the  supervisor  of  schools  of  Alameda  County.  Now, 
commercial  television  generally  was  not  too  enthusiastic  about 
the  establishment  of  a  public  service  channel.   Probably  they 
didn't  know  what  direction  it  would  take,  how  much  it  would 
possibly  interfere  with  their  own  programming,  and  most  of  them 
felt- -or  many  of  them  felt  at  least- -that  the  public  service 
hours,  the  so-called  pro  bono  hours,  that  they  were  required  by 
the  FCC  to  devote  to  public  service  programming  were  sufficient 
for  the  purpose.   There  was  an  exception.   Phil  Lasky  of  KPIX 
was  quite  supportive  of  the  movement  and  later  on  actually  gave 
the  first  transmitter  to  KQED,  that  is,  KPIX  did. 

In  June  of  1952,  the  Bay  Area  Education  Television 
Association  was  incorporated  and  that  became  known  as  BAETA,  and 


343 


that  becaae  the  operator  of  KQED.   It  had  its  initial  office  in 
Oakland.   For  some  reason  Herbert  Clish,  the  superintendent  of 
schools  in  San  Francisco,  opposed  this  project.   Whether  it  was 
because  it  originated  in  Oakland  or  not,  I  have  no  idea.   A 
compromise  finally  was  worked  out  whereby  Clish  became  the 
chairman  of  the  board  of  BAETA  and  Vaughn  Seidel  its  first 
president. 

Then,  lo  and  behold,  BAETA  gets  notified  that  school 
districts  can't  support  the  project  financially  because  it  will 
not  be  devoted  strictly  to  research  as  required  by  California 
lav.  Thus  this  board  of  school  district  supervisors  with  this 
new  project  in  view  could  not  implement  it.   The  theory 
originally  was  that  it  would  be  self-supporting  through 
producing  educational  programs  that  would  be  given  to  the 
schools. 

Hicke :     And  then  who  would  pay  for  them? 

Heilbron:   The  school  districts  would  pay  for  the  programs. 

Hicke:     Okay,  so  they  would  be  leased  to  the  schools  or  sold  to  the 
schools? 

Heilbron:   It  would  be  sold  to  the  schools.   Evidently  that  was  not 

feasible  in  the  way  that  they  had  originally  planned  it,  and  it 
became  obvious  that  a  broader  participation  by  the  public  that 
could  help  with  the  financing  was  necessary,  and  that  would  have 
to  be --well,  the  scope  of  education  would  have  to  be  defined 
more  broadly  than  the  education  of  school  children. 

Hicke:     Can  I  just  ask  if  this  was  a  very  early  instance  of  public 
service  television  or  were  there  others? 

Heilbron:   This  is  the  beginning  of  the  whole  business  in  the  United 
States. 

Hicke:     That's  what  I  wanted  to  get  clear. 

Heilbron:  KQED  is  in  the  vanguard  of  this  whole  new  program  which  was 
going  to  affect  everybody,  sooner  or  later. 

J.  Paul  Leonard,  the  president  of  San  Francisco  State, 
succeeded  Clish  as  chairman  of  the  board  in  1955,  and  I  recall 
going  out  to  see  him  with  Cap  [Caspar]  Weinberger  [then  a 
California  assemblyman]  with  the  purpose  of  developing 
legislation  to  authorize  the  participation  by  school  districts 
and  junior  colleges  in  educational  television  that  had 
previously  been  frustrated,  as  I  indicated. 


344 


Hicke : 


Would  this  be  state  or  national  legislation? 


Heilbron:   This  would  be  state  legislation,  because  it  involved  state 

school  districts  and  state  Junior  colleges  and  state  colleges 
and  the  university,  too,  I  assume.   Weinberger  did  introduce  the 
legislation,  and  it  was  passed,  so  that  it  opened  a  pretty  wide 
door.   It  opened  a  wide  door  to  participation,  but  it  still  was 
obvious  that  if  this  program  was  to  flourish  in  any  large  way, 
it  would  require  considerable  infusion  of  private  money,  whether 
through  foundations  or  individuals.   That  really  was  provided  by 
the  Ford  Foundation.   The  Ford  Foundation  was  the  principal 
supporter  of  public  television—educational  television- - 
throughout  the  United  States,  extensively  at  least  from  the 
early  fifties  through  1975.   I  believe  that  their  participation 
nationally  was  around  $289  million,  and  KQED  had  a  substantial 
share  of  this  largesse  and  made  possible  the  development  of  the 
station. 

By  '57,  after  two  years  of  service,  the  board  was 
reorganized  to  reflect  the  community  interests  and  Fuller 
Brawner  succeeded  Leonard  as  chairman  of  the  board,  Brawner  is 
B-R-A-W-N-E-R,  and  Mortimer  Fleishhacker  II  became  the 
president.   These  positions,  a  little  later,  were  modified  so 
that  Janes  Day,  who  had  been  the  manager  of  the  pioneer  days  of 
the  station,  became  president  of  it  in  1968  and  Fleishhacker 
became  the  chairman  of  the  board  and  he  served  in  that  capacity 
until  1972,  or  through  1972. 

My  other  participation,  before  joining  the  board  which  I 
think  was  in  '59,  was  as  the  moderator  of  World  Affairs 
Council's  television  program,  which  I  may  have  referred  to 
earlier.   We  migrated  from  station  to  station,  and  we  finally 
wound  up  on  KQED.   I  know  one  of  our  programs  was  called  "The 
World  of  1980,"  which  was  a  prediction  kind  of  program, 
considering  that  we  were  doing  it  in  the  fifties.   [laughter] 

Hicke:     Now  we  are  looking  back  on  it. 

Heilbron:   Now  we  are  looking  back  on  it  and  I'm  certain  we  didn't  nearly 
anticipate  the  huge  ups  and  downs  of  what  did  occur  in  the 
interim  and  by  1980. 

Hicke:     That  would  be  fun  to  go  back  and  see  again,  wouldn't  it? 

Heilbron:   It  would.   The  only  thing  I  can  be  certain  about  was  that  we  did 
not  predict  that  Governor  Reagan  in  1980  would  be  president  of 
the  United  States,  because  he  hadn't  yet  become  the  governor  of 
California. 


345 


Hlcke : 
Heilbron: 

Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


That's  right. 

Of  course  all  kinds  of  details  had  to  be  developed.  An 
incidental  one  was  to  adopt  the  call  letters  of  the  station, 
QED. 

I  have  always  wondered  how  they  choose  those . 

Veil,  Mr.  Janes  Day's  wife  was  responsible  for  these  letters, 
and  she  took  then  fron  the  Latin,  quod  erat  demonstrandum, 
meaning  "which  was  to  be  proved." 

Of  course  I  have  seen  that  before,  but  1  never  connected  it. 

There  is  another  QED  station  in  the  United  States,  but  the  claim 
is  that  their  use  of  the  letters  is  purely  coincidental,  not 
derived  fron  such  a  legitimate,  ancestral  source. 

That  is  interesting. 

I  would  like  to  make  two  other  remarks  about  personnel  and  then 
go  into  a  kind  of  program  under  several  topics  that  I  think  are 
pertinent  to  this  agency.   One  of  them  is  that  James  Day,  who 
had  been  active  in  the  Vorld  Affairs  Council  with  respect  to  the 
radio  program,  became  the  first  manager  and  then  president  of 
KQED.   He  continued  in  that  capacity,  I  believe,  until  1972.   At 
least,  he  continued  for  twelve  years  from  the  time  of 
appointment.   Day  was  an  extraordinary,  creative  person  who 
becane  president,  after  leaving  KQED,  of  NET,  which  was  the 
National  Educational  Television  station,  the  predecessor  of  PBS 
[Public  Broadcasting  Service],  so  they  recognized  his  abilities, 
and  he  had  demonstrated  them. 

Another  person  who  came  up  from  Los  Angeles--!  believe  had 
been  employed  by  a  station  in  Los  Angeles- -Jonathan  Rice,  became 
the  program  director.   Until  fairly  recently  he  has  been  the  tie 
that  bound  the  history  of  the  organization  and  shares  a  great 
deal  of  the  responsibility  and  credit  for  the  programming  of  the 
station.   1  think  that  he  probably  had  much  more  to  do  with  this 
aspect  of  the  programming  locally  during  the  first  ten  to 
fifteen  years  of  the  activity  of  the  station,  because  more  and 
more  it  has  developed  as  part  of  a  network. 


Are  you  going  to  talk  about  this? 
raising  of  the  funds? 


Were  you  involved  in  the 


Yes,  I'll  do  some  talking  about  funds.  I  can  say  that  I  don't 
think  there  has  been  a  time  that  KQED  has  not  been  wanting  for 
financing.  It  began  quite  modestly.  In  1954  its  budget- -its 


346 


revenues --were  $69,500;  in  1991  it  was  spending  over  $33 
million,  so  there  has  been  an  extraordinary  growth  and  some 
substantial  changes  in  programming  and  financing,  and  I  will  get 
into  that  as  we  go  on.  The  days  of  operation  started  out  three 
days  a  week,  and  of  course  it's  now  around  the  clock. 

The  first  full-fledged  plant  was  on  4th  and  Bryant  Street 
in  an  old  warehouse  and  a  place  where  perhaps  most  of  the 
nostalgia  relating  to  KQED  is  centered.   It  was  a  terrible  place 
for  office  operations,  studios--!  think  there  were  posts  in 
studios  that  had  to  be  somehow  circumvented,  and  it  was  in  every 
way  a  bare -bones  operation.   But  I  doubt  whether  there  has  ever 
been  a  greater  exhibition  of  collegiality  and  working  together- - 
under  crowded  and  unfavorable  conditions- -and  great,  almost  joy 
in  the  operation  as  there  was  in  those  early  days.   There  have 
been  three  important  moves  since  that  time,  and  they  have  just 
lately  opened  a  new  state-of-the-art  building  on  Mariposa 
Street,  but  it  is  the  4th  and  Bryant  Street  plant  with  which  I 
have  worked  mostly. 

Hicke:     Are  we  talking  just  about  the  television  station  now?  Did  the 
radio  station  come  along  later? 

Heilbron:   The  radio  station  came  along  later. 
Hicke:     Okay. 

Heilbron:   The  heart  of  the  station  is  its  programming,  assuming  it  can  be 
financed,  as  the  heart  of  all  education  is  its  programming,  and 
the  rest  of  it  is  facilities  and  equipment  and  so  on.   1  think 
the  station  for  many  years  occupied  a  rather  unique  spot  in 
education  television  because  of  its  creative  and  somewhat 
controversial  character  with  reference  to  some  of  its  programs. 
It  was  highly  praised  by  the  national  press  for  this  rather  bold 
stance. 

I  would  like  to  give  some  illustrations  of  what  seems  to  be 
the  creative  side  of  this  programming.   They  had  one  show  where 
Edward  Teller,  who  always  refused  panel  participation,  agreed  to 
debate  Linus  Pauling  on  the  testing  of  the  H-bomb  [hydrogen 
bomb].   In  '59  Caspar  Weinberger  began  his  program  of  "Profile: 
Bay  Area"  where  he  took  the  issues  that  confronted  the  Bay  Area 
and  developed  them  in  very  interesting  panel  discussions.   He 
was  the  moderator. 

Hicke:     Did  you  suggest  that? 

Heilbron:   No,  I  didn't  suggest  that.   I  completed  my  moderating  service 
for  the  World  Affairs  Council  in  the  late  1950s,  and  I  knew  he 


347 


Hicke: 


was  interested,  and  I  gave  some  assistance  to  the  start  of  the 
prograa.   He  had  some  extraordinary  programs.   In  1961,  for 
example,  he  had  a  program  on  homosexuality,  which  was  quite 
daring  for  the  tine.   In  1963  he  had  a  program  on  comparison  of 
Los  Angeles  and  San  Francisco  and  the  differences  between  the 
two  cities,  which  was  quite  interesting.   About  the  same  time  he 
had  a  prograa  on  whether  gun  laws  should  be  strengthened. 

In  '64  he  had  a  program  on  "Where  is  Jim  Crow?"   I  believe 
that  was  his  prograa,  but  whether  or  not  it  was,  it  was 
broadcast  and  it  was  a  provocative  discussion  of  race  problems 
in  the  Bay  Area.   This  was  followed  by  a  program  involving  James 
Baldwin,  who  described  what  he  saw  in  San  Francisco  at  Hunter's 
Point  and  the  Fillmore  District  from  a  rather  radical  point  of 
view,  his  own.   Some  viewers  and  some  people  on  the  board 
thought  that  it  was  inflammatory  or  distorted,  but  it  did 
represent  his  opinions  and  it  shook  up  the  community. 

There  was  a  program--!  don't  think  this  was  on  "Profile: 
Bay  Area,"  but  there  was  a  program  on  teenagers,  and  they 
frankly  discussed  sexual  morality.   Now  we  are  talking  about  the 
early  sixties  here,  or  the  mid-sixties,  where  the  protest 
generation  was  having  its  day,  but  a  lot  of  the  material  was 
quite  new  to  most  of  the  viewers,  and  it  provoked  another  long 
board  discussion  as  to  whether  this  kind  of  program  was 
appropriate  for  KQED.   I  believe  there  was  still  another  family 
program  along  the  same  lines  that  caused  a  good  deal  of  concern 
to  soae .   The  important  part  is ,  and  I  was  on  the  board  at  the 
time,  that  the  board  determined  that  it  would  not  interfere  with 
its  program  director's  determinations,  that  the  programming  was 
a  professional  matter  and  if  the  board  ever  got  into  that 
detailed  administration  it  was  just  going  to  get  into  a  great 
deal  of  trouble;  it  was  better  to  bear  the  trouble  that  you 
would  get  into  by  art  or  errors  of  your  staff  than  to  take  on 
the  task  of  censorship. 

Is  that  a  way  that  boards  have  gone  at  other  public  television 
stations,  do  you  know? 


Heilbron:   I  don't  know  because  the  only  station  that  I  know  about- - 

f* 

Heilbron:   --is  this  one. 

There  was  an  interesting  program  by  Hayakawa  on  "Language 
in  Thought  and  Action,"  a  political  program  where  [Richard  M. ] 
Nixon  versus  Brown  debated  in  connection  with  their  respective 
election  campaigns. 


348 


Hicke:     Pat  Brown? 

Heilbron:   Yes.   A  progran  on  San  Francisco's  elderly. 

Hicka:     It  sound*  like  they  covered  the  spectrum:  politics,  economics, 
social  issues. 

Heilbron:   They  did,  but  I  emphasize  that  these  are  locally  produced 

affairs.   They  had  a  program  on  poetry  with  Allen  Ginsberg  and 
Laurence  Ferlinghetti.  They  were  aware  of  the  cultural 
revolution  and  had  a  program  in  1968  on  that  subject. 

Hicke:     In  China,  you  mean?  Is  that  where  you  are  talking  about? 
Heilbron:   No,  it  was  a  cultural  revolution  in  society  in  California. 
Hicke:     The  flower  children  type  of  thing? 

Heilbron:  Yes,  well  now  I  can't  recall  the  contents,  but  it  had  to  do  with 
the  protest  generation.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  the  late 
sixties  I  participated  in  one  of  the  panels,  because  at  that 
tine  I  was  still  a  trustee  on  the  state  college  board  and  all  of 
our  boards  were  experiencing  a  considerable  amount  of  student 
protest.   I  don't  recall  whether  I  appeared  after  the  San 
Francisco  State  strike  or  not.   I  know  that  I  would  not  make 
such  an  appearance  during  negotiations.   Hayakawa  appeared, 
however,  with  respect  to  the  handling  of  the  strike  and  didn't 
like  the  questions;  so  he  walked  out  in  the  middle  of  the 
program,  [laughter]  which  caused  a  great  deal  of  comment. 

It  was  amazing  during  the  fifties  and  early  sixties  how 
successful  the  station  had  become. 

Hicke:     In  terms  of  viewer  audience? 

Heilbron:   In  terms  of  recognition  and  awards.   It  was  named  at  one  time 
the  best  pubic  education  station  in  the  United  States,  and  I 
think  that  it  is  pretty  much  close  to  the  top  even  today, 
although  I'm  not  certain. 

Toward  the  end  of  the  sixties,  there  was  a  newspaper  strike 
in  San  Francisco,  and  San  Francisco  had  no  way  of  communicating 
with  its  citizens  except  that  KQED  developed  the  newspaper  of 
the  air.   It  took  on  reporters  who  were  on  strike  and  some  of 
the  best  reporters  in  town.   I  remember  Jim  Benet  of  the 
Chronicle  and  I  probably  could  look  up  others  to  insert,  but  the 
interesting  part  of  the  program  was  that  they  not  only  gave  the 
news  but  they  gave  some  of  the  circumstances  and  the  causes  as 
they  saw  them  of  the  news.   It  was  a  very  much  appreciated 


349 


Hicke : 


Hellbron: 


Hicke : 


•ervlce.   It  gave  KQEO  immediately  an  identity  with  all  of  the 
people  of  the  city,  where  it  was  appealing  only  to  segments 
previously.   I  think  it  probably  laid  the  foundation  for  its 
further  very  large  expansion. 

Now  when  the  strike  was  over,  the  reporters  went  back  to 
their  posts,  and  they  didn't  continue  with  their  TV  appearances. 
But  a  new  prograa  substituting  for  it  called  "Newsroom"  was 
developed,  and  the  station  had  to  select  new  people  as  reporters 
for  this  purpose.   It  too  became  a  very  effective  and  successful 
one-hour  prograa.   Later  it  was  cut  down,  for  financial  reasons, 
to  half  an  hour,  but  that  was  one  of  the  financial  problems. 

Another  program  that  developed  was  "World  Press,"  moderated 
by  Roger  Boas.   Now  I  recall  in  one  of  World  Affairs  Council 
programs  that  I  had  people  come  in  with  newspapers  from  foreign 
countries  and  read  clips  from  them  and  comment  on  them,  and  it 
was  only  a  one-time  program.   "World  Press"  was  largely 
developed  along  the  same  lines.   I  don't  say  that  one  suggested 
the  other,  but  certainly  the  format  of  Boas'  program  was  more 
highly  developed  and  the  participants  were  established  for  the 
prograa;  they  continued  from  program  to  program,  and  they  had 
identities  with  the  viewers.   The  person  who  read  the  French 
newspapers  was  always  the  same  person.   I  remember  [Professor] 
Leslie  Lipson  from  UC  [Berkeley]  on  the  British  side.   Paul 
Zinner  of  [UC]  Davis  did  the  Russian  comment.   It  was  simply  the 
United  States  as  others  saw  us.   "World  Press"  was  purchased  by 
other  stations  and  was  quite  successful. 

In  the  meantime  there  were  other  developments.   But  before 
I  go  into  them,  (we  are  still  talking  about  creativity),  one  of 
the  early  projects  was  the  auction  over  television  to  raise 
funds.   It  became  quite  a  community  event,  with  civic  leaders 
auctioning  the  contributions  from  stores  and  individuals  and 
raising  considerable  sums.   It  was  a  great  deal  of  fun  and 
lasted  for  about  a  week  I  think.   I  believe  it  still  continues, 
although  there  are  also  pledge  nights,  which  there  hadn't  been 
previously. 

I  renember  when  we  moved  here  I  was  drafted  to  go  around  to 
local  stores  and  ask  them  to  donate  gifts  for  the  auction. 

Well,  ultimately  they  got  some  pretty  large  gifts.   They  got 
sailboats  and  Gump's  was  quite  generous.   When  you  say 
'participate'  now  that  I  recall,  I  did  obtain  some  gifts  from 
Guap ' a . 

I  can  believe  it. 


350 


Heilbron:  And  I  did  some  selling,  too,  which  was  fun  to  do. 

Hicke:     But  it  was  interesting.   I  live  down  the  Peninsula,  and  they  had 
this  whole  network  all  over  the  Bay  Area  to  get  volunteers  to 
canvass  their  local  stores,  and  that  was  just  a  snail  part  of 
it.   That  was  just  getting  the  materials  to  auction. 

Heilbron:   They  had  an  enormous  number  of  items,  enough  to  keep  them  going. 
When  a  very  important  item  was  to  be  auctioned,  the  bells  rang 
and  the  cans  were  hit  and  there  was  a  great  deal  of  action  that 
the  viewer  could  see.   Now  that  auction  model  was  followed  in 
other  communities,  but  it  was  started  here  and  I  think  was  one 
of  the  most  creative. 

Hicke:     Do  you  know  whose  idea  it  was? 
Heilbron:   I  think  it  was  Day's. 

We  had  a  problem  with  another  station,  KCED,  Channel  32. 
This  station  repeated  some  of  the  programs  that  were  on  KQED,  so 
that  if  you  missed  the  program  you  could  catch  it  later  on  on 
KCED.   I  have  in  mind  particularly  McNeil-Lehrer  was  re- 
broadcast  at  ten  o'clock  I  think,  and  there  were  other  programs. 
But  they  also  had  community  interest  programs.   It  was  hard  to 
develop  community  interest  programs,  and  I  am  talking 
particularly  about  minority  programs,  that  would  satisfy  those 
people  who  had  direct  minority  interests  that  the  station  was 
doing  all  it  should  in  that  direction.   I  presume  for  close  to 
ten  years  there  was  a  running  battle ,  and  I  am  talking  now  about 
a  time  that  was  after  I  left  the  board,  long  after  I  left  the 
board. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  commercial  stations  became  well 
satisfied  with  the  activities  of  such  local  stations, 
particularly  here.   At  the  very  beginning,  I  mentioned  KPIX 
giving  the  transmitter  that  was  just  on  the  floor  below  the  Top 
of  the  Mark  [in  the  Mark  Hopkins  Hotel]  and  for  some  time  before 
the  station  moved  its  tower  to  San  Bruno,  it  broadcast  from 
close  to  the  Top  of  the  Mark,  and  that  transmitter  was  a  gift  of 
KPIX.   The  equipment  and  plant  with  respect  to  Channel  32  was 
given  by  another  commercial  agency,  so  there  has  been  a  pretty 
good  relationship.   One  reason,  I  suppose,  is  that  the  burden  of 
providing  pro  bono  programs  has  been  taken  off  the  commercial 
stations  by  reason  of  the  existence  of  PBS.  Another  reason  is 
that  commercial  stations  on  their  own  have  found  formats  greatly 
competitive  with  public  service  programs.   This  is  a  question 
that  perhaps  we  should  give  some  attention  to. 


351 


Before  doing  that  and  still  going  with  the  minority 
programing ,  back  in  the  late  sixties  I  recall  one  of  our  board 
meetings  at  a  restaurant  in  San  Francisco  being  invaded  by 
minority  protesters  carrying  caaeras,  taking  pictures,  making 
rather  nasty  comments,  questioning  board  members  including  the 
president  and  chairman  of  the  board  as  to  when  they  were  going 
to  give  them  the  time  and  programming  that  they  deserved, 
particularly  under  their  own  direction.  It  was  part  of  the 
general  sixties  protests;  if  you  wanted  to  get  your  point  across 
you  occupied  the  president's  office  or  you  went  directly  to  the 
board  meeting  and  disrupted  it.   So  this  is  a  long  story.   Maybe 
I  should  finish  this  point  by  saying  that  finally  the  license  of 
KCEO  was  lifted  for  the  minority  station  and  was  transferred 
sometime  in  '91  to  a  minority- owned  operation. 

Hicke:     This  is  for  Channel  32? 

Heilbron:   Yes.   That  station  has  had  its  problems.   I  understand  that  six 
months  later  it  was  in  considerable  financial  difficulty.   What 
the  status  is  right  now,  1  don't  know.   But  this  is  a  long 
standing  issue,  and  I  think  that  minority  programming  has  had 
difficulty  in  developing  solely  minority  programs  of  interest  to 
their  own  minority.   But  that  is  a  story  that  I  really  am  not 
equipped  to  evaluate . 

Hicke:     How  long  were  you  on  the  board? 

Heilbron:   I  was  on  the  board  from  '59  to  I  think  '72  or  '73. 

Hicke:     1  might  even  have  it  here  in  this. 

Heilbron:   I  recall  that  I  think  Mr.  Fleishhacker  served  through  '72  and  I 
know  he  asked  me  whether  I  was  interested  in  succeeding  him. 
Not  that  that  would  automatically  have  meant  that  I  would  have, 
but  1  realized  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  take  over  that 
job  with  the  other  things  that  I  was  doing  and  be  able  to 
practice  law.   Particularly  at  the  time  he  left,  the  dark  clouds 
of  financial  problems  were  looming.   It  was  pretty  well 
indicated  that  the  Ford  Foundation  was  phasing  out  and  that 
fundraising  would  be  a  very  important  part  of  any  chairman's 
job.   So  it  was  sometime  around  the  end  of  '72  or  '74.   I  don't 
know.   I  would  think  that  whatever  biographical  statement  that 
you've  got  there  would- - 

Hicke:     This  is  Who's  Who  and  it  says  "Trustee  1966  to  '72."  So  that  is 
a  little  bit  different  than- -maybe  you  were  something  else 
before  '66? 


352 


Heilbron:   Oh,  I'm  surprised.   I  think  I  made  a  mistake  in  giving  them  '66 
because  I  became  a  trustee  shortly  after  I  became  a  member  of 
the  State  Board  of  Education.  My  recollection  Is  that  it  would 
be  around  '59.   But  the  '72  is  correct. 

Hicke:     Well,  maybe  you  Just  gave  them  the  wrong  date  or  they  mistook 
it. 

Heilbron:  Well,  then  I  failed  to  correct  it. 
Hicke:     It  is  up  at  the  top  of  the  second  column  here, 
[tape  interruption] 

Heilbron:   One  of  the  difficult  times  of  the  station  occurred  when  the 
engineers  and  production  people  went  on  strike  and  it  lasted 
about  nineteen  weeks . 

Hicke:     When  was  this?  Just  approximately. 

Heilbron:   I  should  be  able  to  give  that.   It  was  in  1968--oh  no,  that  was 
the  newspaper  strike.   1974.   The  engineers  and  the  production 
workers.   It  chiefly  was  a  strike  for  Job  security  and  was 
vigorously  participated  in  by  the  newsroom  staff,  who  felt  that 
the  newsroom  was  being  phased  out  and  they  wanted  to  be  certain 
of  continuing  their  jobs.   They  were  unable  to  settle  the 
strike.   The  station  felt  that  it  could  not  afford  to  give  the 
kind  of  security  that  the  strikers  wanted,  because  it  would  make 
any  adjustment  of  the  labor  force  so  difficult  and  expensive 
that  the  station  couldn't  bear  it.   On  the  other  hand,  the 
strikers  felt  that  they  had  less  security  at  KQED  than  at 
commercial  stations  and  they  deserved  the  treatment  that 
commercial  stations  gave. 

After  nineteen  weeks  practically  every  issue  that  had  been 
presented  at  the  beginning  of  the  strike  went  into  arbitration, 
which  it  could  have  done  at  the  beginning.   I  guess  one  of  the 
forces  that  persuaded  all  of  the  parties  to  arbitration  was 
Walter  Johnson,  who  became  a  member  of  the  board,  and  of  course 
he  was  completely  a  labor  man.   I  would  say  that  the  strike  was 
lost  by  the  strikers,  because  it  develops  that  a  TV  station  is 
largely  automatic.   Particularly  when  it  has  a  large-scale  input 
from  tapes  delivered  from  national  sources,  a  small  staff  can 
continue  to  operate.   The  station  did  not  go  off  the  air. 

Hicke:     Not  during  the  strike?  It  never  went  off  the  air? 
Heilbron:   No. 


353 


Hlcke:     So  the  strikers  don't  have  any-- 

Heilbron:   The  strikers  don't  have  the  leverage  that  they  otherwise  might. 
Now  it  >ay  be  that  a  more  coordinated  strike  would  be  effective, 
but  it  was  a  bitter  experience  for  all  of  the  parties. 

Hicke:     Did  you  participate  in  the  arbitration? 

Heilbron:   I  did  not  participate  in  that.   I  handled  negotiations- -after  I 
left  the  board  and  even  before- -on  labor  contracts,  and  I  didn't 
have  any  trouble.   But  these  were  later  developments. 

Hicke:     Let  me  just  change  the  tape  here. 

M 

Heilbron:   1  mentioned  that  substantial  changes  were  on  the  way  with 
respect  to  programming.   The  network  of  public  television 
developed  such  programs  as  McNeil-Lehrer,  Bill  Meyers'  "A  World 
of  Ideas"  and  "Washington  Week  in  Review"  and  Louis  Rukeyser 
["Wall  Street  Week"],  like  the  commercial  stations  with  their 
own  nightly  and  special  broadcasts.   I  mean,  if  you  are  going  to 
listen  to  international  affairs,  you  would  probably  prefer 
listening  to  the  Secretary  of  State  than  to  some  under -secretary 
who  happens  to  be  traveling  to  San  Francisco  and  be  available  on 
a  local  panel  show.   Many  of  the  kinds  of  programs  that  were 
created  here  have  been  superseded  by  national  programs  or 
network  programs  with  the  very  top  officials  and  talent  in 
Washington  and  with  top  talent  of  foreign  visitors,  so  local 
news  programs  on  international  affairs  were  curtailed.   Now  to 
some  extent  the  station  has  preserved  local  programming  in  our 
own  area;  "This  Week  in  Northern  California"  is  really  the 
substitute  for  "Profile:  Bay  Area." 

But  criticism  began  as  early  as  the  seventies  and  I  believe 
continued  by  some  viewers,  some  of  them  organized  into  a  kind  of 
"Save  KQED"  group  and  who  were  always  striking  at  the  door  of 
authority  through  advancing  candidates  for  election  to  the 
board.   The  criticism  is  that  other  stations  somehow  are  able  to 
develop  the  capital  to  produce  local  programs  which  then  become 
sold  to  PBS  or  PBS  authorizes  the  financing  of  them.  Why 
shouldn't  a  station  located  in  such  a  highly  educated  cultural 
area  as  ours  do  the  same?   Why  aren't  more  locally  created 
programs  of  national  interest  produced  here?   I  am  not  in  a 
position  to  comment  in  any  informed  way  on  the  situation.   It 
takes  a  great  deal  of  money  to  produce  a  program,  and  I  can  see 
that  to  a  considerable  extent  national  figures  are  available  in 
the  East  that  are  not  available  here.   However,  I  think  the 


354 


station  is  currently  working  on  the  development  of  some  new 
locally  produced  programs . 

I  think  most  of  the  viewing  audience  doesn't  care  where  the 
programs  are  produced  so  long  as  they  are  interesting  and  good. 
If  your  whole  diet  came  from  programs  produced  elsewhere  but 
distributed  here,  I  don't  think  people  would  care  too  much. 
However,  a  little  more  representative  local  creativity  would  be 
in  order. 

Hicke:     This  may  not  be  quite  to  the  point,  but  on  radio- -I  don't  know 
about  television,  but  the  public  radio  station  makes  use  for 
commentary  of  experts  from  all  over,  often  from  the  academic 
world.   If  there  is  something  on  the  news  on  Yugoslavia,  they 
call  up  an  expert  for  an  interview  for  a  couple  of  minutes. 

Heilbron:   That's  right.   That's  for  "All  Things  Considered",  isn't  it? 

Hicke:     Even  the  news  in  the  morning.   I  hear  the  news  and  they 

frequently  call  somebody  and  on  the  telephone  ask  them  for  a  one 
or  two  minute  brief  summary  of  what  the  expert  thinks. 

Heilbron:   Well,  I  know  that  KQED  has  always  been  quite  proud  of  its  radio 
operation  though,  I  imagine,  economically  it  is  the  least 
draining  of  any  of  its  operative  assets. 

Hicke:     I  do  hear  segments  produced  by  the  radio  station  here  that  come 
through  the  national  distribution.   As  I  said,  I  don't  know 
about  the  television. 

Heilbron:   Well,  whether  the  same  procedure--.   Let  me  see.   Come  to  think 
of  it,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  commercial  stations  tend  to  use 
local  people  from  the  universities  to  comment  as  much  as  KQED 
does  now.   I  know  that  Marshall  Windmiller  is  frequently  called 
on  from  San  Francisco  State  and  this  is  on  a  local  news  program. 

[tape  interruption] 

Heilbron:   Well,  the  whole  concept  of  news  being  entertainment  has 

developed  since  public  television  was  more  or  less  the  source  of 
news  and  other  stations  didn't  care  about  the  news- -the  news 
divisions  of  the  networks  were  not  important  until  they  found 
out  that  people  really  were  as  interested  or  more  interested  in 
the  news  than  in  other  areas.   So  that  interest  has  affected  the 
extent  to  which  local  public  television  can  be  effective  if  you 
are  competing  with  every  other  news  station  in  the  area. 

With  the  broadening  of  interest  in  KQED,  the  effort  to  make 
every  possible  viewer  a  member- -they  claim  that  six  out  of  seven 


355 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


are  riding  free  and  there  is  always  a  large  number  of  people  to 
attract  to  membership- -the  programming  has  adapted  to  many  new 
audiences.   I  think  that  public  television  was  perhaps  the  first 
to  recognize  that  tennis  was  a  sport  that  could  be  accommodated 
by  television  as  well  as  almost  any  other  sport.   The  local 
tennis  tournaments  involving  Arthur  Ashe  and  others  were 
broadcast,  and  now,  of  course,  Wimbledon  and  Flushing  Meadows 
have  become  prime  broadcasting  programs  for  the  major  commercial 
stations.   So  KQED  is  not  the  only  station  broadcasting  that 
kind  of  event. 

In  addition,  they  have  broadcast  what  they  consider  to  be 
exhibits  of  cultural  interest  and  history- -the  American 
entertainment  industry's  old  films,  Lawrence  We  Ik  shows,  the 
type  of  program  that  the  early  station  would  never  have  thought 
of  broadcasting,  because  I  think  they  would  have  believed  that 
it  lacked  the  intellectual  content  that  would  attract  their 
viewers.   But  KQED  is  now  attracting  all  kinds  of  audiences  and 
claims  that  there  is  a  need  to  recognize  their  interests  in 
legitimate  cultural  programs. 

When  did  they  start  getting  programs  from  the  BBC?  Did  they  do 
that  all  along? 


I  don't  know,  but  I  would  imagine  that  that  came  in  with  the 
development  of  either  NET  or  PBS.   It  would  be  distributed  on 
that  kind  of  a  basis.   I  don't  think  it  would  be  directly 
negotiated. 

KQED  is  also  partly  financed  by  the  magazine  Focus,  which 
it  purchased.   It  now  has  sponsors  who  give  a  notation  of  what 
they  do  that  is  very  close  to  commercial  advertising.   It  is  not 
quite  advertising,  because  they  ordinarily  don't  show  the 
picture  of  the  automobile  and  don't  ask  you  to  buy  the 
automobile,  but  they  just  show  the  symbol,  let's  say  of  Ford, 
and  they  show  the  symbol  of  a  bank  and  it  is  not  advertising  but 
it's  a  contribution  the  people  will  recognize  and  presumably 
accept  and  a  reminder  that  these  things  exist. 

Hicke:     There  again,  I  don't  know  about  television  but  on  the  radio  they 
will  say  something  like  "This  news  broadcast  was  made  possible 
by  GM,  makers  of  blah-blah-blah"  and  so  you  are  right,  that  is 
not  really  advertising. 

Heilbron:  And  occasionally  there  is  an  individual. 


Hicke:     Oh  yes,  and  foundations,  also. 
I  know. 


Heller,  Ehrman  has  contributed, 


356 


Heilbron:  Yes.  And  on  the  radio  there  is  a  law  firm  that  is  structured, 
Thelen,  Marrin,  [Johnson  &  Bridges]  for  quite  some  time.   And 
individuals,  like  Mrs.  Eccles,  have  co- sponsored  "McNeil - 
Lehrer."  Golden  Gate  University  sponsored  "Washington  Week  in 
Review,"  which  is  an  interesting  relationship  between  nonprofit 
agencies.   [laughter]   It  is  almost  like  public  universities 
going  into  private  fundraising  and  private  universities  getting 
public  funding;  the  lines  have  become  blurred.   But  I  have  not 
heard  of  any  objection  or  concern  from  the  commercial  stations 
that  PBS  stations  have  gone  too  far.  As  I  say,  the  commercial 
stations  are  relieved  of  a  lot  of  programs  they  wouldn't  want  to 
put  on  anyway  or  couldn't  afford  to  put  on.  As  far  as  I  can 
see,  commercial  stations  are  using  commercials  up  to  the  hilt. 
You  can  barely  watch  a  miniseries  which  doesn't  have  as  many 
interruptions  in  the  aggregate  as  there  is  a  showing  of  the 
picture. 

But  I  think  KQED  tries  to  maintain  some  of  its  traditions. 
Take  the  controversial  side.   Recently  they  made  an  effort  to 
televise  an  execution,  the  first  execution  to  be  held  in  umpteen 
years  at  San  Quentin.   The  court  denied  their  right  to  televise 
but  permitted  reporters  to  take  notes  and  describe  the 
proceeding.  A  limited  number  of  reporters  were  to  be  admitted. 
The  station  claimed  that  it  had  no  position  with  reference  to 
the  capital  punishment  issue  but  did  have  a  position  on  what 
they  claimed  was  the  people's  right  to  know,  or  I  guess  the 
people's  right  to  see.   I  have  mixed  emotions  about  that, 
because  it  seems  to  me  that  the  people's  right  to  see  is  now 
being  used  by  commercial  television  without  almost  any  temperate 
effect  whatever. 

Hicke:     There  is  also  the  people's  right  to  privacy. 

Heilbron:   The  people's  right  to  privacy,  that's  right.   I  can't  imagine 

that  the  violence  and  many  of  the  sexual  scenes--!  can't  imagine 
that  they  don't  have  an  effect  on  viewers  who  watch.   The 
difficulty  seems  to  be  to  get  television  to  become  more 
responsible,  and  I  guess  it  is  a  matter  of  taste.   If  the  taste 
of  the  whole  country  goes  to  hell,  it  will  be  reflected  in 
television,  and  television  can  help  cause  that  effect. 

Hicke:     That's  right.   So  television  is  both  on  the  receiving  and  the 
giving  end  of  it? 

Heilbron:   Just  as  newspapers  are  too,  but  I  think  that  the  newspapers, 
apart  from  the  tabloids,  seem  to  be  exercising  a  little  more 
care  than  commercial  TV.   I  don't  think  that  educational  TV  has 
crossed  the  lines  of  taste  on  many  occasions.   I  think  that  in 
exploring  the  subject  candidly  and  in  context,  if  there  has  been 


357 


Hicke : 


any  offense  to  some  viewers,  it  is  understandable  and  yet 
justifiable  as  required  by  the  context  of  the  subject.   I  am 
talking  about  educational  TV. 

I  guess  1  am  rather  a  selective  viewer  and  so  I  think  that 
by  and  large,  public  television  stations  do  a  pretty  good  job. 
I  think  if  you  subtracted  their  contribution,  you  would  lose  a 
good  deal.   We  haven't  mentioned  the  broadcast  of  operas  and 
ballets  and  "Masterpiece  Theater."   If  you  choose  what  you  are 
looking  at,  you  can  get  a  pretty  good  visual  diet  from 
television.   If  you  are  stupid  enough  to  look  at  it  all  of  the 
time,  you  should  get  all  of  the  stomachaches  that  you  deserve. 
[ laughter ] 

In  the  last  analysis,  the  public  can  vote  with  its  feet  or  its 
fingers,  or  whatever  you  want  to  say,  by  turning  it  off.  They 
find  out  that  you  aren't  watching,  so  that's  your  vote. 


Phi  Beta  Kappa.  Northern  California  Chapter 


Hicke:     Okay,  well  let's  switch  gears  here  for  a  minute.   I  know  you 

held  some  office  with  Phi  Beta  Kappa.   Could  you  tell  me  about 
that? 

Heilbron:  Well,  there  is  a  regional  chapter  called  the  Northern  California 
Chapter  of  Phi  Beta  Kappa,  and  I  became  interested  in  joining 
the  chapter  and  for  a  period  led  it.   The  organization  met 
annually  for  a  dinner,  a  social/cultural  event,  obtaining  some 
speaker  that  had  something  to  say  about  the  problems  of  the 
culture  of  the  times.   It  had  two  functions:  it  assisted  the 
national  organization  in  admitting  new  Phi  Beta  Kappa  chapters 
in  a  college  that  applied  for  the  right  to  have  a  chapter.   It 
was  a  question  of  helping  in  the  evaluation  of  an  institution  as 
to  whether  or  not  it  merited  a  chapter  of  Phi  Beta  Kappa. 
Another  one  was  to  establish  scholarships  for  new  Phi  Beta  Kappa 
members  that  wished  to  continue  their  education. 

Hicke:     I  know  it  is  a  fundraising  body. 

Heilbron:   Yes.   Now  the  one  thing  I  think  I  contributed  was  to  establish  a 
teaching  award  for  good  teaching.   There  are  plenty  of  awards 
for  excellent  scholarship,  but  I  thought  Phi  Beta  Kappa  should 
demonstrate  its  interest  in  university  life  through  this  means 
as  well  as  scholarships  for  students. 


358 


The  organization  has  grown  considerably  through  the  years. 
It  has  a  number  of  social/cultural  events  now  that  would  be  akin 
to  events  sponsored  by  the  California  Historical  Society.   I 
think  that's  very  pleasant,  that  people  of  similar  interests  who 
declare  their  rather  serious  attitude  towards  study  should  get 
together  and  enjoy  themselves.  That  doesn't  particularly  mark 
the  institution.   I  think  what  marks  it  is  that  they  have 
increased  the  teacher  awards ,  they  have  increased  the 
scholarships,  and  their  annual  meetings  are  quite  well  attended. 

Hicke:     You  said  they  established  criteria  for  a  chapter.   What  are 

they?  Are  they  based  on  the  acceptance  of  the  institution?  I 
mean,  the  standards  of  the  institution? 

Heilbron:  Veil,  the  criteria  are  set  by  the  national  body,  and  the 

national  body  is  the  one  that  admits  and  makes  the  decision. 
The  chapter  out  here  simply  helps  in  that  evaluation.   I  don't 
recall  what  the  specific  criteria  are.   1  am  sure  it  has  to  do 
with  the  validity  of  the  institutional  program,  the  strength  of 
the  faculty,  the  kinds  of  graduates  they  turn  out,  and  so  forth. 

Hicke:     So  it  is  based  on  the  institutions? 

Heilbron:  Oh,  it  is  based  on  the  institutions.  I  think  that  during  my 
period  or  around  my  period,  for  example,  San  Francisco  State 
gained  its  chapter. 

Hicke:     I  have  here  that  you  were  president  in  1972  and  '73.   And  I 
don't  know  when  you  were  a  member. 

Heilbron:  Well,  I  was  a  member  in  1927. 

Hicke:     Well,  of  the  fraternity,  but  of  the  Northern  California  chapter. 

Heilbron:   I  joined  many  years  after  graduation.   I  think  somebody  asked  me 
if  I  would  be  interested,  and  I  accepted  around  1967  or  '68. 

Hicke:     What  happened  during  your  tenure  as  president? 

Heilbron:   I  know  that  we  had  two  or  three  universities  under  consideration 
during  that  time,  and  we  also  had  representatives  present  at 
chapter  initiations.   We  gave  new  graduates  a  free  membership 
for  a  year  in  order  to  encourage  participation  in  a  place  where 
they  might  meet  people  of  similar  interests.   And  we  established 
the  teaching  award. 

Hicke:     Okay. 

[tape  interruption] 


359 


Philanthropy 


Hicke:     Let  us  again  change  gears  here  a  little  bit.   I  would  like  to 
ask  you  to  give  just  a  little  illustrative  anecdote  about 
attitudes  toward  philanthropy. 

Heilbron:   Mortimer  Fleishhacker--that  is,  Mortimer  II--had  an  interesting 
viewpoint  with  respect  to  charitable  giving.   He  was  asked  about 
an  agency  for  whom  he  was  making  an  appeal,  because  some  skeptic 
felt  that  the  agency  had  not  balanced  its  budget  and  that  it  was 
trying  to  perform  somewhat  beyond  its  resources.   His  answer  was 
that  he  felt  charitable  institutions  did  their  best  when  they 
were  hungry;  when  they  were  pushing  against  the  upper  levels  of 
their  needs  they  became—well,  it  did  not  reflect  adversely  upon 
a  charity  having  trouble  to  balance  its  budget,  which  is  the  way 
all  of  us  should  operate,  but  he  felt  that  if  a  budget  reflected 
a  challenge  that  it  was  a  good  thing. 

Hicke:     You  told  me  before  about  Walter  Haas,  Sr.,  who  did  not  want  to 
provide  endowments  but  give  only  for  present  projects.   Don't 
you  think  those  two  philosophies  sort  of  fit  together?   Because 
if  you  have  a  permanent  endowment  and  therefore  an  assured 
income,  you  are  not  really  very  hungry. 

Heilbron:   Yes,  I  think  that  is  a  good  observation.   I  think  that  is 

exactly  what  Mr.  Haas  meant  when  he  said  if  your  endowment  is 
large  enough,  somebody  in  the  past  is  paying  for  your  needs. 

Now,  I  suppose  that  there  are  some  universities  that  would 
disagree  with  his  philosophy  [laughter]  because  perhaps  they  are 
able  to  manage  at  this  time,  this  somewhat  difficult  time  for 
higher  education,  because  they  do  have  endowments.   Even  then 
they  have  had  to  cut  down,  but  what  would  they  have  had  to  cut 
down  if  they  didn't  have  these  great  endowments? 

Hicke:     Well,  any  charitable  operation  would  prefer  an  endowment,  I 
would  think. 


Heilbron:   Of  course.   I  suppose  in  a  way  it  depends  on  how  the  endowment 

is  built.   If  it  is  built  partly  through  savings,  partly  through 
many  contributions,  partly  through  frankly  asking  for  reserve 
funds  at  the  time  that  you  are  asking  for  general  funds,  it  may 
be  satisfactory. 

I  am  not  saying  that  I  agree  with  that  philosophy.   I  don't 
know  where  Harvard  or  Stanford  would  be  if  they  didn't  have  the 
large  endowments  that  they  have.   Founders  want  to  erect  a 
living  memorial,  alumni  often  want  to  maintain  it. 


360 


Hicke:     But  I  suppose  that  philosophy  reflects  partly  the  tendency  to 
get  bureaucratic  if  you  have  a  certain  assured  income? 

Heilbron:   Yes. 


361 


VIII   THE  HEILBRON  FAMILY 


; Interview  15:  December  22,  1992] 


Hicke:     I  would  like  to  start  this  afternoon  by  asking  a  little  bit 
about  Dellie--Delphine,  as  her  full  name  is.   While  you  were 
very,  very  busy  all  of  the  time,  she  was  busy,  too.   Can  you 
tell  me  about  some  of  the  things  she  was  doing? 

Heilbron:  Veil,  she  was  quite  a  participant  in  civic  and  sectarian 
activities.   I  think  I  mentioned  to  you  that  we  met  when 
teaching  Sunday  school,  and  while  I  was  overseas  she  continued 
to  do  teaching,  but  later  on  she  became  interested  in  various 
community  enterprises.   1  had  been  a  board  member  of  the  Jewish 
Community  Center,  and  she  became  one.   She  was  on  the  Women's 
Guild  of  Temple  Emanu-el.   She  was  on  the  Florence  Crittenden 
board. 

Hicke:     It  is  for  unwed  mothers? 

Heilbron:  Yes,  particularly  dealing  with  unwed  mothers  and  children.   It 
still  does.   She  has  been  on  the  board  of  the  Jewish  Welfare 
Federation,  and  she  became  quite  interested  in  the  YWCA  [Young 
Women's  Christian  Association],  particularly  their  Buchanan 
Street  operation  that  dealt  with  the  minority  population  in  San 
Francisco.   She  became  president  of  that  body  and  then  later  on 
succeeded  to  the  presidency  of  the  YWCA  in  San  Francisco  and  the 
Bay  Area. 

She  was  especially  people -oriented.   She  was  extremely 
successful  with  various  minority  groups,  and  had  an  interesting 
time  at  the  YWCA.   After  all,  she  was  the  first  Jewish  president 
in  this  area- -I  guess  in  the  United  States --of  a  regional 
organization. 

Hicke:     You  mean  of  a  regional  YWCA? 


362 


Heilbron:  Yes,  a  regional  YUCA. 

At  the  time  she  was  invited,  they  gave  her  the  oath  form 
that  all  good  YUCA  presidents  had  to  take.   She  agreed  with  all 
of  the  principles  of  the  YUCA  or  she  wouldn't  have  been  in  it, 
but  she  had  to  take  the  oath  by  her  faith  as  a  Christian, 
[laughter]  This  she  would  not  do.   The  local  chapter  didn't 
realize  that  that  was  in  the  oath,  so  they  petitioned  the 
national  organization  for  either  a  waiver  or  a  change,  and  the 
determination  was  made  that  it  should  be  changed  if  it  was  going 
to  be  done  at  all.   So  Delphine  said  she  was  interested  in  the 
work  of  the  agency,  but  the  matter  should  be  straightened  out. 

They  invited  her  back  to  their  convention. 
Hicke:     Where  was  that? 

Heilbron:   In  Cleveland.   I  can't  give  you  the  year.   She  was  asked  to 

address  about  3,000  delegates  on  this  issue.   She  had  not  done 
much  in  the  way  of  large-scale  public  speaking;  so  this  was 
quite  a  challenge.   She  gave  her  statement.   1  saw  it  before  she 
delivered  it.   It  was  an  excellent  statement,  among  other  things 
I  believe  showing  the  Judeo-Christian  background  of  the  very 
principles  that  they  wanted  to  be  adhered  to.  Well,  they  gave 
her  a  standing  ovation  and  amended  the  oath.   It  took  a  while 
for  the  amendment  to  go  through.   I  think  they  had  a  successive 
convention  or  two,  and  still  she  wouldn't  take  the  commitment 
until  there  was  this  change.   My  understanding  is  that  it  is  out 
of  the  statements  that  are  required  to  this  day.   I  haven't 
reviewed  it,  but  they  had  something  of  an  article  about  the 
matter  in  a  recent  YWCA  publication. 

Hicke:  Did  she  become  acting  director  or  whatever? 

Heilbron:  No,  when  the  time  came,  she  became  president. 

Hicke:  Oh,  she  just  waited  until  she  could  take  that  vow? 

Heilbron:  Yes.   That's  right.   It  was  a  very  interesting  episode. 

I  will  say  that  she  has  been  extremely  helpful  to  me  on 
many  occasions.  When  I  was  president  of  the  State  Board  of 
Education,  when  we  had  one  of  our  meetings,  I  invited  all  of  the 
members  and  wives  present  and  college  personnel  in  the  Bay 
Area- -some  college  personnel  in  the  Bay  Area- -there  were  about, 
I  think,  forty-two  or  three  for  dinner.   Delphine  didn't  know 
more  than  one  or  two  of  them,  and  she  memorized  the  names  of  all 
of  them  and  was  able  to  greet  them  when  they  came  in. 


363 


If  I  had  a  major  address,  she  was  a  great  person  to  try  it 
out  with,  because  she  was  very  frank  and  critical.  As  a  nutter 
of  fact.  Rabbi  Fine,  when  he  gave  his  sermons ,  always  said  that 
he  looked  at  Dellie  as  she  sat  in  the  pew,  and  if  she  were 
frowning  or  in  any  way  skeptical,  he  knew  he  was  on  the  wrong 
track.   [laughter] 

Hicke:     She  had  quite  a  responsibility. 

Heilbron:   She  has  always  been  frank  and  candid  and  so  that  is  helpful. 

Hicke:     How  long  was  she  president  of  the  YWCA?  Do  you  know? 

Heilbron:   It  was  either  a  two-  or  three-year  term.   It  was  quite  a 

successful  term.   Of  course,  whenever  there  is  a  final  dinner 
saying  good-bye  to  a  president,  always  very  kind  things  are 
said,  but  I  felt  that  they  were  not  only  said  but  meant. 

Hicke:     Wonderful.   Then  perhaps  you  could  tell  me  a  little  bit  about 
your  two  boys? 

Heilbron:  Well,  I  think  we  did  talk  a  little  bit  about  their  childhood. 

They  also  went  to  Lowell  High  School,  as  did  Delphine's  father, 
as  I  did,  so  it  has  something  of  a  background. 

John  was  a  debater  and  won  a  room  full  of  cups.   He  also 
played  the  clarinet  in  the  school  orchestra.   David  was  very 
much  interested  in  athletics  and  was  a  very  good  swimmer  and 
played  basketball.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  much  later  when  he  went 
to  Oxford  [University] ,  he  had  a  chance  to  play  basketball  for 
one  of  the  Oxford  colleges  and  go  to  Moscow,  but  he  chose 
marriage  instead  and  did  not  make  that  trip. 

I  think  that  some  of  the  most  pleasurable  times  were  after 
I  came  back  from  the  war  and  we  all  traveled  together,  but 
before  I  go  into  that,  something  else  reminds  me  of  the  period 
when  I  was  overseas  some  twenty- seven  months  and  we  wrote 
frequently.   Well,  we  wrote  practically  every  day  to  one 
another,  Delphine  and  I.   And  I  wrote,  of  course,  to  the  boys  on 
many  occasions.   She  had  them  feel  that  their  father  was  on  a 
long  vacation- -somehow  made  them  feel  that  I  was  there  with 
then,  so  that  when  I  did  come  back  in  1946  close  to  April,  we 
could  carry  on,  even  though  they  were  older  by  that  lapse  of 
time. 

Hicke:     You  weren't  a  stranger? 

Heilbron:   No,  I  wasn't,  and  I  think  that  was  a  wonderful  achievement  of 
her  parental  care . 


364 


So,  when  we  did  get  together,  we  wanted  to  have  some 
projects  together,  particularly  when  they  weren't  in  school.   I 
think  our  traveling  days  began  in  1948  to  1950.   There  were  a 
number  of  centennial  programs  throughout  the  state,  because  the 
state  was  nearing  its  one -hundredth  year,  and  the  gold  rush  had 
begun  in  1848 ,  so  there  was  a  spread  of  a  couple  of  years .  We 
attended  the  ones  in  Columbia  [State  Historic  Park]  and  Monterey 
and  at  the  San  Francisco  Presidio.   We  knew  one  of  the 
actresses,  who  was  a  friend  of  ours  who  played  several  foreign 
parts,  especially  Spanish,  in  the  history  about  California  that 
was  developed  for  the  occasion.   It  was  a  fun  period.   I 
remember  panning  for  gold  up  in  Columbia,  which  1  think  they 
still  do,  and  riding  on  the  old  Wells  Fargo  stagecoach,  and  they 
became  rather  conscious  of  the  fact  that  they  were  Californians 
and  that  California  had  a  history. 

Then  1  remember  in  1951  we  went  up  to  Canada.   We  drove  up 
through  Oregon  and  Washington  to  Vancouver,  left  the  car  and 
went  by  train  to  Banff  [National  Park]  and  had  a  period  of  time 
in  Banff  and  Lake  Louise  and  then  went  over  the  Columbia  Ice 
Fields  to  Jasper  National  Park  and  came  back  by  Canadian 
National  [Railroad]  to  Prince  Rupert,  where  we  caught  a  ship  to 
take  us  to  Victoria  and  to  Vancouver.   It  was  a  great  scenic 
trip,  primarily,  although  I  guess  some  characteristic  may  have 
been  revealed  when  we  were  in  the  back  of  the  train- -that  is 
when  we  went  to  the  back  observation  platform- -and  there  were 
these  splendid  Canadian  Rockies  on  each  side  of  us,  and  John 
reading  a  book.   [laughter] 

Then  the  next  year,  in  1952,  we  revisited  Mexico.   I  say 
revisited  because  Dellie  and  I  had  gone  down  there  in  1935.   We 
went  to  Mexico  City  and  Oaxaca,  where  we  had  lovely  rooms  facing 
the  square  where  the  very  colorful  rugs  were  hanging  or  were  on 
a  fence.   They  saw  a  good  deal  of  picturesque  Mexico.   The  air, 
I  think,  was  much  cleaner  then  than  it  is  now. 

We  were  in  Mexico  City  for  some  time.   We  had  an  experience 
in  Mexico  City  that  the  boys  didn't  forget.   They  had  just  had 
an  election,  and  the  person  who  had  lost  the  presidency,  his 
backers  and  adherents,  staged  a  protest  in  the  park  across  from 
the  hotel,  and  they  were  pretty  violent.   They  were  shooting 
rifles,  and  we  were  confined  to  our  quarters  for  about  six  hours 
while  the  shooting  went  on;  so  the  boys  learned  a  little  bit 
about  politics  and  revolution  at  an  early  age.   They  weren't 
frightened;  in  fact,  they  pressed  their  noses  against  the 
windows  to  see  whatever  they  could.   [laughter]   You  couldn't 
see  much,  I'll  say  that,  although  we  saw  some  smoke  and  gun 
firing. 


364a 


From  San  Francisco,  Marin  &  San  Mateo 
YWCA  Newsletter,  Winter  1991 


YWCA    FAMILY    ALBUM 


Dellie  Heilbron:  Leadership  for  a  More  Inclusive  YWCA 


by  Betsy  York 

Director  of  Development 


D 


he  joys  of  summer  for  Dellie 
Heilbron  began  with  Camp 
Milhurst,  a  YWCA  camp  in 
the  Chicago  area.  In  1919,  when 
she  was  12,  she  was  volunteer 
ing  at  a  YW  nursery  day 
school.  By  1927,  she  had 
moved  to  California,  met  her  future 
husband,  Louis,  and  graduated  from 
the  University  of  California  at  Berkeley 
with  a  degree  in  Economics  and  a 
special  interest  in  Social  Econ  (Social 
Work). 

She  began  working  as  a  statistician 
with  a  local  brokerage  house,  but  she 
also  found  time  to  fulfill  her  interest  in 
social  work  by  serving  on  the  board  of 
community  organizations  such  as  the 
Jewish  Community  Center  and  later 
Florence  Crittenton  Services.  Her  love 
of  people  kept  her  busy  and  involved 
even  while  raising  her  rwo  sons  and 
following  her  talents  as  a  potter. 

The  historical  context  of  that  time 
for  the  YWCA  and  the  city  of  San 
Francisco  must  be  understood  in  order 
to  appreciate  the  philosophy  and 
position  of  the  YWCA  and  its  impact 
on  volunteers  like  Dellie. 

In  the  late  40's,  her  friend  Louise 
Reider  asked  her  to  join  a  special 
project  in  which  the  YWCA  was 
involved  in  with  the  YMCA.  Louise 
thought  Dellie  could  bring  valuable 
experience  and  the  right  attitude  to  the 
project. 


According  to  one  account  from  the 
early  40's,  "The  YWCA  took  leadership 
in  the  study  of  interracial  conditions  in 
San  Francisco,  especially  those  affecting 
the  Negro  residents."  The  YWCA  had 
adopted  a  new  Interracial  Policy  provid 
ing  a  more  definite  practice  of  inclusive- 
ness  in  all  Association  facilities. 

After  WWII  many  Japanese-Ameri 
can  citizens  returned  to  San  Francisco  to 
find  that  African  Americans,  Caucasians, 
and  other  ethnic  groups  now  lived  in  the 
neighborhoods  that  had  once  been 
occupied  primarily  by  Japanese  Ameri 
cans.  As  a  result,  many  of  the  former 
residents  felt  angry  and  displaced.  The 
YWCA  reached  out  to  the  Japanese  girls 
to  be  involved  in  programs  with  girls 
from  other  backgrounds. 


It  was  in  this  atmosphere  that 
Dellie  Heilbron  renewed  her  long 
connection  to  the  YWCA.  The 
Buchanan  Street  YMCA-YWCA  was  a 
unique  project  dedicated  to  meet  the 
special  needs  of  the  neighborhood. 
Located  in  the  heart  of  the  Fillmore 
Street  District  in  a  community 
heavily  mixed  with  peoples  of 
various  cultural  and  racial 
backgrounds.  The  staff  and 
Board  reflected  this  diversity. 

Dellie  became  a  part  of  the  YWCA 
Committee  working  with  the  Buchanan 
Street  Center.  She  later  moved  to  a 
similar  position  at  the  YWCA  1830 
Sutler  Street  Center  in  the  Western 
Addition.  She  recalls,  "It  was  very 
interracial.  I  loved  it.  You  were  never 
asked  what  you  were.  You  were  who 
you  were." 

At  1830  Sutter,  they  began  innova 
tive  programs  to  develop  leadership 
and  job  skills  for  teens.  Dellie  served 
on  the  Committee  of  Management  as 
Vice  Chair,  and  then  Chair,  acting  as 
liaison  to  the  Association  Board.  She 
was  involved  in  the  organization  of  the 
Pearls  of  the  Orient,  a  program  to  orient 
Filipino  women  to  the  dominant  culture 
while  maintaining  and  nurturing  pride 
in  their  own  cultural  roots   Today,  the 
Pearls  are  a  successful  YWCA-affiliated 
group. 

Because  of  her  leadership  abilities 
and  long-standing  commitment  to  the 
vision  of  the  YW,  Dellie  was  asked  to  be 
president  of  the  Association  in  the  late 
60's.  She  was  about  to  accept  the  honor 
when  she  happened  to  see  the  back  of 


364b 


the  membership  card,  which  said  in 
effect  that  members  were,  ".    .  united 
in  their  faith  as  Christians     .".  Dellie, 
being  Jewish  and  never  realizing  that 
the  religious  connection  was  still 
evident  in  print  if  not  in  spirit,  refused 
the  presidency  unless  the  wording  was 
changed. 

With  the  support  of  Executive 
Director  Lucy  Schulte,  an  effort  was 
launched  to  adopt  a  more  inclusive  and 
accurate  membership  statement.  They 
concurred  with  other  YWCA's  around 
the  country  and  found  strong  support 
because  not  only  were  there  active 
Jewish  members,  but  also  Moslems, 
Buddhists,  atheists,  and  others.  In  1964 
they  brought  this  issue  to  the  YWCA 
National  Convention  in  Cleveland. 

It  took  three  years  but  the  wording 
on  the  membership  card  was  finally 
changed  to  a  more  inclusive  statement. 

Soon  afterwards,  Lucy  sent  Dellie  a 
telegram  which  read,  "Hail  to  the 
Chief!",  for  now  she  could  accept  the 
presidency.  Dellie  served  as  the 
Association's  leader  from  1967-1969. 

Her  fond  memories  of  the  work  of 
the  YWCA  have  remained  a  valuable 
part  of  her  life,  Dellie  says,  because  she 
had  such  a  rewarding  experience 
getting  to  know  all  the  other  volun 
teers. 

Thank  you  Dellie  Heilbron  for 
your  time  and  energy  in  service  to  the 
community  and  for  making  the  YWCA 
a  more  welcoming  and  uniiving 
organization  for  all. 

Quote*  Hot  directly  attributed  ta  Dellie 
Heillmiii  are  from  the  His/on/  i>l  tlie  YWCA  hi 
Sm  Francisco  (continued)  1930-195.3  compiled 
(M/  Rosii/iv  Venable.  * 


364c 


Jewish   Bulletin 


365 


Htcke: 
Heilbron: 

Hicke : 
Heilbron: 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Hicke: 
Heilbron: 


You  probably  hadn't  been  that  close  to  a  revolution  yourself 
very  often. 

No,  I  don't  think  I  had  been  at  all.   Well,  now  wait  a  minute. 
I  did  tell  you  that  I  was  in  Sarajevo  when  the  Archduke  got 
assassinated.   I  think  that  was  close  enough.   [laughter] 

That's  right.   That  was  probably  even  closer. 

They  were  very  impressed  with  Monte  Alban.   I  think  it  is  a 
Toltec  stadium  where  the  ball  playing  [Tlatchli]  took  place,  and 
a  temple  of  astronomy.   Of  course,  the  Indians  were  quite 
advanced  in  their  observation  of  the  planets. 

We  were  at  Teotihuacan,  too.   I  recall  that  Dellie  wanted 
to  be  sure  to  see  everything.   She  wanted  to  see  the  Pyramid  to 
the  Moon  as  well  as  the  Pyramid  to  the  Sun.   So  she  and  John 
started  walking  over  there,  and  suddenly  people  were  shouting, 
and  then  John  noticed  that  there  was  a  snake  or  two  in  the 
grass.   So  they  came  back  before  visiting  the  Pyramid  of  the 
Moon. 


Oh,  dear, 
probably. 


There  weren't  as  many  tourists  then  as  there  are  now, 


No,  and  at  that  time  the  ride  from  Xochimilco  was  very 
interesting.   We  got  into  the  boat  and  had  the  usual  family 
tourist  picture  and  enjoyed  our  lunch  as  we  went  down  the  canal. 

At  Monte  Alban  there  was  an  old  Indian  cemetery.   There 
were  trenches  that  had  been  dug.   I  don't  know  whether  it  was 
for  further  exploration.   I  remember  that  we  had  some  discussion 
where  Delphine  disagreed  with  what  the  boys  were  saying  and  they 
took  her  up  and  here  was  this  trench.   They  said,  "This  is  the 
place  for  you,  Mom."   [laughter] 

That  ends  that  discussion! 

I  mention  these  episodes  because  I  think  they  developed  a  desire 
to  see  other  places,  to  go  to  other  countries,  as  part  of  their 
essential  learning.   Certainly  they  have  done  a  tremendous 
amount  of  traveling  ever  since. 

I  recall  that  when  David  was  competing  for  the  Rhodes 
scholarship  as  the  nominee  from  Berkeley,  he  was  quite  concerned 
about  the  kind  of  tests  that  the  committee  would  give  them.   The 
stories  went  that  somebody  might  tell  an  off-color  story  just  to 
see  how  they  would  respond  in  a  social  situation  of  that  kind, 
that  they  observed  table  manners  as  well  as  academic  matters. 


366 


He  also  heard  that  they  tested  them  at  breakfast  by  giving  them 
soft-boiled  eggs  and  seeing  how  they  broke  them  and  took  care  of 
putting  them  in  the  egg  cup. 

Hicke:     Oh,  yes.   The  egg  comes  in  the  shell  like  they  do  in  Europe. 

Heilbron:   That's  right.   It  is  the  breaking  of  the  shell  and  so  on  just  to 
see  how  they  behave  in  England.   That  was  the  assumption, 
anyway . 

So  David  said  he  needed  some  training,  and  Delphine  gave  it 
to  him.   She  took  a  number  of  eggs  and  put  them  in  the  boiling 
water  and  at  the  right  time  took  them  out  and  gave  them  to  David 
to  break  and  pour  into  a  proper  cup.   It  wasn't  long  before  the 
kitchen  was  a  grand  mess.   [laughter] 

Hicke:     He  just  couldn't  get  it  right? 

Heilbron:   The  eggs  were  all  over  the  place.   David  said,  "If  this  is  the 
test,  they  can  have  the  damn  scholarship!"   However,  he  did  go 
to  breakfast  down  in  Los  Angeles  and  they  offered  the  candidates 
eggs  cooked  to  their  choice.   David  was  the  only  one  to  select 
boiled  eggs  and  triumphantly  they  moved  no  further  than  the 
plate.   [laughter] 

The  other  interesting  part,  I  think,  of  that  experience- -I 
think  both  of  our  sons  are  quite  independent -minded.   In  David's 
case,  though  his  father  was  a  lawyer,  that  didn't  necessarily 
mean  that  he  was  going  to  be  a  lawyer.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  he 
may  have  been  an  English  major;  I  think  he  was.   He  gave  some 
indication  of  wanting  co  continue  his  English  studies  and 
possibly  go  into  academic  life.   At  least  that  was  what  the 
Rhodes  committee  thought  when  they  awarded  him  the  scholarship. 

Because  he  was  going  over  for  quite  some  time  and  the 
brothers  were  quite  close,  we  sent  John  over  with  David  for  a 
summer  in  Europe,  and  they  had  a  most  enjoyable  time,  but  when 
they  came  to  England,  John  had  to  get  back  to  the  U.S.  and  David 
had  a  few  days  alone  in  London. 

To  occupy  his  time,  at  least  part  of  it,  he  went  to  the 
Inns  of  Court,  and  he  saw  trials  there  and  heard  the  opposing 
counsel- -the  barristers- -heard  the  evidence  and  saw  the 
defendants.   He  spent  two  or  three  days  witnessing  these  scenes, 
and  apparently  he  felt  that  law  wasn't  a  bad  place  after  all. 
He  realized  that  the  committee  had  been  told  by  him  that  he  was 
greatly  interested  in  literature  and  that  was  one  of  the  reasons 
for  wanting  to  go  to  Oxford.   So  he  called  them  up,  called  them 
in  the  United  States  (I  think  the  headquarters  were  at 


367 


Swarthmore  College) ,  and  he  asked  whether  it  would  be  in 
accordance  with  the  terms  for  him  to  change  the  area  in  which  he 
wanted  to  read- -that's  what  they  call  it.   They  said  the 
scholarship  was  his,  he  should  do  with  it  as  he  wished.   So  he 
went  into  the  reading  of  law  and,  as  you  know,  has  become  a 
trial  lawyer. 

Hicke:     Just  in  the  space  of  two  or  three  days  he  made  that  decision? 
Heilbron:   I  think  those  were  the  days  that  were  the  influential  days. 
Hicke:     But  he  must  have  been  aware  of  the  possibility? 

Heilbron:  Veil,  he  had  the  background.  He  had  done  enough  debating  in 
high  school  to  satisfy  himself,  but  it  was  the  Inns  of  Court 
that  became  decisive. 

Hicke:  It  is  so  different  from  our  way  of  practicing  the  law.  And  he 
is  a  litigator? 

Heilbron:   He  is  a  litigator,  and  he  is  also  an  appellate  lawyer.   He  did 
extremely  well.  He  got  a  congratulatory  first,  and  that  meant 
he  had  to  go  back  to  Oxford  for  an  extra  degree- -not  that  it 
took  any  time,  but  there  was  a  little  ceremony  in  connection 
with  it. 

Hicke:     He  was  awarded  an  extra  degree? 

Heilbron:   No,  it  was  more  of  an  honorary  recognition. 

ft 

Heilbron:   And  meanwhile  our  older  son,  John,  had  been  married  a  year 

before,  so  we  all  went  over  to  the  wedding  of  two  San  Francisco 
people  married  in  a  chapel  outside  of  Oxford.   [laughter] 

Hicke:  She  was  attending  Oxford  also? 

Heilbron:  No,  no.   His  wife  was  his  sweetheart  from  Lowell. 

Hicke:  Oh,  I  see.   She  went  over,  too? 

Heilbron:  Well,  she  went  over  to  get  married.  Of  course  she  went  over. 

Hicke:  And  everybody  else  went  along? 

Heilbron:  Actually,  Delphine  went  before  I  did.  I,  at  that  time,  had  my 
responsibilities  with  the  board  of  education  and  was  scheduled 
to  give  a  commencement  address  at  San  Francisco  State,  so  I 


368 


Heilbron: 


remained.   Delphine  had  not  been  to  England  before.   We  had  been 
to  Europe  five  years  before.   So  she  went  over  there  for  three 
weeks  alone,  and  David  met  her,  even  though  it  was  during 
examinations . 

[tape  interruption] 

David  wrote  part  of  the  service,  and  they  selected  the 
remainder.   It  was  a  nonsectarian  service.   He  was  marrying  a 
non-Jewish  girl,  and  Cantor  [Ruben]  Kinder  from  Temple  Emanu-El 
sent  part  of  the  service,  so  it  was  somewhat  of  a  conglomerate 
affair. 


Hicke:     Eclectic? 

Heilbron:   Eclectic.   It  was  a  happening. 

Getting  back  to  Delphine,  who  had  gone  there  three  weeks 
earlier,  after  she  had  done  her  London  sightseeing,  she  went  up 
to  Oxford,  and  she  went  "pubbing"  with  David  and  his  friends 
almost  every  evening,  and  she  said  she  was  running  out  of  money 
feeding  Oxford.   [laughter]   But  she  had  a  good  time. 

Then  we  all  gathered.   I  forget  the  name  of  that  old  Oxford 
hotel  that  no  longer  functions  as  a  hotel,  but  it  went  back  a 
great  many  years.   Oh  yes,  it  was  the  Mitre.   The  floors  were 
inclined.   She  had  the  queen's  bedroom,  which  meant--!  don't 
know--a  long  walk  down  a  hallway  to  her  own  bathroom.   As  I  say, 
the  floor  had  a  grade  to  it  from  sinking  with  the  load  of 
centuries.   They  had  their  wedding  dinner  there,  too.   Then  all 
of  us  took  time  to  pay  a  visit  to  the  continent,  and  they 
interrupted  part  of  their  honeymoon,  so  that  we  all  met  in 
southern  France  at  Antibes  and  again  in  Bellagio  in  northern 
Italy  on  Lake  Como.   So  these  were  very  pleasant  times. 

Hicke:     What  is  his  wife's  name? 

Heilbron:   David's  wife's  name  is  Nancy.   They  have  three  lovely  daughters, 
Lauren,  Sarah,  and  Ellen.   And  through  my  sister,  Juliet  Krasne 
(an  award  volunteer  buyer  for  hospital  gift  shops),  I  have  a 
jolly  niece,  Diane,  a  former  buyer  for  I.  Magnin. 

Hicke:     And  John's  wife? 

Heilbron:   John's  wife's  name  is  Pat.   Nancy  is  quite  a  talented  pianist, 
and  when  Arthur  Fiedler  came  out  on  one  of  his  summer  concert 
tours  to  San  Francisco,  she  played  the  solo  part  with  the 
orchestra,  with  the  San  Francisco  Symphony  conducted  by  Fiedler. 


369 

But  after  a  time,  she  decided  that  she  did  not  want  a  career 
with  the  piano,  and  so  she  has  played  for  pleasure. 

Pat--Lucero  was  her  name,  Patricia  Lucero,  John's  wife—was 
from  San  Diego,  and  a  teacher  of  art  at  Acalanes  High  School  in 
Contra  Costa  County.   She  is  a  painter  of  abstracts  and  has  done 
excellent  work.   I  believe  John  and  Patricia  met  in 
International  House,  where  they  both  lived  during  postgraduate 
work. 

John  had  faced  his  own  problem  of  a  career  choice.   He 
started  out  to  be  a  physicist,  acquiring  a  master's  degree  in 
the  subject.   But  when  Professor  Tom  Kuhn  heard  him  give  a  paper 
on  Galileo  in  a  graduate  seminar,  he  persuaded  him  to  consider 
committing  himself  to  the  history  of  science.   After  weighing 
the  matter,  John  decided  to  obtain  his  doctorate  in  history  and 
to  make  his  lifetime  work  in  this  field. 

After  he  received  his  doctorate,  he  spent  a  year  doing 
research  at  the  Niels  Bohr  Institute  in  Copenhagen  and  then 
joined  the  faculty  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  and  stayed 
for  three  years.   He  was  delighted  to  accept  an  invitation  to 
become  an  assistant  professor  at  Berkeley,  taking  his  chances 
for  promotion.   Many  satisfying  and  productive  years  have 
followed. 

He  has  written  a  dozen  or  more  books  and  numerous  articles 
in  the  field  of  the  history  of  science;  he  is  a  recognized  world 
authority.   He  has  served  as  professor  in  the  History 
Department,  director  of  the  History  of  Science  Department, 
director  of  the  History  of  Science  Center,  chairman  of  the 
Academic  Senate,  and  currently  as  the  Vice  Chancellor  at  UC 
Berkeley.   Among  the  many  honors  he  has  received  is  an  honorary 
doctorate  from  the  University  of  Bologna  as  part  of  its  800th 
anniversary  celebration.   He  is  a  member  of  the  Royal  Swedish 
Academy  of  Sciences  and  fellow  of  the  American  Academy  of  Arts 
and  Sciences.   Among  his  best  known  books  are:  The  Dilemmas  of 
an  Upright  Man:  Max  Planck  as  Spokesman  for  German  Science', 
Electricity  in  the  17th  and  18th  Centuries;  Lawrence  and  His 
Laboratory  (with  Robert  Seidel) ;  and  Historical  Studies  in  the 
Theory  of  Atomic  Structure.   His  list  of  publications  runs  to 
five  pages. 

licke:     Yes,  he  would  be  a  good  candidate  for  an  oral  history. 

Jeilbron:   Equally,  David  has  made  a  great  many  things  happen.   He  has  been 
president  of  both  the  San  Francisco  and  the  California  state 
bars,  and  he  has  had  a  lot  of  high-level  trial  and  appellate 
experience  all  over  the  country.   He  is  a  fellow  of  the 


370 

California  Academy  of  Appellate  Lawyers  and  of  the  American 
College  of  Trial  Lawyers.   He  is  often  called  upon  to  arbitrate; 
his  interest  in  alternate  dispute  resolution  has  resulted  in  his 
beoming  a  director  and  member  of  the  Executive  Board  of  the 
American  Arbitration  Association.   He  has  served  as  managing 
partner  of  his  law  firm,  McCutchen,  Doyle,  Brown  &  Enersen. 

Best  of  all,  they  are  good  men,  good  company,  and  possess 
good  senses  of  humor,  but  as  you  can  see  they  have  their  own 
tales  to  tell,  and  these  I  feel  certain  will  prove  to  be  much 
more  interesting  than  mine. 

Hicke:     In  any  case  I  appreciate  the  start  you  have  given  on  their 

tales.   And  I'd  like  to  thank  you  for  the  time  you  have  devoted 
to  this  project. 

Heilbron:   Thank  you.   It  has  been  a  busy  life,  often  made  possible  by  the 
use  of  a  seven-day  week. 


[Post  interview  editorial  note:  Delphine  R.  Heilbron  died  in  August  of  1993 
and  Patricia  Heilbron  in  December  of  the  same  year.   The  memorial  services 
in  each  instance  were  moving  and  memorable.] 


Transcribers:  Elizabeth  Kim  and  Kian  Sandjideh 
Final  Typist:  Shannon  Page 


371 


LOO 
105 
112 
122 
129 


I 


K 


135 
148 
155 
163 
169 


1 
6 

12 
16 


20 
26 
31 


Memorial  Service 
for  Delphine  R.  Heilbron 

1907-1993 


34 
41 
48 
53 


57 
64 
70 
77 


83 

90 

96 

188 


Tape    14,    side  B 


189 
196 
204 
210 


Californ 

College 

his  inte 

beoming 

American 

partner 

Bes 

good  sen 
tales  tc 
more  int 

Hicke:     In  any  c 
tales, 
to  this 

Heilbron:   Thank  yc 
use  of  i 


[Post  interview  ed: 
and  Patricia  Heilbi 
in  each  instance  w« 


Transcribers:  Eliz 
Final  Typist:  Shanr 


371 


100 
105 
112 
122 
129 


135 
148 
155 
163 
169 

At  the  request  of  many  friends,  I  have  published 
the  eulogies  for  my  beloved  Delphine,  given  by 

Rabbi  Alvin  Fine  and  our  sons,  John  and  David,  6 

on  September  2, 1993  at  the  Memorial  Service  in  12 

Temple  Emanu-El.  The  sensitivity,  beauty  and  !6 
humor  of  these  remembrances  celebrate  a  life 

fully  lived,  widely  shared.  2o 

26 

Louis  Heilbron  3 1 


34 
41 
48 
53 


57 
64 
70 
77 


83 
90 
96 

188 


189 
196 
204 


Tape    14,    side   B  210 


Califoi 
College 
his  int 
beominj 
Americj 
partnei 

B< 

good  s« 
tales  1 
more  it 

Hicke:  In  any 
tales, 
to  this 

Heilbron:   Thank  : 
use  of 


[Post  interview  e< 
and  Patricia  Heill 
in  each  instance  \ 


Transcribers:  Eli 
Final  Typist:  Sha, 


Rabbi  Alvin  I.  Fine  ,  05 

112 
To  the  living-  122 

Death  is  a  wound.  Its  name  is  grief. 

Its  companion  is  loneliness. 

Whenever  it  comes  —  whatever  its  guise,  135 

Even  when  there  are  no  tears  -  148 

Death  is  a  wound.  155 

163 

But  death  belongs  to  life  - 

As  night  belongs  to  day 

As  darkness  belongs  to  light  l 

As  shadow  belongs  to  substance  - 

As  the  fallen  leaf  to  the  tree,  16 

As  time  to  eternity, 

So  death  belongs  to  life. 

20 

9  f\ 

Life's  meaning  is  not  measured  r: 

by  how  long  we  live  — 

It  is  measured  by  how  much  we  do 

to  make  life  good.  34 

41 

Delphine  Heilbron  lived  her  life  with  a 
profound  understanding  that  a  good  and  mean 
ingful  lifetime  just  doesn't  happen  to  happen.  She 
had  the  wisdom  to  know  that  one  has  to  devote 
oneself  to  whatever  human  talent  it  takes  to  make 

life  good  and  meaningful  —  for  oneself,  one's  77 

family  and  one's  community.  That  is  certainly  no 
simple  or  easy  task;  but  Delphine  had  all  the 
necessary  talents,  and  she  devoted  her  life  to 

making  life  good  and  meaningful.  How  nobly  and  96 

graciously  and  creatively  she  did  it.  For  her,  188 


189 
196 
204 


Tape  14,  side  B  210 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Califo 
Colleg 
his  in 
beomin 
Americ 
partne 

B 

good  s 
tales 

more  i 

In  any 
tales, 
to  thi 

Thank 
use  of 


[Post  interview  e 
and  Patricia  Heil 
in  each  instance 


making  the  most  of  life  was  to  help  others  to  make 
the  best  of  it. 

Delphine  brought  a  rich  array  of  talents  to 
the  art  of  living:  her  intelligence  and  energy,  her 
determination  and  optimism,  her  insight  and 
idealism,  her  forthrightness  and  honesty,  her 
cheerfulness  and  humor,  her  compassion  and  love. 
If  things  sometimes  seemed  too  much,  she  intu 
itively  understood  the  rabbinic  teaching:  "It  is  not 
incumbent  upon  you  to  complete  the  work,  but 
neither  are  you  free  to  desist  from  it  altogether." 

There  was  no  affectation  or  pretense  in  her 
character.  She  was  the  same  Delphine  Heilbron  in 
every  part  of  her  life.  Whether  at  the  Emanu-El 
Sisterhood  Board  or  the  Florence  Crittenton  Board. 
Whether  at  the  Jewish  Welfare  Federation  or  as 
president  of  the  San  Francisco  YWCA.  Whether  as 
a  teacher,  in  earlier  years,  along  with  her  husband, 
at  the  Temple  Emanu-El  Religious  School  or,  in 
more  recent  years,  as  a  member  of  the  Advisory 
Board  of  San  Francisco  State  University.  In  every 
role  and  in  every  endeavor,  she  was  always  the 
same  person  of  unchangeable  honesty  and  integ 
rity.  I  cherish  a  personal  anecdote  that  reflects  this 
quality  in  Delphine's  character.  After  Sabbath 
morning  services,  as  the  congregation  came 
through  the  reception  line,  I  would  learn  immedi 
ately  from  Dellie  Heilbron  whether  my  sermon 
was  good  —  or  otherwise.  She  was  always  warm 
and  friendly,  and  always  candid. 

Most  precious  of  all  —  she  who  never 
stopped  trying  to  make  life  good  and  meaningful 
for  others,  did  it  superbly  as  a  devoted  and  loving 
wife  and  mother  and  grandmother.  From  their 
days  together  as  students  at  the  University  of 


Transcribers:    Eli 
Final  Typist:    Stu_ 


California,  the  long  wonderful  lifetime  that 
Delphine  and  Louis  Heilbron  created  in  their 
marriage  and  with  their  family  is  the  greatest 
fulfillment  of  her  optimism  and  determination 
that:  Yes,  we  can  make  life  good  and  meaningful. 

The  concluding  chapter  of  the  Book  of 
Proverbs  in  the  Bible  pays  homage  to  A  Woman  of 
Valor.  In  poetic  praise,  it  describes  the  qualities 
and  virtues  and  ideal  character  of  a  valorous 
woman.  It  is  a  beautiful  tribute.  However,  words 
alone  do  not  quite  complete  the  portrait.  If  you 
want  to  fill  out  the  verbal  description  with  a  por 
trait  of  a  woman  of  valor  —  just  remember 
Delphine  Heilbron. 

May  her  memory  be  a  blessing. 

Amen. 


100 
105 
112 
122 
129 


135 
148 
155 
163 
169 


1 
6 

12 
16 


20 
26 
31 


34 
41 
48 
53 


57 
64 
70 
77 


83 
90 

96 
188 


Tape  14,  side  B 


189 
196 
204 
210 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Califc 
Colleg 
his  ir 
beomir 
Americ 
partne 

I 

good  s 
tales 

more  i 

In  anj 
tales, 
to  thi 

Thank 
use  ol 


[Post  interview  « 
and  Patricia  Hei] 
in  each  instance 


John  Heilbron 

My  mother  was  a  wonderfully  rich  and 
complex  personality,  abounding  in  energy,  full  of 
love  and  compassion  and  curiosity,  fiery,  fearless, 
inventive.  She  made  friends  instantly  and  every 
where.  I  am  astonished  at  the  number  of  people  at 
the  University,  who  had  met  Mother  only  once  or 
twice,  who  expressed  their  condolences  to  me  in 
ways  that  showed  that  she  had  touched  their  lives. 

Another  long  suit  in  my  mother's  personal 
ity  is  that,  as  a  mother,  she  was  a  Jewish  mother. 
Or,  perhaps  I  should  say  "is"  a  Jewish  mother. 
For,  as  the  acts  of  loving  kindness  we  perform  are 
supposed  to  live  on  after  us,  so,  too,  does  the  work 
of  the  Jewish  mother,  in  her  children  and  their 
psychiatrists.  Mother  wielded  the  instruments  of 
the  Jewish  mother  with  great  skill  and  accuracy. 
She  knew  when  to  comfort  and  indulge,  when  to 
be  stiff  and  silent,  when  to  praise  and  when  to  cry, 
and,  most  effective  of  all,  when  to  utter  those 
awful  words,  "I'll  tell  your  father."  She  ruled  us  as 
children  without  resorting  to  blows,  by  wiles  and 
guile,  by  love  and  example. 

We  were  brought  up  in  the  Jewish  tradition, 
attended  Sunday  School  and  Summer  Camp.  But 
Mother's  concept  of  religion  and  service  went  well 
beyond  Judaism  and  the  Jewish  community.  She 
also  supported  the  YWCA  and  rose  to  be  presi 
dent  of  its  San  Francisco  chapter.  And  so  we  grew 
to  maturity  and  confusion  with  a  Jewish  mother 
who  ran  the  Young  Women's  Christian  Associa 
tion. 


Transcribers:    El: 
Final  Typist:    Shi. 


Mother  supported  honest  and  effective 
causes  wherever  she  found  them.  Unlike  Dickens' 
Mrs.  Jellaby,  who  labored  unceasingly  in  the  cause 
of  the  natives  of  some  faraway  island,  while  myri 
ads  of  children,  including  her  own,  went  hungry 
and  in  rags  around  her,  Mother  worked  hard  as  a 
volunteer  to  alleviate  suffering  almost  at  her 
doorstep.  Hence  her  long-time  involvement  with 
the  Y  and  the  Florence  Crittenton  services. 

Mother  had  a  genius  for  friendship.  This  is 
scarcely  news  to  you,  many  of  whom  were  friends 
of  hers  for  even  longer  than  I.  Yes,  I,  and  my 
brother  David,  and  our  wives  Pat  and  Nancy, 
were  not  only  relatives  but  also  good  friends  of 
my  parents.  The  six  of  us  liked  to  linger  over  a 
good  meal  together  and  to  travel  in  company.  We 
have  been  with  one  another  on  trips  to  Europe,  to 
the  East  Coast  and  Canada,  and  within  California. 
Although  Mother  did  not  qualify  as  tour  guide, 
since  she  never  could  be  persuaded  that  maps 
related  in  any  useful  way  to  the  ground,  she 
nonetheless  often  took  the  lead.  Thereby  she 
inculcated  two  important  lessons:  you  can  form 
close  friendships  across  generations,  even  with 
your  parents,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  be  able  to 
distinguish  north  from  south  to  know  your  place 
in  the  world. 

Mother  was  an  excellent  teacher.  Because 
we  moved  East  during  the  second  world  war  and 
then  back  to  San  Francisco  when  Father  went 
overseas,  my  brother  and  I  missed  some  important 
bits  of  grammar  school.  Among  the  bits  I  missed 
was  the  multiplication  table.  In  those  days,  chil 
dren  were  expected  to  be  able  to  multiply  up  to  12 
times  12.  Mother  taught  me,  in  a  week  or  so,  by 


100 
105 
112 
122 
129 


135 
148 
155 
163 
169 


1 
6 

12 
16 


20 
26 
31 


34 
41 
48 
53 


57 
64 
70 
77 


83 
90 

96 
188 


Tape  14,  side  B 


189 
196 
204 
210 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Califo 
Colleg. 
his  in 
beomin; 
Americ, 
partne 

B 

good  s< 
tales 
more  i: 

In  any 
tales, 
to  thi 

Thank 
use  of 


[Post  interview  e 
and  Patricia  Heil 
in  each  instance 


making  a  game  of  it.  She  was  very  good  at 
numbers,  if  they  did  not  involve  fractions. 

She  could  add  up  the  cost  of  groceries  faster 
than  the  cash  register,  and  usually  more  accu 
rately,  since  the  clerk  could  make  errors  punching 
in  the  price,  and  Mother  never  made  mistakes  in 
addition.  When  she  and  the  cash  register  dis 
agreed,  she  would  tell  the  clerk,  even  if  the  error 
were  in  her  favor.  And  so  she  made  mathematics 
both  a  game  and  a  morality  play. 

Mother's  interest  in  education  was  requited 
more  than  she  could  reasonably  have  expected 
when  Father  became  head  of  the  first  Board  of 
Trustees  of  the  California  State  Colleges.  (So  well 
have  they  done  following  the  line  he  set  forth  that 
recently  they  have  become  State  Universities.) 
Like  the  children  of  Mme  Lafarge,  who  prattled 
about  the  names  in  her  knitting,  so  our  dinner 
conversations  foretold  the  fates  of  chancellors  and 
the  fortunes  of  curricula.  Mother  scarcely  com 
plained  about  the  heavy  burden  of  travel  and 
entertainment  that  Father's  educational  good 
works  put  upon  her.  She  endeared  herself  to  a 
generation  of  college  presidents. 

Of  course,  Mother  was  no  mere  warm  and 
hospitable  hostess.  She  was  also  an  academic 
leader  in  her  own  right.  I  can  well  remember  at 
one  of  her  parties  her  attempt  to  elucidate  the 
more  obscure  Oz  books,  on  which  she  was  an 
authority,  to  the  president  of  San  Francisco  State 
College.  He  was  an  Asian  and  had  never  mastered 
L.  Frank  Baum.  A  little  later,  Mother  was  invited 
to  join  the  advisory  board  of  the  college.  There 
with  I  learned  another  of  Mother's  mixed  mes 
sages:  children's  stories  are  a  good  preparation  for 


Transcribers:    Eli 
Final  Typist:    Sha. 


371 


an  administrator  of  higher  education.  I  have  found 
this  lesson  particularly  useful. 

Mother  liked  the  fey  and  the  cockeyed.  She 

loved  the  operettas  of  Gilbert  and  Sullivan,  espe-  L 12 

daily  the  most  nonsensical  of  them  all,  lolanthe,  122 

whose  hero,  Strephon,  was  the  offspring  of  a  129 

lawyer  and  a  fairy.  As  his  mother  liked  to  say, 

with  a  delicate  Victorian  ellipsis,  "He  is  a  fairy  135 

down  to  his  waist,  but  his  legs  are  mortal."  His  148 

father's  dictum,  "The  law  is  the  true  embodiment  155 

of  everything  that's  excellent"  naturally  guided 
our  household.  Poor  Strephon  had  the  difficulty, 
which  each  of  us  must  feel  in  his  or  her  own  way, 

that  only  half  of  him  could  go  through  a  keyhole.  1 

Mother  gave  us  a  great  fondness  for  the  whimsical 
and  whacky.  Two  of  my  greatest  pleasures  in  life 
are  turning  on  a  Gilbert  and  Sullivan  operetta,  and 
turning  it  off. 

Naturally,  she  liked  The  Tempest  best  of  all  20 

Shakespeare's  plays.  She  liked  the  make-believe 
with  a  message,  the  fantasy  and  allegory.  She 
sympathized  with  the  sufferings  of  the  unruly 

American  underdog  Caliban  at  the  hands  of  the  34 

noble  Italian  wizard  Prospero.  After  staging  a  41 

show  of  his  spirit  control  to  impress  his  future 
son-in-law,  Prospero  gave  a  famous  speech  that 
Mother,  with  her  intuition  of  the  essence  of  things, 
fully  appreciated:  57 

....  These  our  actors  [Prospero  said]  7  7 

As  I  foretold  you,  were  all  spirits  and 

Are  melted  into  air,  into  the  air: 

And,  like  the  baseless  fabric  of  this  vision, 

96 
188 


189 
196 

luptj  14,  biUL  a     •^•^•^^•••M  204 

Tape  14,  side  B  210 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Califo 
Colleg 
his  in 
beomin 
Americ 
partne 

B 

good  s 
tales 
more  i 

In  any 
tales, 
to  thi 

Thank 
use  of 


[Post  interview  e 
and  Patricia  Heil 
in  each  instance 


The  cloud-capp'd  towers,  the  gorgeous 
palaces, 

The  solemn  temples,  the  great  globe  itself, 
Yea,  all  which  it  inherit,  shall  dissolve, 
And,  like  this  insubstantial  pageant  faded, 
Leave  not  a  rack  behind.  We  are  such  stuff 
As  drerms  are  made  on,  and  our  little  life 
Is  rounded  with  a  sleep. 

The  last  lines  are  not  perfectly  apt.  Mother's 
life  is  now  rounded  in  sleep.  But  it  was  big  and 
full,  not  little,  and  too  powerful  and  effective  to  be 
likened  to  a  dream. 

Mother  had  something  in  common  with 
Prospero.  She  was  very  inventive.  Those  of  you 
who  know  her  pottery  will  remember  the  original 
ity  of  shapes  and  glazes.  No  two  are  alike.  She  did 
not  want  to  do  the  same  thing  twice  and,  in  any 
case,  she  measured  more  like  a  cook  than  a  chem 
ist,  and  her  glazes  were  literally  inimitable. 

Mother's  latest  invention  was  just  that,  an 
invention.  After  she  became  ill,  she  noticed  that 
older  people  who  faint  are  often  treated  by  mouth- 
to-mouth  resuscitation.  Ever  fastidious,  she  felt  the 
indignity,  not  to  mention  the  danger,  of  the 
method.  What  would  you  do  about  it?  She  worked 
out  a  mechanical,  pneumatic,  safe  and  simple, 
disposable  manual  resuscitator.  She  obtained  a 
patent  on  this  device  at  the  age  of  84. 

The  resuscitator  illustrates  Mother  at  her 
best:  perceptive,  clever,  concerned  with  the  prob 
lems  of  her  fellow  human  beings,  determined  to 
improve  life  in  however  small  a  way,  and  not 
deterred  in  the  slightest  by  the  fact  that  she  was  an 


Transcribers:  El: 
Final  Typist:  She. 


371 


old  woman  with  no  training  or  experience  in  any  of 
the  arts  and  sciences  usually  thought  necessary  to 

the  inventor  of  a  medical  apparatus.  100 

Mother's  sufferings  during  her  last  months  105 

were  a  great  trial  to  her  and  to  those  near  her  who 
loved  her.  We  watched  as  her  sense  of  fun,  her 
perceptiveness,  her  interest  in  others,  her  beautiful 
spirit,  slowly  drained  away.  At  last,  a  week  ago  last 
Saturday,  she  could  sing  with  the  Psalmist  [8:20-21], 


155 
[The  Lord]  delivered  me,  because  he  163 

delighted  in  me.  169 

[He]  rewarded  me  according  to  my 

righteousness. 

6 

12 
16 


20 
26 
31 


34 
41 
48 
53 


57 
64 
70 
77 


83 
90 
96 

188 


189 
196 
204 


Tape  14,  side  B  210 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Califo 
Colleg 
his  in 
beomin 
Americ 
partne 

B 

good  s 
tales 
more  i 

In  any 
tales, 
to  thi 

Thank 
use  of 


[Post  interview  e 
and  Patricia  Heil 
in  each  instance 


David  Heilbron 

If  there  is  an  afterlife,  the  Lord  has  a 
handful  here.  She  had  better  have  a  cloud  with  a 
view.  I  don't  mean  that  Mom  was  a  character;  she 
was  much  too  centered  for  that.  But  she  was  a 
wonderful  piece  of  intricate  work:  A  full-on  per 
son,  as  her  granddaughters  would  put  it.  Her 
spirit  danced,  as  one  of  her  granddaughters  put  it. 

She  had  a  great  zest  for  life,  she  was  a  true 
enthusiast,  and  it  was  infectious.  She  had  a  rich 
laugh.  She  laughed  from  the  belly  and  a  good  part 
of  the  rest  of  her.  She  played  the  piano,  by  ear, 
with  a  sort  of  disciplined,  demonic  abandon.  She 
loved  to  bang  out  "Alexander's  Rag  Time  Band" 
and  "I'll  Be  Down  to  Get  You  in  a  Taxi,  Honey" 
and  the  "Beer  Barrel  Polka."  It  was  a  great  joy  to 
listen  to  her  go  at  it.  She  was  having  so  much  fun 
doing  it,  everyone  listening  to  it  just  had  fun,  too. 

She  was  gentle.  She  was  good  at  taking  off 
World  War  II-vintage  non-ouchless  bandages  — 
she  was  of  the  all-at-once  school.  And  when  we 
were  small,  she  liked  to  sing  the  "Owl  and  the 
Pussy  Cat."  It  delighted  her  as  much  as  us,  I  think. 
She  sang  softly.  It  was  nice. 

She  had  a  friend  from  the  South  who  had 
a  big  old  two-story  house.  The  friend  told  Mom 
that  when  her  kids  called  from  the  upper  story, 
she'd  answer,  "Yo  motha  is  on  the  first  floor." 
That  just  tickled  Mom.  She  loved  telling  it,  but 
she  never  did  it.  The  fact  is  that  she  was  never  on 
the  first  floor,  or  otherwise  unavailable,  for  us  or 
anyone  else. 


Transcribers:    Eli 
Final  Typist: 


371 


She  was  a  dedicated,  card-carrying, 
unrepentant,  bleeding  heart  liberal.  She  felt  for  the 
poor,  the  disadvantaged,  the  weak  —  basically 

anyone  whose  luck  had  turned  bad.  She  did  not  L 12 

love  humanity  just  in  the  abstract.  She  loved  122 

people,  one  by  one.  She  liked  to  make  friends,  and  129 

she  seemed  to  make  friends  with  almost  everyone 

she  met.  She  gave  herself  to  you.  She  put  herself  135 

out  there  for  you.  It  was  almost  impossible  not  to  148 

be  touched  by  her.  155 

She  had  opinions  about  a  lot  of  things.  She  163 

held  her  convictions  deeply,  and  sometimes  she 
was  contentious  when  she  expressed  them.  She 

was  not  afraid  of  conflict.  She  was  proud  that  her  l 

father  allegedly  belted  some  hoods  who  attacked  6 

him  when  he  was  in  his  late  sixties.  She  liked  to 
say,  "I'll  knock  your  block  off,"  or  "I'll  give  you  a 
klop  mit  fallah  fish."  She  would  sort  of  chortle 

when  she  said  it,  although  whatever  she  meant  by  20 

it,  the  record  does  not  show  she  ever  did  it.  26 

John  and  I  had  our  share  of  fights  growing 
up.  We  were  more  or  less  the  same  size,  and  no 

one  got  maimed.  I  don't  remember  Mom  ever  34 

breaking  any  of  them  up.  She  seemed,  as  I  look  41 

back  on  it,  content  to  let  us  fight  it  out  and  work  it  ^8 

through.  Whatever  she  did  about  it,  she  did  it 
right.  John  and  I  are  the  very  best  and  closest 

friends  to  this  day.  And  that's  something,  because  57 

John  still  isn't  all  that  easy  to  get  along  with.  64 

Mom  loved  words.  She  was  a  strict  gram-  1Q 

marian,  a  vigilant  defender  of  the  language.  You 
couldn't  get  away  without  comment  with  "me  and 
John"  went  somewhere,  or  "between  you  and  I," 
or  even  "whomever"  instead  of  "whoever,"  or  vice 
versa,  whichever  was  right.  188 


189 
196 

lape  14,  tlUU  H.    — ^ ^          204 

Tape  14,  side  B  210 


Hicke : 


Heilbron: 


Califo 
Colleg 
his  in 
beomin 
Americ 
partne 

B 

good  s 
tales 
more  i 

In  any 
tales, 
to  thi 

Thank 
use  of 


[Post  interview  e 
and  Patricia  Heil 
in  each  instance 


She  was  a  voracious,  eclectic  reader.  She  got 
a  kick  out  of  mysteries.  She  read  stacks  of  them, 
and  liked  to  solve  them  before  the  author  did.  She 
liked  Shakespeare  and  remembered  it.  She  liked  to 
hear  Dad  read  Browning  —  he  was  very  good  at  it. 
She  loved  Gilbert  &  Sullivan.  She  was  particularly 
fond  of  the  Lord  High  Executioner,  whose  list  no 
one  would  be  missed  from,  and  the  Captain  of  the 
Pinafore,  who  was  never,  never  sick  at  sea  —  well, 
hardly  ever.  And  she'd  sing  out  "well,  hardly 
ever"  with  a  great,  throaty  gusto. 

She  loved  objets  d'art  —  things.  She  loved  to 
buy  on  sale  and  get  a  good  bargain.  Not  really  so 
much  to  save  money  —  she  was  not  tight  at  all  - 
but  just  for  the  sheer  hell  of  it.  It  was  like  getting 
away  with  something.  She  had  a  lovely  sense  of 
mischief. 

She  was,  however,  scrupulously  honest  and 
law-abiding.  She  was  paying  Social  Security  taxes 
on  people  who  worked  in  the  house  before  Zoe 
Baird  was  in  high  school.  She  never  bought  a  drop 
of  black  market  gas  during  the  war;  she  just 
thought  it  was  wrong. 

Once  when  I  was  about  14, 1  asked  Mom 
whether  she  were  pretty  when  she  was  young  - 
she  was  in  her  early  forties  at  the  time.  Dad,  as  we 
all  know,  is  an  extraordinarily  cool  and  patient 
man,  but  the  cosmic  imbecility  of  that  remark  was 
too  much  for  him.  He  said,  sort  of  Gallahad-like  - 
forcefully:  "Of  course  she  was  beautiful  then,  she's 
beautiful  now,  you  dunce."  It  was  better  said  than 
that  —  Dad  was  speaking,  not  me  —  but  that  was 
the  substance  of  it.  Mom,  however,  was  not  Lady 
Guinevere.  She  said,  "No,  Louie,  he  has  other 
forms  of  prettiness  in  mind;  I  don't  fit;  that's  fine; 


Transcribers:  Eli 
Final  Typist:  Sh<^ 


371 


it's  exactly  as  it  should  be."  And  she  meant  it.  That 

ended  that.  I  don't  know  if  it  was  because  she  got  100 

me  out  of  a  jam  with  Dad  or  that  the  clean  wisdom  105 

of  what  she  said  was  striking  even  to  me,  but  that 

stayed  with  me.  She  was  often  wise. 

Dad  and  Mom  loved  each  other  very  much, 
and  it  showed.  They  were  pals,  lifelong  mates  in 

all  ways.  Louie  and  Dellie  were  sort  of  one  word.  135 

They  planned  trips  and  dinner  parties,  with  a  sort 
of  military  precision,  together.  They  talked  about 


plays,  movies,  sermons,  and  argued  about  them,  169 

and  everything  else,  together.  They  wrote  each 
other  every  day  during  the  war. 

Mom  kept  us  a  family  during  the  war.  She 

was  sometimes  a  mother  away  from  home  to  our  ^2 

cousins,  too  —  who  are  here  today.  She  made  us  16 

think  she  was  happy,  and  that  all  was  swell  with 
her.  That  was  something.  She  was  really  quite 

young,  she  had  lost  both  her  parents  shortly  after  26 

Dad  went  overseas,  and  she  must  have  been  sad  3  1 

and  scared  for  him  often. 

When  Dad  came  back,  we  drove  up  to 

•j  / 

Marysville  —  there  was  some  kind  of  Army  post 

up  there  —  to  greet  him.  We  had  an  old  jalopy  48 

with  a  rumble  seat  that  Mom  bought  during  the  53 

war  —  I  can't  believe  she  let  us  ride  in  that  seat, 
but  she  did.  Mom's  mood  on  the  way  up  was 

excited  and  ecstatic,  and  also  semi-cool,  as  in  Cool.  64 

When  we  got  there,  Dad  was  in  the  hotel  room  70 

waiting  for  her.  And  when  she  met  him  again,  she 
embraced  him  —  we  closed  in  on  him,  too  —  and 

our  cup  runneth  over.  83 

Mom  was  not  perfect  —  she  couldn't  have  90 

put  up  with  us  if  she  were.  Small  things  griped  her  96 

sometimes.  Maitre  d's  and  guys  who  assign  hotel 


189 

__  196 

Tape    14,    sioe  a  •^^^•^^^"^"^^"  204 


Tape    14,    side   B  210 


Hicke: 


Heilbron: 


Califo 
Colleg 
his  in 
beomin 
Americ 
partne 

8 

good  s 
tales 
more  i 

In  any 
tales, 
to  thi 

Thank 
use  of 


[Post  interview  e 
and  Patricia  Heil 
in  each  instance 


rooms  were  presumed  enemies,  and  the  presump 
tion  was  close  to  irrebuttable.  But  she  dealt  with 
things  that  mattered  calmly,  and  she  played  the 
big  points  well.  She  was  proud  of  us,  and  made  us 
feel  she  was.  She  gave  us  many  gifts.  She  made  us 
all  feel  loved. 

"The  days  are  not  full  enough,  and  the 
nights  are  not  full  enough,  and  life  slips  by  like  a 
field  mouse,  not  shaking  the  grass."  Ezra  Pound 
wrote  that  about  most  of  us,  but  no  one  could  say 
that  about  Mom.  She  shook  the  grass.  She  played 
and  laughed  and  argued  and  loved  in  it.  She  had  a 
full  life. 

She  used  to  say  that  her  mother  used  to  say: 
Never  do  for  pleasure  what  isn't.  In  the  end  she 
was  sick,  and  life  was  not  such  a  pleasure  for  her. 
She  said  she  was  ready  to  go,  and  she  meant  it. 
She  said  she  was  ready  to  meet  her  maker,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  she  was. 

The  Lord  has  a  handful  —  and  a  treat  - 
in  store.  Down  here,  her  spirit  dances  in  us. 
Peace,  Mom. 


Transcribers:    Eli 
Final  Typist:    Sha 


371 


100 
105 
112 
122 
129 


135 
148 
155 
163 
169 


1 
6 

12 
16 


20 
26 
31 


34 
41 
48 
53 


57 
64 
70 
77 


83 
90 
96 

188 


189 
196 

Tape  L4,  siae  A  204 

Tape  14,  side  B  210 


Calif. 
Colle; 
his  i! 
beomii 
Ameri< 
partn< 


good 

tales 

more 

Hicke:  In  an; 
tales 
to  th 

Heilbron:  Thank 
use  o 


[Post  interview 
and  Patricia  Hei 
in  each  instance 


Transcribers:  El 
Final  Typist:  Sh 


371 


TAPE  GUIDE--Louis  H.  Heilbron 


[Interview  1:  April  25,  L989] 
Tape  1,  side  A 
Tape  1,  side  B 

Tape  2,  side  A  [side  B,  not  recorded] 
Tape  3,  side  A 
Tape  3,  side  B 

[Interview  2:   May  5,  1989] 

Tape  4,  side  A  [side  B,  not  recorded] 
Tape  5,  side  A  [side  B,  not  recorded] 
Tape  6,  side  A  [side  B,  not  recorded] 
Tape  7,  side  A 
Tape  7,  side  B 


100 
105 
112 
122 
129 


135 
148 
155 
163 
169 


[Interview  2:   November  18,  1991] 
Tape  3,  side  A 
Tape  3,  side  B 
Tape  4,  side  A 
Tape  4,  side  B 

[Interview  3:   December  3,  1991] 
Tape  5,  side  A 
Tape  5,  side  B 
Tape  6,  side  A  [side  B,  not  recorded] 

[Interview  4:   January  3,  1992] 
Tape  7,  side  A 
Tape  7,  side  B 
Tape  8,  side  A 
Tape  8,  side  B 


1 
6 

12 
16 


20 
26 

31 


34 
41 
48 
53 


[Interview  5:   February  5, 
Tape  9,  side  A 
Tape  9,  side  B 


1992' 


Tape  10,  side  A 
Tape  10,  side  B 


[Interview  6, 

March  11, 

Tape  11, 

side  A 

Tape  1  1  , 

side  B 

Tape  12, 

side  A 

Tape  12, 

side  B 

[Interview  7: 

May  27, 

Tape  13, 

side  A 

Tape  13, 

side  B 

Tape  14, 

side  A 

Tape  14, 

side  B 

1992] 


1992] 


57 
64 
70 
77 


83 

90 

96 

188 


189 
196 
204 
210 


372 


[Interview  8:  July  1,  1992] 

Tape  15,  side  A 

Tape  15,  side  B 

Tape  16,  side  A 

Tape  16,  side  B 


[Interview  9: 
Tape  17, 
Tape  17, 
Tape  18, 


July  15,  1992] 
side  A 
side  B 
side  A 


Tape  18,  side  B 

[Interview  10:   August  13,  1992] 
Tape  19,  side  A 
Tape  19,  side  B 

[Interview  11:   September  2,  1992] 
Tape  20,  side  A 
Tape  20,  side  B 
Tape  21,  side  A 
Tape  21,  side  B 

[Interview  12:   September  12,  1992] 
Tape  22,  side  A 
Tape  22,  side  B 
Tape  23,  side  A 
Tape  23,  side  B 

[Interview  13:   October  28,  1992] 
Tape  24,  side  A 
Tape  24,  side  B 
Tape  25,  side  A 
Tape  25,  side  B 

[Interview  14:   November  11,  1992] 
Tape  26,  side  A 
Tape  26,  side  B 
Tape  27,  side  A  [side  B,  not  recorded] 

[Interview  15:   December  22,  1992] 
Tape  28,  side  A 
Tape  28,  side  B 

[Interview  16:  March  22,  1994] 
Tape  29,  side  A 


214 
219 
224 
229 


234 
239 
244 
250 


257 
263 


270 
275 
280 
284 


285 
304 
309 
314 


320 

300,  326 
332 
338 


342 
347 
353 


361 
367 


294 


373 


Appendix—Selected  speeches  from  From  the  Beginning:  Commencement  Addresses  and 
Selected  Papers  of  Louis  H.  Heilbron,  California  S Cate  University  Long  Beach,  1983 


Commencement  Address 

Humboldt  State  College 

June  4,  1961 

President  Siemens,  members  of  the  graduating  class  and  friends: 

A  little  over  a  year  ago  I  had  the  pleasure  of  announcing  to  a  conclave 
at  Humboldt  State  College  that  the  Master  Plan  for  Higher  Education 
had  been  enacted  into  law  and  that  all  of  us  entertained  great  expecta 
tions  for  its  success.  Today  we  are  well  started  on  the  project  of  bring 
ing  life  and  meaning  to  that  plan,  of  translating  the  resounding  words 
of  the  statute  into  practical  deed.  The  Trustees  of  the  California  State 
Colleges  and  the  distinguished  Chancellor,  recently  appointed  Dr.  Buell 
Gallagher,  assume  full  responsibility  for  their  operation  on  July  1st  of 
this  year.  I  can  assure  you  that  while  one  of  our  purposes  is  to  bring 
about  the  same  standards  of  excellence  on  all  of  our  college  campuses 
and  the  same  efficiency  of  procedure,  we  have  no  desire  whatever  to 
impose  uniformity  of  physical  appearance  or  curriculum  content.  I  am 
confident  that  we  shall  make  no  effort  to  establish  a  school  of  forestry 
in  San  Francisco  State  College  or  a  Department  of  Oceanography  at 
Fresno  State.  Each  State  College  will  be  encouraged,  to  the  fullest 
extent  possible,  to  retain  a  distinctive  character  appropriate  to  its 
history,  its  location  and  its  capacity  for  service  to  the  community  and  to 
the  state.  There  will  be  nothing  quite  like  Humboldt  and  its  trees. 

Indeed,  I  am  persuaded  to  base  my  remarks  at  this  Commencement 
on  an  idea  suggested  by  these  very  trees.  It  is  not  that  the  trees  are  so 
beautiful,  or  the  groves  like  so  many  columns  of  a  cathedral,  or  that  the 
light  filtering  through  them  has  the  mystic  quality  of  the  noblest  poetry. 
Great  artists  and  poets  have  painted  and  sung  these  praises  on  a  thou 
sand  canvases  and  in  a  thousand  books,  and  I  could  not  hope  to 
emulate  them.  Moreover,  I  have  a  suspicion  that  you  people  of  this  col 
lege  and  this  community  have  heard  something  about  redwood  trees 
before. 

So  I  will  not  speak  further  about  the  trees,  but  only  about  part  of  a 
tree,  a  cross  section  of  a  tree.  You  have  all  seen  such  cross  sections  of  a 
great  redwood,  with  its  face  marked  for  history.  You  know  what  I 
mean.  There  will  be  a  tree  between  2,000  and  3,000  years  old,  and 
various  dates  will  be  superimposed  on  the  appropriate  annual  rings. 
You  can  note  the  size  of  the  tree  in  the  year  323  before  the  Christian  era, 
800  after  the  Christian  era,  1066,  1492,  1588,  1620,  1776  and  1914.  I  will 
not  identify  these  dates  for  you  because  as  college  graduates  I  assume 
you  know  them  all.  But  no  matter  how  large  the  tree,  very  few  annual 
rings  are  marked.  The  idea,  of  course,  is  to  suggest  to  the  viewer:  look, 


•574 


all  these  things  took  place  and  dissolved  into  history  during  the  life  of 
this  single  tree.  However,  a  further  thought  occurred  to  me  in  the 
course  of  preparing  these  remarks:  suppose  that  every  annual  ring  from 
the  very  beginning  of  the  tree  was  marked  by  an  important  historical 
event  of  that  year.  And  suppose  that  a  college  graduate  knew  all  of 
these  dates  and  could  identify  all  of  the  events  —  literally  thousands  of 
them  —  by  name.  Would  he  be  an  educated  man?  Would  he  have 
fulfilled  the  aims  of  this  college? 

Certainly  he  would  be  the  possessor  of  a  unique  collection  of  facts. 
As  a  competitor  on  a  television  quiz  show,  an  honest  one,  he  might  win 
large  prizes.  Yet  all  he  would  actually  know  would  be  bits  and  pieces  of 
knowledge;  he  would  be  like  the  wandering  minstrel  in  the  song  —  "a 
thing  of  shreds  and  patches";  he  would  be  little  more  or  less  than  a 
freak  in  an  intellectual  circus. 

This  suggests  a  rather  interesting  question:  if  you  divided  your  own 
experience  into  a  sequence  of  annual  rings,  and  you  wanted  to  mark  on 
those  rings  the  events  which  were  truly  significant  in  your  college  educa 
tion,  which  truly  marked  your  intellectual  growth,  what  would  you 
mark?  What  should  you  mark?  These  queries  bring  us  face  to  face  with 
the  aims  of  a  college  education. 

All  students  will  not  score  or  underline  the  same  achievements.  The 
marks  will  be  lighter  or  heavier  in  the  case  of  each  student.  Let  us 
explore  together  the  nature  and  purpose  of  these  imaginary  marks  and 
see  how  well  we  fare. 

First  of  all,  there  is  the  matter  of  knowledge  itself.  Isolated  pieces  of 
knowledge  have  little  value.  As  for  isolated  dates,  I  remember  what  an 
English  professor  of  mine  once  said:  "I  shall  not  require  any  of  my 
students  to  remember  the  birth  date  or  the  date  of  death  of  any  author 
studied  in  this  course  because  I  am  satisfied  that  the  two  days  on  which 
the  author  did  not  accomplish  anything  very  much  were  the  day  he  was 
born  and  the  day  he  died."  On  the  other  hand,  related  fragments  of 
knowledge  have  vast  importance,  and  when  they  form  a  body  of  facts 
and  theory  which  constitute  some  major  division  of  knowledge,  they 
constitute  a  discipline.  The  day  that  you  have  acquired  a  sufficient 
mastery  over  a  discipline  so  that  you  have  a  grasp  of  its  essentials,  so 
that  you  perceive  its  whole  outline  and  understand,  at  least  generally, 
the  relation  of  its  parts  —  that  is  a  day  you  can  mark  upon  one  of  your 
annual  rings.  This  feeling  that  you  have  acquired  a  body  of  knowledge, 
that  you  know  something,  is  more  likely  to  be  held  by  a  student  of  one 
of  the  natural  or  physical  sciences  or  of  engineering  than  of  arts  and 
letters.  I  am  aware  that  it  has  been  said  frequently  that  the  liberal  arts 
graduate  is  supposed  to  acquire  values  other  than  mere  knowledge,  that 
his  education  is  merely  the  residue  of  what  remains  after  everything  else 
is  forgotten.  I  do  not  believe  that  this  evaluation  is  fair  to  the  liberal  arts 


375 


curriculum  or  to  the  students  of  liberal  arts  subjects.  The  student  of 
English  literature  who  is  able  to  pass  a  comprehensive  test  on  the  works 
of  the  principal  authors  and  poets  of  our  language  knows  something; 
the  student  of  economics  who  has  studied  the  various  theories  and  com 
plexities  of  production  and  distribution,  of  the  acquisition  and  the  use 
of  wealth,  of  the  joint  and  separate  objectives  of  management  and 
labor,  knows  something.  The  student  of  history  who  has  studied  the 
movements  and  the  interrelationships  of  events  and  peoples  over  even  a 
few  centuries,  knows  something;  and  I  could  extend  the  list  to  every 
liberal  arts  subject.  Such  students,  if  they  have  taken  advantage  of  their 
opportunities,  also  have  undergone  a  discipline,  and  they  are  entitled  to 
make  their  marks.  Their  knowledge  may  not  be  as  utilitarian  (in  the 
accepted  sense)  as  knowledge  in  certain  of  the  physical  sciences,  but  if  it 
adds  materially  to  the  enjoyment  of  life,  it  has  its  own  kind  of  utility. 
And  if  it  enables  the  person  who  has  it  to  deal  more  easily  and  more 
effectively  with  his  fellowmen  than  would  otherwise  be  the  case,  it  has  a 
certain  utility  in  the  accepted  sense  —  though  it  requires  no  such 
justification. 

A  second  event  for  marking  an  appropriate  ring  is  that  time  when  you 
really  began  to  think.  I  do  not  mean  about  what  dress  you  should  wear 
to  the  Junior  Prom  or,  in  the  case  of  a  young  man,  about  whom  he 
should  take  —  although  these  are  problems  I  would  be  the  last  to 
deprecate  —  they  might  have  lifelong  results.  Nor  do  I  mean  reviewing 
your  notes  and  making  the  best  estimate  of  what  your  professor  will  ask 
in  a  final  examination  so  that  you  will  be  reasonably  well  prepared  to 
give  him  back  quickly  what  he  has  given  to  you  slowly  —  though  this  is 
a  technique  that  can  bring  results.  Rather,  I  have  in  mind  the  time  when 
you  first  wrestled  with  an  abstract  idea  or  theme,  something  elusive  and 
hard  to  grasp,  something  you  relentlessly  pursued  up  and  down  the  cor 
ridors  of  your  aching  brain  until  (Eureka!)  you  pinned  it  down.  And 
when  you  finally  held  it  firmly  you  may  have  found  it  —  your  concep 
tion  of  a  truth  —  comparatively  simple.  Or  the  time  when,  after  a  con 
siderable  intellectual  struggle,  you  discovered  interrelationships  where 
previously  you  thought  there  were  only  independent  ideas.  Or  when  you 
reconciled  and  synthesized  several  apparently  competing  ideas  until 
they  resulted  in  a  theory  or  a  fragment  of  philosophy.  Thinking  is  a 
painful  process,  and  those  who  know  what  1  am  talking  about  at  this 
moment  will  have  no  trouble  in  their  minds'  eyes  marking  some  notable 
instances  on  their  annual  rings. 

Then  there  is  the  matter  of  being  skeptical  or  critical.  I  am  referring 
to  the  skepticism  of  a  Senior,  not  to  that  of  the  Sophomore  as 
caricatured  in  my  college  days  of  the  20's.  That  Sophomore  was 
inclined  to  debunk  everything.  He  doubted  everyone's  motives,  in  high 
places  or  low.  He  agreed  with  one  of  the  characters  in  a  play  who,  when 


376 


asked  what  history  would  say  about  an  event,  exclaimed,  "History  will 
lie  as  usual."  He  did  not  believe  that  any  man  in  politics  could  be 
honest.  He  repudiated  the  tenets  of  his  religion,  and  he  did  not  believe 
that  science  could  provide  any  worthwhile  answers.  He  was  not  skep 
tical;  he  was  negative.  He  had  eaten  too  much  fruit  from  the  lower 
branches  of  the  tree  of  knowledge  and  he  had  indigestion.  But  with  you 
graduates  it  should  be  different.  You  know  that  there  are  many  things 
true  that  are  not  new  and  many  things  new  that  are  not  true.  You  also 
know  that  many  things,  new  and  old,  are  true.  If  you  have  acquired  the 
habit  of  asking  for  proof,  of  demanding  that  claims  or  statements,  par 
ticularly  in  the  field  of  controversy,  be  supported  or  substantiated 
before  you  accept  them,  you  are  exhibiting  a  characteristic  of  a  college 
graduate  who  has  achieved  one  of  the  purposes  of  a  college  education. 
Your  mind  is  open  to  a  new  idea,  but  first  you  must  investigate,  then 
weigh  the  evidence.  You  just  want  to  be  shown. 

With  this  critical  attitude  you  will  read  your  newspapers,  you  will 
listen  to  your  radio,  you  will  view  your  television.  (Regarding  the  latter, 
you  may  still  find  yourself  unable  to  determine  which  permanent  wave 
will  make  you  permanently  beautiful,  what  kind  of  unsurpassable  car  is 
essential  to  your  happiness,  and  what  dentifrice  you  must  purchase  to 
give  you  peace  of  mind.)  You  will  be  aware  that  almost  every  major 
newspaper  carries  varying  and  often  conflicting  interpretations  of  the 
news.  You  will  question  a  news  article  in  the  light  of  an  editorial;  you 
may  question  both  in  the  light  of  a  columnist.  You  will  know  and  dis 
count  the  bias  of  national  magazines.  You  will  note  that  it  is  not  always 
easy  to  find  the  truth,  but  you  will  seek  it  before  you  vote,  before  you 
take  a  position  on  an  issue,  before  you  decide  to  join  or  not  to  join  an 
organization. 

There  are  further  qualities  which  college  can  give  you  and  which  you 
can  mark  upon  your  record.  Take  the  matter  of  being  creative.  The  time 
when  you  thought  of  a  novel  approach  to  your  term  paper,  or 
developed  a  new  and  apparently  sound  argument  which  you  had  not 
heard  before,  or  performed  an  experiment  in  the  laboratory  for  which 
you  had  no  direction  —  any  of  these  days  was  notable.  They  were 
important  because  they  helped  to  establish  you  as  an  individual.  The 
liberal  arts  curriculum  particularly  has  this  purpose;  it  accords  with  a 
primary  objective  of  American  higher  education.  In  spite  of  the  great 
numbers  attending  our  colleges  in  California  and  elsewhere,  we  do  not 
want  to  turn  out  standard  products  at  the  end  of  an  educational 
assembly  line,  all  neatly  and  uniformly  packaged  and  stamped  with  a 
degree.  The  more  creative  a  person  is,  the  more  likely  he  or  she  will 
exhibit  an  individual  character.  Our  aim  to  educate  individuals,  all  a 
little  different,  is  best  achieved  by  affording  full  opportunity  for  the 
student  to  develop  his  creative  ability. 


377 


Perhaps  the  most  important  aim  of  a  college  education  is  to  develop 
reasonable  men  and  women.  This  quality  is  something  beyond  mere 
logic  or  skepticism.  This  is  a  habit  of  mind,  an  overall  attitude  toward 
all  the  problems  a  person  may  encounter.  It  is  the  greatest  attribute  of 
the  founding  fathers  of  our  Constitution  and  form  of  government. 
They  were  reasonable  men.  They  developed  a  constitution  and  form  of 
government  for  reasonable  men.  They  argued,  debated,  compromised 
as  reasonable  men.  If  you  have  learned  that  the  facts  of  political  and 
social  life  are  not  always  easy  to  ascertain,  and  that  once  ascertained  the 
solutions  are  not  always  easy  to  agree  upon  and  once  agreed  upon,  not 
always  easy  to  implement  —  and  that  in  matters  of  social  action  there 
are  wide  areas  for  adjustment  and  accommodation  without  sacrifice  of 
basic  principle  —  you  should  celebrate  your  achievement  and  mark  one 
or  all  annual  rings  with  it.  For  what  this  world  needs  more  than 
anything  else  in  these  troubled  days  is  men  of  reason.  The  hysteria  of 
advocates  on  the  extreme  left  or  the  extreme  right  may  agitate  but  will 
not  solve  problems.  True  enough,  reason  will  not  convince  anyone  who 
refuses  to  listen  to  it.  In  the  tense  relations  between  states  it  is  evident 
that  certain  countries  and  leaders  do  not  want  to  listen  to  it.  In  the  end, 
however,  the  world  will  either  be  guided  and  controlled  by  reason,  or  it 
will  blow  up.  Let  the  men  and  women  of  reason  come  of  age  annually 
with  each  Commencement  in  this  country.  They  give  the  support  our 
nation  needs  to  preserve  our  ideals  and  in  the  struggle  for  survival;  they 
hold  our  own  ship  of  state  in  California  on  an  even  keel;  on  the  personal 
level  they  will  find  the  best  adjustment  to  daily  living. 

There  is  one  other  mark  you  should  identify  on  one  or  more  of  your 
annual  records.  It  is  the  time  or  times  that  one  of  your  professors  by  an 
anecdote,  by  a  casual  remark,  possibly  by  an  entire  lecture,  illuminated 
a  whole  field  of  thought  or  knowledge  which  until  that  time  was  confus 
ing  or  obscure.  I  can  recall  a  number  of  such  instances  from  my  own 
undergraduate  years.  Four  or  five  stand  out  in  every  detail.  I  can  hear 
them  still  after  the  passage  of  more  than  three  decades.  Before  you  leave 
this  campus  you  might  do  well  to  fix  in  your  memory  such  incidents 
from  your  own  experience  representative  of  the  best  relationship 
between  teacher  and  student.  When  much  is  forgotten,  these  episodes 
will  remain. 

Now  what  about  your  own  goals  for  the  future?  The  rings  of  your 
own  life  experience  will  continue  to  grow.  What  are  a  few  things  you 
may  expect  to  mark  upon  them? 

1.  You  owe  it  to  yourself  to  develop  your  maximum  potential. 
Have  you  completed  your  education  to  accomplish  your  own  goal?  If 
not,  go  on,  continue  with  your  education,  complete  it,  do  it  when  and 
while  you  can.  Work  or  borrow  if  you  need  to,  obtain  a  grant  if  you  are 


378 


eligible  —  but  do  it.  You  will  never  regret  developing  and  strengthening 
your  talents  and  proficiencies. 

2.  Remember  that  self-development  is  based  on  freedom,  and  that 
the  college  is  a  place  for  the  free  expression  of  ideas.  There  are  always 
people,  some  with  the  best  of  intentions  but  with  a  limited  point  of 
view,  who,  for  one  reason  or  another,  will  exercise  pressure  to  suppress 
that  freedom.  Yet  that  very  freedom  with  its  risks  of  sometimes  being 
ill-advised  or  abused  is  the  edge  which  a  free  society  has  over  a 
totalitarian  in  the  competition  which  has  become  part  of  our  daily  life. 
As  graduates,  remember  and  support  the  academic  freedom  you  wanted 
your  college  to  have  when  you  were  undergraduates. 

3.  As  citizens  you  have  the  privilege  and  responsibility  of  voting. 
Anyone  who  participated  in  or  observed  the  last  presidential  election 
understands  that  every  vote  is  important;  a  citizen's  vote  is  a  decision  of 
government.  Yours  should  be  an  informed  vote  based  on  a  fair  analysis 
and  evaluation  of  issues  and  candidates.  The  most  powerful  symbol  of 
freedom  in  the  world  is  the  American  citizen  entering  the  cloistered 
privacy  of  his  voting  booth. 

4.  Your  generation  will  determine  the  success  of  desegregation  in 
schools,  in  housing  and  economic  opportunity.  You  will  have  to  over 
come  the  prejudices  of  the  past  and  the  present.  If  you  help  solve  this 
problem,  each  of  you  by  some  concrete  act,  you  will  be  fulfilling  the 
promise  and  the  challenge  of  your  citizenship.  Collectively  you  took  a 
firm  step,  later  confirmed  by  the  trustees,  when  you  determined  that 
you  would  not  engage  in  any  future  football  games  which  would  involve 
discrimination  against  any  members  of  your  team. 

5.  About  the  cultural  level:  establish  homes  where  your  children 
hear  good  speech  from  you  and  from  those  around  them,  have  good 
books  in  the  house,  be  selective  in  your  television  programs  for  the 
family  and  you  will  strike  some  blows  for  American  culture  that  will  be 
felt. 

6.  Many  of  you  will  be  teachers:  this  is  a  great  calling  and  your 
opportunities  are  immense.  In  your  hands  will  be  the  education  of 
future  generations  of  Americans.  From  a  layman's  point  of  view  you 
might  remember  this  —  it's  the  subject  that  counts,  it's  the  hard  core  of 
knowledge  that  counts,  it's  developing  the  critical  and  creative  faculties 
of  your  students  that  counts  —  and  the  methods  of  teaching  are  simply 
means  to  an  end.  Particularly  in  junior  high  and  secondary  schools  the 
subject  is  the  thing:  learn  it,  know  it,  teach  it,  and  if  you  are  one  of 
those  adventurous  souls  (and  I  am  afraid  this  must  come  after  some 
home  experience)  who  wish  to  spend  some  time  in  teaching  and  training 
teachers  in  underdeveloped  countries,  we  can  spare  you:  the  good  you 
can  do  humanity  will  more  than  make  up  for  the  inconvenience  you 
may  cause  us. 


379 


7.  If  you  are  a  science  or  business  major  who  had  to  forego  the 
humanities  in  large  part  because  of  curriculum  requirements,  take  some 
arts  courses  in  graduate  school,  in  adult  education,  in  extension,  over 
TV,  if  any  are  available.  If  you  are  an  arts  major  who  neglected  to 
investigate  the  world  of  mathematics  and  physics,  at  least  take  a  general 
course  in  science  from  one  of  the  same  sources. 

8.  If  you  are  a  foreign  student,  I  hope  that  you  have  enjoyed  your 
studies  and  your  life  here.  If  there  have  been  some  difficulties,  try  to 
help  a  fellow  countryman  avoid  the  same  pitfalls.  Under  any  circum 
stances  you  should  know  that  we  want  you  to  return  to  your  country  to 
do  your  best  for  it;  to  remember  that  in  extending  educational  oppor 
tunity  to  you  we  have  had  nothing  to  propagandize  or  sell  to  you,  and 
have  nothing  to  ask  of  you  except  to  remember  three  things: 

i.     Our  ideals  here  are  for  a  free  society  stressing  the  worth  of 

each  individual; 

ii.     We  have  been  making  steady  progress  toward  these  ideals 

since  1776;  and 

iii.     These  ideals  are  for  all  men  everywhere. 

Many  people  worry  about  college  students  and  graduates  and  the 
uncertainties  you  and  the  rest  of  us  face.  I  look  upon  it  differently.  I 
think  you  have  almost  unlimited  goals.  You  are  the  first  generation  that 
can  reach  for  the  moon  and  actually  touch  it.  To  many  of  you  will  come 
the  opportunity,  in  some  degree,  to  participate  in  the  growth  of  the 
great  State  of  California;  to  many  the  opportunity  of  developing  much 
further  the  vast  natural  resources  of  this  region;  to  all  of  you  will  come 
the  opportunity  in  some  degree  to  help  hold  this  small  planet  together; 
to  make  it  a  better  place  to  live  for  all  men;  to  enjoy  and  share  a  richer 
personal  and  community  life  and  to  help  strengthen  this  country  so  that 
its  great  influence  among  the  nations  will  effectuate  that  peace  with 
freedom  which  is  our  most  cherished  goal.  There  will  be  many  annual 
rings  for  you  to  mark. 

I  congratulate  you  on  these  opportunities  and  pray  that  you  will  make 
the  most  of  them. 


380 


Commencement  Address 

California  State  College  at  Dominguez  Hills 

June  9,  1967 


Chancellor  Dumke,  President  Cain,  members  of  the  graduating  class 
and  friends: 

It  is  a  privilege  for  me  to  participate  in  this  particular  commencement 
ceremony,  to  speak  to  the  first  graduating  class  of  the  California  State 
College  at  Dominguez  Hills,  the  newest  of  our  colleges.  In  the  years  to 
come  this  institution  will  graduate  40,  and  later  400,  and  in  about  20 
years,  4,000,  but  there  will  never  be  another  occasion  like  this.  Now  you 
are  four  —  the  pioneers,  the  beginners  of  the  beginning,  destined,  we 
hope,  to  be  the  four  patriarchs  of  Dominguez  Hills. 

When  the  halls  of  learning  are  completed  across  the  way  and  the 
auditoria  and  gymnasia  are  in  place  and  the  courts  filled  to  overflowing 
with  undergraduate  fauna  and  California  flora,  you  will  come  back  to 
your  Alma  Mater  as  venerated  alumni  of  an  ancient  era.  Special  pic 
tures  will  be  taken  of  you  for  the  yearbook,  you  will  be  asked  how  it  was 
in  the  rough  log  cabin  days  when  the  wild  boar  and  pterodactyls  roamed 
the  countryside  and  cattle  grazed  on  the  campus  site,  you  will  be 
prodded  to  explain  how  it  was  possible  to  learn  enough  to  qualify  for  a 
degree  in  such  primitive  circumstances,  and  you  will  answer  with  tall 
tales. 

You  may  or  may  not  tell  the  future  generations  of  undergraduates 
some  of  the  unusual  advantages  you  have  enjoyed:  having  the  educa 
tional  facilities  under  one  roof  and  easily  available  and  taking  your 
instruction  under  near  tutorial  conditions.  The  ratio  of  students  to 
faculty  during  the  period  of  your  instruction  has  been  about  five  to  one, 
while  the  average  throughout  the  State  Colleges  is  approximately  17  to 
1.  The  ratio  of  library  books  to  enrolled  students  during  the  period  of 
your  instruction  has  been  333  to  1,  while  the  general  state  college 
average  is  30  to  1 .  Your  opportunities  for  close  association  with  your 
faculty  and  quick  access  to  books  have  been  unrivaled  and  I  understand 
that  you  have  taken  due  advantage  of  them. 

Some  of  these  special  conditions  will  disappear  as  the  campus  is 
developed.  The  day  will  come  when  your  successor  students  will  have  to 
walk  substantial  distances  from  class  to  class,  when  full-scale  athletic 
fields  and  equipment  will  replace  your  meager  facilities  of  ping-pong 
and  volleyball,  when  long  registration  lines  and  complicated  admission 
procedures  will  have  to  be  substituted  for  the  simple  and  more  direct 
procedures  now  available,  when  it  will  take  longer  to  obtain  a  book  or 
an  interview  with  a  professor.  But  I  do  hope  and  indeed  I  know  that 


45 


381 


under  the  wise  leadership  of  your  able  and  resourceful  president,  Leo 
Cain,  that  certain  of  the  unique  qualities  already  evident  in  this  small 
campus  will  continue  and  be  augmented. 

We  have  high  hopes  that  the  distinguished  faculty  which  has  been 
brought  to  this  campus  will  in  turn  recruit  men  and  women  of  like 
character  and  ability  to  make  up  the  enlarged  faculty  required  to  serve 
the  expanded  enrollment.  We  trust  that  succeeding  generations  of 
students  will  be  able  to  share  some  of  the  benefits  of  the  individual 
attention  you  have  received  (as  you  know,  there  are  plans  for  a  Small 
College,  to  be  formed  within  the  larger  institution,  and  to  be  of  an  expe 
rimental  nature  which  will  help  accomplish  this  objective). 

In  many  respects  it  is  extraordinary  that  a  college  so  young  has  been 
able  to  achieve  such  well-defined  purposes  and  procedures  and  such  a 
mature  educational  program.  I  daresay  that  thorough  planning  was  one 
of  the  fringe  benefits  of  the  unusually  long  period  of  gestation  which 
gave  birth  to  this  college. 

I  know  that  the  faculty,  administration  and  students  are  engaged  in 
planning  additional  unique  and  important  programs.  Your  concern 
with  bringing  the  culturally  disadvantaged  into  the  academic  commun 
ity,  your  initial  efforts  in  the  urban  problems  field,  as  evidenced  by  a 
Conference  on  Urban  and  Environmental  Design  to  be  held  under  the 
college  auspices  next  week,  show  your  concern  for  the  community 
around  you.  Your  efforts  to  bring  the  students  into  more  meaningful 
association  in  the  governance  of  student  and  academic  affairs  — 
through  student  participation  on  faculty  committees  and  vice  versa  — 
indicate  that  this  college  desires  to  grow  with  the  times. 

But  the  burden  of  my  remarks  this  evening  will  not  be  directed  so 
much  to  the  unique  methods  and  programs  that  this  college  thus  far  has 
developed  and  is  planning  for  the  future,  with  the  encouragement  of  the 
Trustees  and  the  Chancellor,  as  it  will  be  to  the  objectives  which  this 
college  shares  with  the  other  colleges  of  our  system,  serving  close  to 
172,000  students. 

In  substance  I  would  like  to  talk  a  few  moments  about  the  values  of  a 
"liberal  education,"  a  phrase  in  very  common  use  (frequently  stated  to 
be  the  goal  of  our  State  Colleges),  but  rather  difficult  to  define. 

A  liberal  education  includes  instruction  in  the  liberal  arts;  there  were 
seven  of  these  in  medieval  times  —  grammar  (including  literature), 
logic,  rhetoric  (including  law  and  composition  in  prose  and  verse), 
geometry  (actually  more  in  the  nature  of  geography  and  natural 
history),  arithmetic,  music  and  astronomy.  Now  we  usually  refer  to  the 
liberal  arts  as  letters  and  science  or  allocate  them  as  your  three  major 
schools  have  done.  The  term  liberal  education  has  a  long  history  and 
meaning.  It  is  more  than  letters  and  science.  It  seeks  to  develop  certain 
intellectual  virtues.  As  Mark  van  Doren  has  said,  "The  aim  of  liberal 


46 


382 


education  is  one's  own  excellence,  the  perfection  of  one's  own  intellectual 
character"  —  so  that  one  is  educated  "not  merely  to  know,  but  also 
and  indeed  chiefly,  to  be." 

A  liberally  educated  man  has  achieved  a  large  measure  of  objectivity; 
a  habit  of  thinking;  an  appreciation  that  substance  and  good  form 
usually  go  together;  a  state  of  mind  that  reflects  more  of  idealism  than 
of  cynicism  and  a  deep  concern  that  if  any  factor  in  a  problem  is  more 
important  than  any  other,  it  is  the  human  element.  Although  true 
liberal  education  deals  with  relatively  exact  subject  matter  (mathematics 
and  the  sciences)  as  well  as  subjects  more  usually  considered  inexact,  the 
popular  meaning  of  "liberal"  has  always  emphasized  the  inexact  or 
uncertain  areas  and,  in  particular,  has  opposed  the  subject  matter  of  a 
liberal  education  to  technology. 

There  was  a  time  after  Sputnik  when  the  idea  of  a  liberal  education, 
in  this  narrow  and  conventional  sense,  was  under  serious  criticism.  The 
feeling  was  rife  that  American  education  had  neglected  technology  and 
the  exact  sciences  and  that  we  were  providing  a  19th  century  education 
which  was  wholly  inadequate  to  meet  20th  century  problems. 

Unquestionably  it  was  advisable  to  stimulate  an  interest  in  the 
sciences  and  in  mathematics  from  the  grade  schools  up.  But  it  was  soon 
recognized  that  what  we  required  was  coexistence  between  the  sciences 
and  the  other  areas  of  learning  and  not  the  substitution  of  one  set  of 
requirements  for  the  other;  actually,  we  needed  to  restore  the  unity  of 
the  "liberal  arts."  As  I  have  mentioned  previously,  your  college  has 
recognized  very  well  the  interdependence  of  the  principal  fields  of 
knowledge. 

We  now  understand  that  the  decisions  on  the  most  important  prob 
lems  affecting  our  daily  lives  will  be  made  either  by  broad-gauged  men 
trained  in  the  liberal  arts  (in  the  broad  traditional  sense)  and  stressing 
the  human  element  or  narrow-gauged  men  trained  technically  or 
without  much  respect  to  them. 

This  is  a  most  important  matter.  The  ability  to  produce,  to  build,  to 
publish,  to  make  weapons,  to  manufacture  quantity,  does  not  assure 
quality  or  progress.  It  makes  a  great  deal  of  difference  to  know  in 
whose  hands  the  control  of  modern  techniques  is  delivered  and  for  what 
purposes.  Whether  science  and  technology  will  improve  society  depends 
greatly  on  the  kind  of  people  who  are  the  leaders  of  that  society.  The 
world  stands  a  better  chance  if  men  and  women  of  liberal  education 
have  their  (reluctant)  fingers  on  the  triggers,  their  hands  on  the  budgets, 
their  direction  of  mass  media,  their  guidance  of  education  itself.  The 
liberally  educated  man  is  more  inclined  to  put  the  human  element  first 
in  the  determination  of  problems,  more  likely  to  entertain  divergent 
points  of  view,  more  concerned  to  be  reasonable  in  making  decisions. 


47 


383 


This  does  not  mean  that  the  man  principally  educated  in  the  liberal 
arts,  other  than  science,  is  not  the  product  of  discipline.  Humanities 
and  the  fine  arts  and  the  social  and  behavorial  sciences  are  less  exact 
than  the  sciences  per  se,  but  in  recent  years  the  sciences  themselves  have 
discovered  that  in  many  of  their  most  fundamental  assumptions  they 
have  had  to  make  adjustments;  (hey  have  not  been  exact.  Perhaps  what 
the  sciences  have  done  for  the  less  exact  liberal  arts  in  recent  years  is  to 
make  them  more  conscious  of  their  own  formal  requirements,  of  their 
own  disciplinary  needs.  There  seems  to  be  no  question  but  that  the 
college  classroom,  whatever  the  subject,  has  become  a  harder  test  and  a 
more  sophisticated  experience  than  it  was  in  my  own  generation. 

The  academic  dialogue  in  the  classroom  has  a  number  of  distinctive 
attributes.  It  is  free  ranging,  it  is  unhurried,  it  is  unafraid.  Yet,  it  seeks 
to  be  pertinent  to  the  issues  discussed,  and  opinions  are  usually  respon 
sible  since  they  are  subject  to  comment  and  criticism  from  professor 
and  student  alike.  It  is  expected  that  the  discussion  be  of  such  form  and 
substance  that  it  is  relevant  to  a  discipline. 

In  a  small  college  such  as  this  you  would  find  it  somewhat  ludicrous 
to  leave  your  classroom  building  and  suddenly  find  yourselves  involved 
in  discussions  and  actions  almost  entirely  contrary  to  the  discussions 
which  you  had  just  left.  In  other  words,  if  the  main  interest,  as  soon  as 
you  were  out  of  the  classroom,  was  to  seek  to  hear  speakers  from  off 
campus  who  were  irresponsibly  extreme  and  if  they  were  expected  to 
ignore  most  of  the  criteria  of  fact,  reason,  and  good  taste  that  are 
assumed  in  the  classroom,  you  would  be  participating  in  a  kind  of  slum 
intellectual  project  which  many  of  you  would  find  distasteful.  This  is 
what  is  happening  on  a  number  of  the  larger  campuses  in  America. 

In  addition,  on  some  of  the  larger  campuses  we  find  students  engaged 
in  extracurricular  activities  of  two  kinds  —  activist  and  escapist.  The 
activists  are  usually  involved  in  supporting  or  opposing  some  local, 
national  or  political  program.  Such  participation  and  commitment  are 
often  commendable  and,  indeed,  essential,  but  on  occasion  groups  of 
students  engage  in  political  or  social  action  which,  in  substance  or  form, 
is  far  out  from  reasonableness.  A  complex  problem  becomes  simplified 
out  of  all  context;  mass  action  and  demonstration  become  the  substitute 
for  responsible  argument  and  discussion.  Slogans  are  substituted  for 
sentences,  shouts  for  thoughts.  Regular  channels  which  are  provided 
for  protest  are  ignored.  It  is  hard  to  reconcile  a  liberal  education  with 
this  kind  of  activity. 

I  have  in  mind  an  incident  which  occurred  in  one  of  our  own  colleges 
when  a  president  was  being  inaugurated.  A  small  group  of  students  with 
picket  signs,  some  of  them  personally  insulting  to  the  college  leadership, 
entered  the  stadium  where  the  ceremony  was  held.  The  subject  of  most 
of  the  signs  was  a  protest  against  the  present  college  policy  of  sending  a 


48 


384 


student's  academic  rank,  at  his  request,  to  the  Selective  Service  Board. 
The  pickets  waved  their  signs  during  the  ceremony,  they  occupied  a 
position  on  the  commons  between  the  stadium  audience  and  the 
speakers'  platform,  and  from  time  to  time  they  yelled  their  demands 
that  class  rank  be  ended  instantly,  which  apparently  meant  that  the 
ceremonies  should  be  interrupted  while  the  petition  of  the  pickets  was 
granted. 

Unquestionably  there  are  certain  questions  about  draft  procedure 
which  are  serious  questions  of  policy  and  upon  which  students,  as  the 
individuals  directly  concerned,  have  every  right  to  express  their  views. 
But  when  this  group  conducted  itself  as  it  did  —  at  the  time  and  place 
and  in  the  manner  described  —  it  violated  a  number  of  important 
academic  precepts  and  freedoms.  In  the  first  place,  the  inaugural  was 
part  of  the  educational  program;  it  was  a  ceremony  symbolizing  the 
dedication  of  the  college  to  the  objectives  of  higher  education  and  to  the 
classroom  ideals  to  which  reference  has  previously  been  made.  This 
group  of  young  people  was  perfectly  willing  to  interfere  with  the  right 
of  the  vast  majority  to  hear  and  learn  so  long  as  it  exercised  its  own 
right  of  freedom  of  speech.  It  sought  at  a  ceremonial  occasion  for  a 
solution  that  was  at  the  moment  patently  impossible,  namely,  an  instan 
taneous  remedy  in  a  disputed  cause.  It  substituted  insult  for  argument 
in  many  of  its  signs.  It  was  a  negation  of  higher  education.  No  campus 
should  dissolve  its  self-respect  to  such  a  degree  of  permissiveness  that  it 
allows  such  conduct  to  take  place.  I  am  not  suggesting  that  student 
forums  or  protests  should  refrain  from  the  consideration  of  the  most 
controversial  issues,  I  am  not  passing  on  the  merits  of  the  case,  but  I  am 
saying  that  standards  of  responsibility,  procedure  and  good  taste  must 
apply  to  the  argument. 

Another  example  of  negation  is  student  escapism.  There  is  a  minority 
of  students  on  American  campuses  who  retire  into  a  world  of  drugs  and 
dreams  to  evade  the  realities  of  the  academic  world  and  the  world  out 
side.  In  their  way,  they  seek  a  kind  of  instant  happiness  and  a  surcease 
from  the  pain  of  disciplined  thinking.  Instead  of  seeking  to  be  or 
become,  they  want  to  lose  themselves.  They  too  seem  to  have  turned 
their  backs  on  the  values  of  a  liberal  education. 

However,  I  have  the  very  optimistic  conviction  that  the  leaders  and 
faculty  of  this  college  are  so  ordering  its  affairs  that  the  students  here, 
as  the  college  grows,  will  remain  faithful  to  their  liberal  education  com 
mitments.  You  seem  to  be  appropriately  sensitive  to  the  values  to  be 
obtained  by  in-depth  learning,  by  keeping  your  minds  and  curricula 
open  to  experimentation,  by  bringing  teacher  and  student  together  in  a 
close  and  constructive  association,  by  involving  students  in  the  actual 
social  problems  of  the  community  around  them,  by  keeping  genuinely 


49 


385 


FROM  THE  BEGINNING 

busy  —  and  thus  should  be  able  to  a'  oid  the  pitfalls  that  some  older 
institutions  have  fallen  into. 

Unfortunately  for  the  vast  numbers  of  undergraduates  throughout 
the  land  and  for  all  of  us,  there  is  at  this  hour  more  to  consider  than  the 
normal  expectancies  of  peaceful  pursuit.  Within  the  past  few  days  the 
dark  clouds  of  a  widening  war  hung  heavy  over  this  disturbed  and  angry 
world.  The  times  were  out  of  joint  and  the  mood  was  one  of  worry  and 
uncertainty.  In  the  midst  of  this  current  crisis  when  survival  itself 
threatened  to  become  an  issue,  some  of  our  other  concerns  seemed 
trivial:  long  hair,  short  skirts,  objectionable  words  and  signs.  It  is  not 
that  we  wished  to  discount  our  other  important  and  pressing 
problems:  the  elimination  of  poverty  and  political  and  economic 
discrimination  at  home,  help  to  the  have-not  nations  abroad,  the  settle 
ment  of  Vietnam.  It  was  simply  that  the  outbreak  of  bitter  hostilities  in 
another  part  of  the  world  directly  involving  our  interests  and  com 
mitments  placed  our  true  problems  in  perspective.  No  problem  has 
meaning  if  we  do  not  survive  to  meet  it. 

The  greatest  instruments  for  the  achievement  of  peace  and  remedy  of 
wrongs  are  those  which  have  been  placed  in  your  hands:  moderation 
and  reason,  the  disciplined,  humane  voice  of  a  liberal  education.  At  this 
hour  we  pray  that  the  leadership  of  the  victor  and  the  vanquished,  and 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  United  Nations,  will  use  these  very  same 
instruments  to  establish  the  conditions  of  a  constructive  peace.  One  of 
our  most  difficult  problems  stems  from  the  fact  that  the  values  which 
we  have  learned,  in  the  hardest  way,  to  believe  vital  are  not  the  same 
values  which  seem  to  control  the  thoughts  and  actions  of  all  nations. 
This  does  not  make  our  mission  impossible,  but  it  certainly  complicates 
it. 

We  can  assume  only  that  the  values  of  which  I  have  spoken  will  be 
vindicated  and  that  a  somewhat  tormented  but  relatively  intact  world 
will  be  handed  over  to  your  generation  to  struggle  with,  to  serve,  to 
govern  and  to  improve.  In  assuming  your  responsibilities  you  might 
remember  that  the  values  which  you  have  learned  here,  in  this  very 
building,  are  those  that  will  pull  you  through  when  the  going  gets  tough, 
are  the  values  which  constitute  the  underpinning  of  a  decent,  civilized 
world. 

It  is  a  parlous  time,  but  as  the  young  and  the  strong  always  say  in 
moments  of  crisis,  it's  as  good  a  time  as  any  to  begin. 


386 


APPENDIX  B--Louis  H.  Heilbron,  Family  and  Childhood 

[This  section  was  written  by  Louis  Heilbron  in  1995  at  the  request  of  the 
Regional  Oral  History  Office] 


Grandparents- -Paternal 


As  previously  noted,  my  paternal  grandparents  moved  West  in  the  early 
1880s,  settling  in  Sacramento.   My  grandfather  owned  and  operated  a  large 
market  downtown  on  J  Street.   My  grandmother  was  a  Sachs,  one  of  fourteen 
children,  born  in  Louisville,  Kentucky.   Her  sister  Fanny  married  Ben 
Steinman,  who  became  mayor  of  Sacramento  in  the  1890s.   The  families  in 
Sacramento  were  close--my  father  Simon  and  Irving  were  the  children  of 
Louis  and  Julia;  Etta,  Lillian,  and  Irving  were  the  Steinman  children. 
Louis  and  Julia  followed  Ben  and  Fanny  to  San  Francisco  in  April  of  1906; 
indeed  they  bought  and  furnished  a  house  in  the  downtown  area  below  Van 
Ness  Avenue  four  days  before  the  earthquake  and  fire  of  1906,  which 
completely  destroyed  it.   They  spent  the  rest  of  their  lives  in  two 
residential  hotels  a  half  block  apart—the  Bristol  and  the  Normandie--on 
Sutter  Street. 

Louis  was  a  small  man,  with  a  light  mustache.   He  was  studious,  had  a 
wry  sense  of  humor,  and  was  very  caring  and  attentive  to  me.   Julia  was 
much  taller  than  he,  statuesque  would  be  an  apt  term—she  had  been  a  very 
beautiful  young  woman- -"Queen  of  the  Strawberry  Ball"  in  Louisville, 
whatever  that  might  have  meant.   The  Congregation  Emanu-El  Sunday  School, 
which  I  attended  from  first  year  to  confirmation,  was  located  on  Sutter 
Street  between  Van  Ness  and  Franklin  Streets,  so  after  Sunday  School  I 
would  visit  my  grandparents  for  about  an  hour  on  the  way  home.   Grandpa 
always  gave  me  a  warm  welcome.   He  was  not  the  hugging  kind,  but  he  was 
always  interested  in  what  I  was  doing.   Since  in  Sacramento  he  had  been  the 
lay  assistant  to  the  rabbi,  taking  over  if  the  rabbi  was  ill,  he  was 
particularly  interested  in  asking  what,  if  anything,  I  learned  in  Sunday 
school. 

He  wanted  to  give  me  a  good  time.   He  took  me  across  the  bay,  via  the 
ferry,  to  Idora  Park  in  Oakland  and  Neptune  Beach  in  Alameda,  two  zones  of 
family  entertainment  and  fun.   But  he  couldn't  participate  in  it;  he  would 
sit  on  a  bench,  give  me  some  coins,  and  tell  me  to  do  as  I  wanted.   I  would 
buy  a  ticket  to  the  magician's  show,  ride  the  roller  coaster,  eat  a  hot 
dog,  et  cetera,  and  return  in  about  an  hour.   I  would  report,  we  would  talk 
a  bit,  and  proceed  to  the  gate.   Once  he  invited  me  to  bring  a  friend  along 
on  one  of  these  transbay  excursions.   We  had  too  noisy  a  time,  grabbing  and 
punching  each  other,  and  the  experiment  was  never  repeated.   On  his 
seventieth  birthday  my  mother  gave  him  a  birthday  party,  and  the  menu  was 


387 


headed  by  a  photo  of  our  respective  heads,  with  the  bodies  drawn  in, 
entitled,  "Just  a  couple  of  kids."  He  did  try  hard. 

He  would  take  me  to  the  movies,  fall  asleep,  and  when  he  woke  up,  he 
would  say,  "I  think  this  is  where  we  came  in—it's  time  to  go."  This  was 
usually  fine  with  me,  because  I  would  have  seen  the  full  show  plus  almost 
half  of  it  again.   I  told  him  so.   But  on  one  unhappy  occasion,  he  awakened 
before  the  film  was  half  shown  and  insisted  we  had  to  go  and  that  I  had 
seen  enough,  as  usually  I  had.   It  was  quite  disappointing  and  we  had  a 
silent  ride  home. 

One  memorable  year  in  my  childhood  was  the  Panama  Pacific 
International  Exposition  of  1915.   This  was  a  fantasy  land  that  was  for 
real.   Our  family  attended  many  times,  and  going  down  the  steep  Fillmore 
Street  hills  by  cable  car  to  reach  the  Fair  was  an  adventure  in  itself. 
The  Tower  of  Jewels  surrounded  by  its  for  courts  and  palaces  was  another 
world.   Three  of  the  tall  redwood  trees  standing  outside  the  Oregon 
building  eventually  were  transplanted  to  Lyon  Street  near  Green,  where  we 
had  our  home  for  close  to  thirty  years,  and  thus  helped  preserve  some  of 
the  memories.   My  hero  was  Art  Smith,  the  stunt  pilot  who  took  his  fragile 
biplane  up  into  the  darkness  every  night,  streaming  colored  smoke  from  the 
back  of  the  plane  as  he  looped  the  loop  and  made  all  kinds  of  patterns  in 
the  sky.   My  grandfather  forged  Art's  signature  in  a  warm  greeting  to  me  on 
his  autobiography  and  gave  it  to  me  for  ray  birthday,  and  it  was  only  close 
to  the  time  when  I  wanted  to  thank  him  personally  that  I  learned  the  truth. 
I  should  have  known  that  Art  could  never  have  written  such  beautiful 
script. 

My  father  had  taken  up  the  violin  at  an  early  age  and  had  formed  his 
own  little  quartet  or  quintet  in  Sacramento  that  played  at  school, 
weddings,  other  social  functions,  and  concerts.   The  family  and  friends 
were  confident  that  they  had  a  musical  genius  among  them  and  sent  him  to 
Germany  to  develop  his  art.   He  went  to  a  Dr.  Singer's  conservatory  in 
Stuttgart  for  six  years  (about  1898  to  1904).   Attending  another 
conservatory  for  the  piano  was  Flora  Karp,  originally  from  Vienna.   They 
met,  fell  in  love,  and  were  engaged  before  he  left  to  establish  a  home  in 
the  United  States.   He  brought  her  over  the  following  year;  they  were 
married,  and  settled  in  Newark,  New  Jersey. 

Flora  had  been  confronted  with  a  big  decision  (previously  indicated) . 
The  impresario  who  had  brought  Schumann  Heink  to  the  United  States  asked  to 
bring  her.   Why  she  refused  is  something  of  a  mystery,  but  the  most 
plausible  answer  is  that  she  had  injured  her  arm  during  her  last  grand 
recital  at  the  conservatory,  an  injury  that  gave  her  trouble  throughout  her 
life. 

Simon  and  Flora  opened  a  studio  in  Newark.   Simon  organized  and  led  a 
symphony  in  that  city  and  played  occasionally  in  leading  New  York 


388 


orchestras.   Flora  taught  piano.   Their  prospects  were  widening  when  I  came 
along  with  a  health  problem  that  caused  them  to  move  to  San  Francisco  and, 
in  effect,  join  the  family. 

They  were  welcomed  in  music  circles  and  gave  several  local  concerts. 
Simon  continued  to  teach  and  to  lead  or  play  in  orchestras  in  hotels, 
theaters,  and  elsewhere  for  close  to  ten  years.   But  my  father  always  felt 
that,  while  he  was  a  well-trained  and  competent  musician,  he  would  never 
attain  the  top  concert  level,  and  so  when  an  opportunity  developed  to  go 
into  business  as  a  partner  with  Arthur  Frank  (husband  of  the  former  Etta 
Steinman) ,  he  took  it  and  phased  out  his  professional  life.   (He  had  had 
practical  experience—he  had  worked  part-time  in  the  San  Francisco 
assessor's  office  during  his  musician's  days.)   The  business  they  started 
was  the  Frank  Food  Co.,  a  food  processing  company  that  eventually  produced 
over  fifty  items,  including  all  the  hot  dogs  sold  for  a  good  many  years  to 
Seals  Stadium. 

Mother  Flora,  I  believe,  was  of  a  different  order.   She  was  a  musical 
genius.   She  could  read  and  play  a  concerto  for  the  first  time  and  then 
play  it  from  memory.   My  father  said  that  no  one  anywhere  played  Chopin 
better.   But  for  her  accident,  she  might  have  had  a  notable  career.   With 
the  passing  of  the  years,  she  spent  less  and  less  time  at  the  piano.   My 
last  recollection  of  her  playing  was  at  a  small  dinner  party  for  the  Monroe 
Deutches  given  in  our  home  on  Lake  Street.   She  died  of  cancer  at  the  age 
of  fifty-four  in  193A. 

The  closest  friends  of  my  parents  were  the  Frank  and  Steinman 
families  to  whom  my  father  was  related.   Other  very  good  friends  were 
Marian,  Adelaide,  and  Pansy  Lewis.   Marian  (married  name  Rose)  was  a  singer 
(not  by  profession)  and  spent  many  happy  hours  with  my  mother  at  the  piano. 
Adelaide  was  an  ardent  supporter  of  Mills  College.   Pansy  was  a  close, 
lifelong  friend  to  me  and  later  to  Delphine  as  well  as  to  my  parents. 

The  Franks  had  a  summer  home  in  Atherton,  and  Sunday  was  open  house. 
We  frequently  visited  there  for  the  day,  and  it  was  not  unusual  for  the 
tables  in  the  outdoor  area  to  be  set  for  thirty  guests.   The  Frank 
daughters,  my  cousins  Bernice,  Elinore,  and  Lucille,  and  other  children 
were  there  for  me  to  play  with,  later  to  walk,  ride,  or  swim  with,  plus 
their  swains.   These  excursions  to  Atherton  continued  for  many  years  and 
included  Delphine  after  our  marriage. 

My  mother  became  an  inveterate  bridge  player,  and  that  was  her  main 
social  diversion.   She  was  dexterous  and  artistic  with  her  needle  and  made 
beautiful  tablecloths,  napkins,  and  even  curtains.   She  was  a  loving  and 
devoted  mother,  supportive  when  we  had  problems,  over-caring  when  we  had 
illnesses,  who  lived  and  taught  family  values,  inspired  achievement, 
required  responsibility. 


389 


My  father  was  a  hard-working  man.   He  had  been  schooled  in  music  and 
missed  a  formal  higher  education  in  other  cultural  areas,  but  made  up  for 
part  of  it  in  reading  18th  and  19th  century  history.   He  was  clear  thinking 
about  himself,  his  abilities  and  potential,  and  somewhat  skeptical  of 
religious  verities,  especially  immortality.   "This  is  your  life,  this  is 
all,"  he  said.   He  lived  to  be  100,  and  when  asked  by  a  reporter  from  the 
San  Francisco  Chronicle  about  the  secret  of  his  longevity,  replied,  "No 
exercise."   (He  was  referring  to  his  last  few  years,  but  the  answer  stopped 
the  interviewer  in  his  tracks.) 

I  do  not  have  many  recollections  of  my  mother's  family.   I  was  only 
seven  when  I  met  them  in  Austria  in  1914.   I  am  not  sure  I  saw  my  maternal 
grandmother;  I  have  a  dim  recollection  of  a  very  old  lady.   Frieda,  one  of 
my  mother's  sisters  and  so  my  aunt,  was  a  buxom,  friendly  lady.   Her 
husband  was  an  invalid  in  a  wheelchair.   I  played  hopscotch  and  traded 
stories  (in  a  unique  combination  of  German  and  English)  with  my  cousins, 
Bubbi,  Eda,  and  one  other  whose  name  escapes  me;  they  were  fun  to  play 
with.   Mother's  other  sister,  Genya,  in  Sarajevo  was  a  more  worldly,  say  a 
more  American  kind  of  woman.   My  father  kept  up  some  correspondence  with 
both  families  between  the  wars.   As  far  as  I  know,  none  was  taken  to 
concentration  camps  before  or  during  World  War  II,  though  several  died. 
Eda  was  reported  to  have  gone  to  Israel,  but  our  search  through  the  Joint 
Distribution  Committee  proved  fruitless.   Bubbi  was  a  chemist  in  Rumania, 
and  after  World  War  II  my  father  offered  to  sponsor  and  bring  him  to  the 
United  States,  but  he  wrote  that  he  had  secured  a  promising  job  and 
declined.   (Immediately  after  the  war,  when  I  was  in  Austria,  I  had  tried 
to  go  to  Bucharest  to  locate  him,  but  the  army  would  not  grant  permission 
because  the  city  was  in  the  Russian  zone,  conditions  were  chaotic,  and  no 
one  could  assure  safe  transportation  to  return.   Bubbi 's  letter  of 
declination  came  in  the  summer  of  1946,  after  I  returned  home.) 

As  for  my  growing  up  in  San  Francisco:   it  was  a  good  life.   I 
attended  Pacific  Heights  School  from  the  second  grade  on.   Edward  Brantsen 
of  the  MJB  coffee  family,  much  later  to  become  president  of  the  company, 
was  a  classmate  in  the  fourth  grade  and  still  is  a  friend.   Paul  Bissinger, 
deceased,  was  a  few  grades  ahead  of  me,  ultimately  to  become  head  of 
Bissinger  &  Co.,  a  large  tanning  operation  in  San  Francisco.   Paul  was  most 
interested  in  the  theater  and  became  the  leader  and  producer  of  the  Temple 
Players,  part  of  Temple  Emanu-El,  in  the  late  twenties  (but  with  a  city- 
wide  audience)  and  brought  an  innovative  variety  show  to  the  old  San 
Francisco  Orpheum  a  little  later.   Robert  Seller  was  two  grades  behind  me, 
but  we  became  good  friends  on  and  off  the  tennis  courts  beginning  in  the 
last  of  the  'teens. 

Tennis  became  the  center  of  my  life  from  age  ten  for  over  five  years. 
I  learned  to  play  at  the  Alta  Plaza  public  courts  (near  where  we  lived  on 
Steiner  Street).   In  a  few  years  I  played  competitively  as  described  in  the 
main  oral  history.   I  enjoyed  good  relations  with  my  many  co-players  and 


390 


competitors—Marty  and  George  Liebes  (Liebes  Fur  Company),  Bobby  Seller 
(turned  pro  for  a  time  and  in  his  senior  years  has  probably  the  best  record 
nationally  in  old-timers'  tennis),  Tom  Stow  (later  coach  of  Cal  tennis  and 
pro  at  the  Silverado  Country  Club),  Cranston  Hohman  (later  a  doctor  from 
Stanford),  Helen  Jacobs  (whom  I  first  met  playing  in  Lafayette  Park  and 
later  played  as  one  of  her  "sparring  partners"  before  her  trips  to 
Wimbledon),  and  many  others.   I  came  to  know  many  of  the  tennis  greats  of 
the  Bay  Area  and,  at  the  time,  that  meant  of  the  world—the  Kinsey  brothers 
(national  doubles  champions),  Bill  Johnston  (who  on  hard  courts  I  maintain 
was  better  than  Bill  Tilden) ,  Helen  Wills  (very  casually;  she  would  not 
remember  me),  Edward  Chandler  (intercollegiate  champion).   I  don't  mean  to 
imply  close  relationships  with  these  people,  but  only  to  indicate  that  they 
were  part  of  my  world,  and  together  with  my  contemporaries  had  an  influence 
on  me.   They  provided  models  of  courage,  fair  play,  sportsmanship,  and,  of 
course,  of  form,  strategy,  and  technique. 

Naturally  you  learn  mostly  on  your  own—what  it  feels  like  to  fight 
on  in  a  match  when  you  are  tired  and  down,  but  still  have  a  chance  to  win. 
For  the  most  part  the  values  of  athletic  competition  have  been  rightly 
praised,  perhaps  best  in  the  context  of  amateur  sports. 


Recreational  Activities 


We  usually  went  away  for  a  few  weeks  in  part  of  the  summer- -several 
years  to  Capitola  (near  Santa  Cruz)  with  the  Franks,  their  children,  Edith 
Hirsch  (later  married  to  Dr.  Charles  Fletcher),  and  other  friends.   The  old 
Capitola  Hotel  was  a  rambling,  friendly  wooden  structure,  like  Paso  Robles, 
Coronado,  and  the  Claremont,  not  quite  as  large  or  fancy.   The  manager,  a 
Mr.  Wood,  something  of  a  prankster,  let  a  horse  in  the  lobby  to  show  how 
welcome  an  inn  he  ran,  especially  for  the  children.   The  beach  was  our 
playground,  but  the  waves  at  Capitola  were  intimidating.   We  took  a  house 
in  Palo  Alto  for  a  few  summers,  and  that  facilitated  exchanges  with  the 
Franks  in  Atherton  and  friends  in  Los  Altos.   We  spent  a  summer  at  Fallen 
Leaf  Lake  in  the  Tahoe  area  and  at  a  resort  in  Lake  County  called  Stuperich 
(spelling  doubtful),  modeled  after  a  Swiss  mountain  resort  with  its 
separate  cottages.   By  the  way,  it  took  us  six  and  a  half  hours,  by  ferry, 
train,  and  stage  (a  wheezing  bus)  to  get  to  Lake  County.   One  could  feel 
away  even  in  Boyes  Hot  Springs  in  Sonoma  or  in  Byrom  Hot  Springs  in  Contra 
Costa  because  of  the  time  it  took  to  get  there. 

I  remember  it  was  about  1920  in  Stuperich.   Prohibition  was  in 
effect,  but  the  resort  served  wine.   My  father  and  another  gentleman 
contrived  with  a  new  arrival  to  have  him  enter  the  dining  room  and  shout 
that  everyone  was  under  arrest  for  violating  the  law.   There  were  several 
moments  of  panic  until  the  ruse  was  uncovered  or  discovered,  and  then  there 


391 


were  toasts  all  around.   The  guests  realized  that  Lake  County  was  too  far 
away  for  the  Federals  to  reach. 

I  have  a  sister,  Juliet,  who  is  ten  years  younger  than  me.   As  a 
result  we  did  not  come  to  know  each  other  well  until  we  were  both  pretty 
much  grown  up  as  adults.   When  I  was  about  fifteen,  my  mother  had  our 
pictures  taken  at  a  photographer's;  in  one  hand  I  held  a  tennis  racket, 
with  the  other  I  held  hers,  both  of  us  staring  straight  ahead,  a  children's 
version  of  Grant  Wood's  "American  Gothic."  Juliet  was  a  very  pretty  child 
and  deserved  better.   Fortunately,  as  the  years  rolled  by,  the  gap  closed 
and  a  warm  relationship  developed;  now  at  seventy-eight  she  holds  the 
racket  and  does  the  tennis  playing. 

My  uncle  Irving  (father's  brother)  was  the  store  manager  of  Sherman 
Clay,  its  piano  and  music  store  in  Sacramento.   He  was  a  soft-spoken, 
easygoing  man,  and  when  he  visited  us  would  hand  me  a  bright  fifty-cent 
piece  or  a  dollar.   (This  meant  something  to  a  youngster  in  1915.)   Quite 
some  time  after  our  marriage,  Delphine  and  I  spent  a  pleasant  weekend  with 
him  and  his  wife,  Irene,  at  a  Lake  Tahoe  resort. 

What  kind  of  social  life  did  I  have  growing  up?  Well,  besides  with 
my  tennis  friends,  Marty  Liebes,  Bobby  Seller,  and  Frank  Dunn,  I  suppose  it 
was  mostly  boys  and  girls  with  whom  I  attended  Sunday  school  at  Temple 
Emanu-El.   I  have  looked  at  the  lists  of  the  confirmation  classes  of  1921 
(mine)  and  1922.   There  were  about  fifty  in  each  class,  and  I  can  say  that 
I  have  had  continuing  relationships  with  at  least  a  quarter  of  them  and 
lifetime  relationships  with  about  fourteen  of  them.   I  became  a  law  partner 
with  Richard  Guggenhime  and  Frank  Sloss,  with  social  ties  as  well  to  them 
and  their  wives.   Helen  Joseph  married  Gilbert  Gates  (resort  operators  in 
Weaverville) ,  Robert  Rothschild  (architect)  married  Elizabeth  Rosenblatt,  a 
first  cousin  of  Dellie.   Florence  Sommer  (Sommer  &  Kaufman)  married  Rafael 
Sampson,  also  lifetime  friends.   Adele  Harris  married  Sidney  Kay,  the  same. 
Frank  Triest  became  a  roommate  in  college.   George  Lavison,  Frederic  Kahn 
(Sather  Gate  Bookshop),  and  Adolph  Meyer  (accountant,  son  of  Martin  Meyer), 
also  fraternity  brothers.   Even  those  I  was  to  encounter  sporadically,  like 
Esther  Ehrman,  remained  easy  to  meet.   Long  after  Dellie  and  I  were 
married,  and  Esther  had  married  Claude  Lazard  and  lived  in  ducal  splendor 
in  Paris,  we  were  invited  to  visit  with  her  and  Claude  when  we  went  to 
Europe.   The  disturbing  part  is  to  recognize  how  many  of  all  of  them  are 
now  deceased. 

During  my  high  school  period  there  were  many  dances,  either  with 
suppers  or  late  night  snacks  given  at  the  major  hotels--St.  Francis, 
Fairmont,  Palace.   (A  punch  and  snack  affair  at  the  St.  Francis  cost 
seventy-five  cents  per  guest.)   Parties  of  fifty  or  more  were  not  unusual. 
Or  even  previously  in  grammar  school,  one  would  be  invited  (as  many  as 
twenty)  to  the  Orpheum  matinee,  the  vaudeville  palace,  and  then  to 


392 


Townsend's  on  Powell  for  a  soda.   These  events  kept  the  young  people  of  the 
Reform  Jewish  community  together. 

There  were  public  school  affairs,  too,  and  at  these  there  was  a 
student  mix.   I  dated  a  few  non- Jewish  girls  in  high  school.   But  mainly 
social  events--Protestant,  Catholic,  Jewish—were  with  one's  own  religious 
group. 

Student  activities—newspaper,  theater,  debating,  athletics,  service 
--brought  us  together  from  many  backgrounds.   Jewish  children  were 
generally  comfortable  and  secure  in  San  Francisco.   There  was  a  strong 
Jewish  component  in  the  city's  life  from  the  Gold  Rush  days  on.   Reform 
Jewish  families  adopted  the  mores  of  the  general  society  on  some  occasions 
which  the  rabbis  deplored.   For  example,  many  participated  in  Christmas: 
the  shopping,  present-giving,  and  Christmas  trees  (excluding  religious 
ornamentation).   They  regarded  Christmas  as  a  national  holiday,  part  of  the 
culture,  and  disregarded  the  religious  connotations  and  motifs.   Parents 
allowed  their  children  to  participate  in  Easter  egg  hunts.   Yet  this 
participation  did  not  affect  observance  of  their  own  holidays  and  rituals 
or  the  continuity  of  the  Reform  Jewish  community. 

You  ask  the  question,  did  religion  or  Jewish  identification  present 
an  issue  in  my  young  life?  The  answer  is,  on  one  memorable  occasion.   I 
was  in  Emanu-El's  confirmation  class  1920-1921.   I  was  also  a  member  of  the 
Third  Class  (youngest)  in  Mr.  Marvin's  Golden  Gate  Park  tennis  club  at  the 
same  time  and  reached  the  finals  of  its  tournament  scheduled  to  be  played 
on  a  day  that  turned  out  to  be  Yom  Kippur.   That  day,  I  knew,  I  could  not 
and  should  not  play.   My  mother  called  Mr.  Marvin  to  explain  and  ask  that 
the  match  be  rescheduled.   Marvin  refused,  saying  he  could  not  recognize 
religious  holidays  in  relation  to  athletic  contests.   So  I  was  defaulted, 
disappointed  but  understood  that  it  had  to  be.   But  toward  the  end  of  the 
spring,  I  had  another  chance.   I  again  competed  successfully  to  the  point 
of  the  singles  final  of  the  same  tournament,  scheduled  to  be  played—on  the 
Saturday  morning,  lo  and  behold,  of  the  dress  rehearsal  of  my  Sunday  school 
confirmation  class.   Rabbi  Martin  Meyer  had  made  it  clear  that  no  excuses 
whatsoever  would  be  accepted  for  missing  the  rehearsal.   1  had  the  closing 
prayer.   I  knew  it  thoroughly  backwards  and  forwards;  he  knew  I  knew  it.   I 
tried  to  explain  the  importance  of  this  tournament's  cup— the  names  of 
former  winners  Maury  McLaughlin  and  William  Johnston  were  engraved  on  it, 
these  were  the  world's  all  time  greats,  and  the  winner  would  keep  the  cup. 
Meyer  said  it  was  my  choice— chance  for  the  cup  or  the  part.   I  said 
tearfully  1  would  play  the  match.   I  so  much  wanted  to  play;  if  I  didn't,  I 
would  always  have  a  bad  feeling  toward  confirmation.   So  I  played,  won  the 
cup,  and  lost  the  part.   The  confirmation  took  place  the  Saturday  after  the 
Saturday  of  the  dress  rehearsal.   I  was  confirmed.   Shortly  after 
confirmation,  Rabbi  Meyer  took  me  aside  and  said,  "You  know,  a  rule  is  a 
rule,  but  the  incident  is  over,  I  want  you  to  join  the  post-confirmation 
leadership  boys  group  of  the  Pathfinders  that  will  meet  with  me  at  my 


393 


home."  We  understood  each  other.   I  also  understood  Mr.  Marvin,  but  in  a 
different  way;  I  never  believed  he  was  just  enforcing  a  rule  requiring  play 
on  that  day  of  Yom  Kippur. 

In  short,  despite  an  instance  or  two,  being  a  Jewish  child  in  San 
Francisco  posed  no  difficult  issue  when  I  was  growing  up.   Not  that  we 
weren't  conscious  that  there  were  social  or  other  limits.   You  could  join 
the  Assembly  dance  group  up  to  your  early  teens  irrespective  of  religious 
differences,  but  not  the  social  groups  beyond.   We  vaguely  knew  that 
Eastern  colleges  had  quotas,  that  big  companies  did  not  have  Jewish 
executives,  that  the  prestigious  law  firms  in  San  Francisco  (other  than 
Heller,  Ehrman)  rarely  employed  a  Jewish  associate.   But  public  school  and 
its  activities  were  quite  open,  the  same  was  true  of  Berkeley  and  Stanford. 
True,  few  fraternities  at  either  university  would  pledge  Jewish  members, 
but  Jewish  students  at  Berkeley  preferred  a  Jewish  fraternity.   I  joined 
Zeta  Beta  Tau  because  my  friends  were  there.   I  was  "rushed"  by  a  couple  of 
non- Jewish  fraternities,  with  what  seriousness  I  don't  know,  but  it  didn't 
occur  to  me  to  be  serious  about  them,  because  for  several  years  in  high 
school  I  had  been  a  comfortable  guest  at  ZBT.   After  joining  I  found  that 
its  fraternity  members  were  just  as  active  in  extracurricular  affairs  on 
campus  as  the  most  active  non- Jewish  fraternities.   We  had  some  exchange 
dinners  with  non- Jewish  fraternities.   Our  open  houses  and  parties  were 
pretty  much  filled  with  Jewish  guests.   The  future  of  Jewish  communities 
was  pretty  much  assured  by  these  social  considerations. 

Now  under  the  nondiscrimination  policy  of  the  university  at  Berkeley, 
the  membership  of  ZBT,  as  I  last  heard  about  it,  was  at  least  50  percent 
non- Jewish  and  Jewish  students  were  members  in  many,  if  not  most,  of  the 
fraternities.   In  the  outside  world  in  the  Bay  Area,  over  half  of  the 
marriages  are  interfaith.   Acceptance  has  become  the  problem  for  Jewish 
continuity  in  America.   Integration  is  the  right  course  for  democracy  and 
society,  but  the  erosion  of  ethnic  or  religious  identity  is  a  matter 
commanding  a  great  deal  of  attention  from  Jewish  community  leadership  and 
scholars.   It  is  also  the  subject  of  a  thoughtful  and  provocative  recently 
published  book  entitled  Jews  and  the  New  American  Scene  by  Seymour  Martin 
Lipset  and  Earl  Raab. 

Perhaps  I  should  add  this  note.   From  campus  days  to  the  present  and 
through  law  firm,  government,  and  community  activities,  I  have  worked  and 
had  close  associations  with  any  number  of  non- Jewish  colleagues.   I  have 
made  lasting  friendships  among  them  and  they  are  fully  part  of  my  life  as  I 
am  of  theirs—mutual  interests  in  education,  world  affairs,  and  California 
history  have  developed  these  relationships.   We  are  at  home  with  one 
another,  personally  and  socially.   People  who  segregate  themselves  within 
their  particular  ethnic  or  religious  group  miss  a  great  deal  of  the 
richness  of  life,  in  losing  the  opportunity  to  enjoy  diversity  and  yet,  at 
the  same  time,  to  discover  how  much  their  fellow  human  beings  are  alike. 

As  for  my  model  of  a  live-in  college  campus,  it  is  one  where  all 
students  are  accommodated  in  dormitories. 


394 


By  Russell  Schoch,  Editor 


An 
upright  man 

Iohn  Hcilbron  is  a  triple-degree 
alumnus  of  Cal,  an  administrator 
of  the  division  he  created  on  cam 
pus—the  Office  of  the   History 
of  Science  and  Technology — and 
irrent  chairman  of  Berkeley  s  Aca 
demic  Senate.  He  also  is  one  of  the  finest 
historians  of  science  in  the  business.  On 
page  14  of  this  issue.  Professor  Heilbron 
provides  a  look  at  both  the  history  and 
the  future  of  science. 

Heilbron  was  horn  in  San  Francisco, 
in  193-4.  and  followed  the  example  of 
his  parents — and  countless  otlicrs — by 
mending  Lowell  High  School  and  then 
coming  to  Berkeley.  "It  never  occurred 
to  me  to  go  any  place  else,"  Heilbron  says. 
"I  had  friends  who  went  to  Harvard,  1 
even  had  friends  who  went  to  Stanford — 
1  could  never  understand  that ."  Heilbron 
met  his  wife,  Patricia,  on  campus  "She's  a 
foreigner  From  San  Diego  " 

Al  Cal.  Heilbron  received  his  B.A. 
(1955)  and  MA  (1958)  in  physics  and 
then  began  Ph  D  work  in  the  subject.  But 
he  soon  found  he  was  more  interested  in 
the  history  of  science  than  in  the  actual 
work  of  physics  ("I  decided  this  when  1 
was  in  the  middle  of  my  physics  calcula 
tions;  I  realized  that  I  didn't  care  how 
they  came  out.")  Then  he  learned  that 
there  was  a  young  faculty  member  in 
history  studying  and  teaching  the  history 
of  science.  This  was  Thomas  Kuhn.  who 
has  been  recognized  as  one  of  the  world's 
leading  historians  of  science  since  the 
publication,  in  1962.  of  his  epoch-making 
book.  Tlje  Stntcture  of  Scientific  Kefotn- 
tions  Heilbron  became  Kuhn's  first  Ph. I), 
candidate,  completing  a  dissertation  on 
the  history  (if  atomic  physics.  He  says  his 
encounter  with  Kuhn — and  with  the  his 
tory  of  science — changed  his  life  com 
pletely 

Heilbron  went  next  to  tlie  University  of 
Pennsylvania,  where  he  set  up  a  new 
program  in  the  history  and  philosophy  of 
science  By  then,  Kuhn  had  been  stolen 
away  by  Princeton,  and,  in  1967,  Heil 
bron  was  hack  at  Berkeley.  In  1973.  he 
founded  and  became  the  director  of  the 
campus'  Office  of  the  History  of  Science 
and  Technology,  which  is  now  located  in 
Stephens  Hall. 

Why  is  it  important  to  study  the  his 
tory  of  science  and  technology?  "There 
are  all  kinds  of  reasons,"  he  says,  "but  the 
fundamental  one  is  the  reason  for  study 
ing  history  And  if  you're  interested  in 
studying  modern  history,  you  have  to  be 
interested  in  studying  the  history  of  sci 
encc  and  technology,  because  those  en 
deavors  have  driven  so  much  of  modem 
history" 

The  field  has  changed  since  Hcilbron 
entered  it.  "The  purely  intellectual  his 
tory  of  science  has  declined  somewhat. 
aid  the  interest  in  science  and  Its  place  in 
society  has  grown.  1  think  that's  quite 
healthy,  and  my  own  work  has  changed 
quite  a  bit  as  a  result  I  still  keep  my  hand 
in  the  intellectual  history,  but  I'm  also 
quite  interested  in  the  development  of 
scientific  institutions,  which  is  a  kind  of 
locus  where  science  as  a  product  meets 
the  social  concerns.  Ernest  O.  Lawrence 
i> » fascinating  example  of  this.  His  notion 


was  that  the  machine  drives  the  labora- 
tory  and  that  money  drives  the  machine. 
Also,  that  there  is  money  out  there  if  only 
you  know  how  to  get  it.  And  he  did." 

Early  next  yeai;  UC  Press  will  publish 
the  first  of  a  three-volume  biography  of 
Lawrence  written  by  Heilbron  and  Rob 
ert  Scidel.  one  of  his  former  students. 

Heilbron  is  a  prolific  writer,  author  or 
co-author  of  14  books  and  dozens  of  arti 
cles  and  book  reviews  in  the  field  One  of 
his  best-known  and  most  highly  regarded 
books  is  the  1986  biography.  TbeDilem 
mas  of  an  Upright  Man:  Max  Planck 
as  Spokesman  for  German  Science  "I 
was  attracted  initially  to  Planck's  life 
as  a  whole."  says  Hcilbron.  "because  it 
encompassed  science,  politics,  and  the 
enormous  changes  in  circumstances  in 
Germany  between  the  turn  of  tlxr  cen 
tury  and  World  War  II.  His  life  was  so 
interesting  I  figured  I'd  have  to  be  a  real 
hack  to  mess  it  up  ' 

Hcilbron's  current  research  includes  a 
look  at  what  he  calls  "science  in  the 
church  "  A  decade  ago.  while  traveling  in 
Italy.  Ik-ilbron  noticed  soim-thing  quite- 
amazing  in  a  cathedral  It  seemed  that  the 


California  Monthly 
November  1989 


church  for  centuries  had  been  used  a>  a 
camera  "There  was  a  hole  in  the  roof — 
making  the  church  sort  ofa  pin  holt  cam 
era — with  sun  crossings  traced  on  the 
floor  of  the  church  (in  which  a  huge  brass 
meridian  line  had  been  placed.  To  see  this 
image  of  the  orange  sun  on  the  church 
floor,  shimmering  in  its  heal  and  moving 
inexorably  toward  its  rendezvous  with 
the  meridian  line  at  a  very  precise  date 
was  very  striking  I  became  interested  in 
why  the  authorities  would  allow  this  in  a 
church." 

Back  in  Berkeley,  Heilbron  is  halfway 
through  his  two-year  term  as  chairman  of 
the  Academic  Senate  Asked  why  he  has 
taken  on  this  task,  he  replies:  "Berkeley 
has  a  tradition  of  Academic  Senate  serv 
ice  and  a  belief  that  the  senate  is  impor 
tant  to  the  governance  of  the  University.  I 
think  that's  quite  true  And  I  think  that 
one  owes  a  certain  amount  of  service" 

A  Berkeley  colleague  sums  up  John 
Heilbrons  contributions  in  these  words: 
"What  is  most  striking  about  Heilbron's 
scholarly  work  is  its  understated  vir 
tuosity.  He  ranges  through  the  whole 
of  modem  physics,  setting  one  sub 
ject  after  another  in  order.  And,  in 
addition,  he  continues  to  perform  su 
perbly  as  an  administrator  I  am  re 
minded  of  his  own  characterization  of 
Charles  Dufay,  an  18th-century  physicist 
who  also  administered  the  chief  botani 
cal  gardens  of  France  Heilbron  wrote, 
'Dufay  responded  brilliantly  to  both  chal 
lenges  .  .  ;  and  we  may  say  of  his  elec 
trical  work  as  of  his  botanical,  that  he 
transformed  a  collection  of  miscella 
neous  weeds  into  the  first  garden  of 
Europe'" 


395 


By  MONICA  BAY 

'  Recorder  News  Staff 

Propped  up  against  a  bulging  stack  of  files  on  the 
credenza  behind  David  Heilbron's  desk  is  one  of  those 
brass  placards  that  you  might  buy  on  Fisherman's 
Wharf.  The  kind  with  the  "cute"  sayings  on  them  — 
that  you  might  give  to  a  friend  as  a  birthday  joke. 

After  the  events  of  last  year,  it's  not  surprising  that 
Heilbron,  outgoing  president  of  the  State  Bar  of 
California,  would  keep  this  particular  placard  well 
within  sight.  It  reads:  "When  you  are  up  to  your  ass  in 
alligators,  it  is  difficult  to  remind  yourself  that  your  in 
itial  objective  was  to  drain  the  swamp. " 

David  Heilbron  presided  over  the  nation's  largest 
mandatory  bar  association  during  a  year  that  has  been 
unanimously  declared  the  most  difficult  of  its  57-year 
history. 

The  state  bar  faced  seemingly  insurmountable 
obstacles: 

D  The  1986  bar  dues  bill  was  stopped  in  its  tracks  by 
Assembly  Minority  leader  Pat  Nolan  (R-Glendale), 
who  fervently  believes  that  the  bar  should  be  limited  to 
admissions  and  discipline,  and  that  no  other  programs 
should  be  funded  by  mandatory  dues. 

D  The  Legislature,  as  condition  of  passage  of  the 
eventual  1986  dues  bill,  demanded  that  the  bar  (at  its 
own  Expense)  conduct  a  mandatory  plebiscite  of  all  of 
the  state's  lawyers.  The  questions  polled  the  state's 
bar  members  on  whether  the  bar's  role  should  be 
limited  in  areas  such  as  attorney  discipline,  lobbying, 
the  Conference  of  Delegates,  and  other  activities. 

D  Nolan  and  several  other  like-minded  lawyers  took 
to  the  courts  to  challenge  to  the  bar's  use  of  mandatory 
fees.  The  result:  an  ambiguous  appellate  ruling  in 
Keller  v.  the  State  Bar  that  while  basically  supportive 
of  the  bar,  left  unclear  the  extent  to  which  the  bar 
could  engage  in  "political"  or  "ideological"  activities. 

D  In  addition  to  funding  battles,  the  bar  faced  no  • 
less  than  eight  other  major  legislative  assaults,  in 
cluding  measures  designed  to  -radically  change  its 
structure.  One  bill,  by  state  Senator  Robert  Presley 
(D-Riverside),  would  have  stripped  the  bar  of  its  at 
torney  discipline  program.  Another  measure,  by 
Gerald  Felando  (R-L.A.)  would  have  removed  every 
reference  to  the  state  bar  from  the  state's  Constitution. 


D  The  bar  endured  an  unprecedented  strike  by 
its  staff  attorneys,  and  equally  unprecedented 
staff  turnovers.  Both  state  bar  chief  executive  of 
ficer  J.  David  Ellwanger  and  a  top  bar  ad 
ministrator,  Bill  Dunn,  recently  announced  their 
resignations.  Key  employees  from  the  general 
counsel  office,  from  the  discipline  staff,  and  from 
the  bar's  monthly  magazine,  California  Lawyer 
also  resigned  during  the  year. 

Unscathed? 

Despite  the  almost  unrelenting  year  of  crisis, 
the  state  bar  has  emerged  almost  unscathed  — 
and  in  fact,  some  observers  say,  it  is  now 
stronger  than  ever  before. 

Among  the  accomplishments  cited: 

D  A  voluntary  dues  program,  initiated  after 
the  1986  dues  freeze,  brought  in  more  money, 
faster,  than  under  normal  mandatory  dues  col 
lection. 

D  After  the  bar  had  all  but  abandoned  the  idea 
of  any  dues  bill  funding  in  the  fiscal  year, 
Assembly  Minority  Leader  Willie  Brown  or 
chestrated  an  urgency  bill. 

d  The  results  of  the  plebsicite,  while  critical  of 
the  bar's  handling  of  discipline,  overwhelming 
supported  the  bar's  right  to  oversee  the  program. 
The  state's  lawyers,  who  responded  in  surprising 
ly  .high  numbers,  generally  supported  the  bar's 
current  structure  and  operation.  '• 

D  In  what  was  seen  as  a  positive  signal,  the 
state's  Supreme  Court  agreed  to  review  the 
Keller  ruling  on  limiting  bar  activities. 

D  Heilbron's  "henchmen,"  bar  governors  Joe 
Gray  and  Don  Mike  Anthony,  produced  a  major 
overhaul  of  the  bar's  discipline  system,  including 
the  establishment  of  the  nation's  first  "uniform" 
punishment  standards  for  discipline  violations. 

And  the  backlog  of  discipline  cases  finally 
bogan  to  decline:  between  April  and  June  of  '86, 
the  bar's  staff  reduced  the  backlog  of  attorney 
discipline  cases  by  25  percent. 

D  The  bar's  1987  dues  bill  passed  with  relative 
ease  this  month.  The  new  bill  includes  significant 
increases  in  monies  allocated  to  discipline  and  to 
the  bar's  Client  Security  Fund  (which  reimburses 
clients  who  have  suffered  misappropriation  of 
funds  by  wayward  attorneys).  •  •  /  .; 

.D  Major1  progress  was,  made  on  proposals  to 
revamp  the  Rules'  of  Professional  Conduct,  and  to 
.Streamline  litigation  discovery  rules. 

1.-v>v'~  '".-•'  ' 

Hero  of  the  Year? 

"When  the  dust  settles,  it  is  clear  that  the  real 
hero  of  the  year  is  David  Heilbron,"  said  state 
bar  lobbyist  Terry  Flanigan  recently,  echoing  a 
sentiment  expressed  by  legislators,  fellow  board 
members,  and  even  arch  critics  of  the  State  Bar 
of  California. 

"My  impression  was  that  he  had  one  of  the 
roughest  years  of  any  recent  president  of  the 
state  bar,"  said  California  state  Senator  Robert 
Presley  (D-Riverside)  in  an  interview  with  The 
Recorder  this  week. 

"Frankly,  I  feel  that  the  state  bar  was  ex- 


396 


tremely  well  served  by  having  David  Heilbron 
here  (in  Sacramento),"  said  Presley.  "From  my 
standpoint,  he's  a  class  person  —  an  extremely 
able  advocate,  and  he  comported  himself  very, 
very  well,"  he  said. 

That's  high  praise  from  one  of  the  bar's  most 
vocal  critics. 

Presley  said  he  had  "really  wanted"  to  take 
discipline  away  from  the  bar  when  the 
Legislature  first  convened  this  term.  Toward  that 
goal,  Presley  established  a  blue  ribbon  ta^k 
force,  and  packed  it  with  law  professors,  law 
yers,  non-lawyers,  consumers  and  even  state  bar 
governors.  Among  the  members  of  the  task  force, 
which  was  coordinated  by  Presley's  aide  Bob 
Holmes:  Stanford  law  professor  Deborah  Rhode, 
former  state  bar  attorneys  Russell  Longaway 
and  Philip  Martin,  bar  governor  Richard  An- 
notico,  poverty  law  specialist  Ralph  Abascal,  and 
consumer  advocate  Robert  Gnaizda.  .'  '  '  ,". 

The  task  force  .prepared  the.first  drafts  of  two 
Presley  bar  reform  bills  —  SB  1543  and  SB^'ises:1 

>e  measures  proposed  sweeping  changes  of  the 

's  very  structure.  The  original  version  of  SB 

Called  for  removal  of  attorney  discipline 

e  bar,  and  the  creation  of  a  new  state 

mission,  to  be  dominated  by  non-lawyers. 


sensitive  negotiations  with  legislators  defused  a 
legislative  scrapneF  "bomb"  that  may  have 
destroyed  the  state  bar.  ' 

At  a  minimum,  said  Presley,  the  state  bar  was 
in  serious  jeopardy  of  losing  control  of  discipline. 
.;->  "(Heilbron)  may  have  made  the  difference  as 
to  whether  or  not  the 'discipline  system  was  taken 
away  from  the  state  bar  and  given  to  a  separate 
: agency, "he said. ;  j  •: 

Presley  said  he  was  impressed  with  the  way 
that  Heilbron  handled  himself  as  a  witness  dur 
ing  the  numerous  hearings  held  by  the  Senate 
-Judiciary  Committee  and  other  legislative  com 
mittees.  "He  impressed  almost  all  the  members 
;of  the  Legislature,"  Presley  said. 
&- Heilbron  succeeded;  in   convincing   the 
legislators  that  he  had  "the  best  interests  of  the 
bar  and  the  best  interests  of  the  people  of  the 
state  in  mind.  He  wants  to  do  the  right  thing,  the 
'faii-  thing,"  Presley  said.  "(That  attitude)  just 
seems  to  come  through."    " 
«...   "After  the  first  hearing  or  so  before  the  Senate 
Judiciary  Committee,!  pretty  much  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  we  would  not  be  able  to  take 
discipline  away  (from  the  bar),"  Presley  admit 
ted.  "By  then  I  could  see  the  handwriting  on  the 
wall..." 

•;  Presley  said  that  he  and  his' staff  worked  close 
ly  ."with  Heilbron  to  hash  out  the  two  discipline 
bills,  and  that  "I  agreed,  eventually,  to  give  the 
bar  a  chance  to  see  if  they  can  do  it. " 
V"Heilbron  and  I  met' several  times.  We  just  sort 
of '  came  to  agreement  on  all  but  one  issue," 
Presley  explained.  That  issue  was  the  appoint 
ment 'of  an  independent  •"watchdog"  monitor  to 
keep  an  eye  on  the  progress  of  the  bar  in  cleaning 
up  discipline.  Heilbron  lost  that  battle  —  the  final 
bill  passed  both  houses  containing  that  provision 
| and  is  now  enroute  to  Gov.  Deukmejian's  desk. 
£,  But  if  he  lost  the  battle,  Heilbron  clearly  won 
[the  war.  .The  compromised  Presley  measures  not 
l^only  kept  discipline  within  the  confines  of  the 
^  state  bar,  but  were  far  less  potent  than  the  origi- 
tnal drafts:    ,  ' ',  {<;, :t':il*-!  , 
K^Presley.  said  he ;  b^'essentially  pretty  well 
^pleased  with  the  outcome"  of  the  two  bills.  And 
%%gn  though  Presley  said  he  met  resistance  from 
^members  of  his  task  force  who  did  not  want  see 
j£he  bar  retain 'its  coniroPover  discipline,  Presley 
said  he  came  to  the1  conclusion  that  he  should' 

*»    -•  ,  •      i-          -    .   /„„,.-  _  -,   . 


397 


"give  the  bar  a  couple  of  years  to  see  if  they  can 
improve  on  the  discipline  process." 

But,  he  said,  "It's  probably  fair  to  say  that  if 
there  hadn't  been  a  person  of  the  caliber  of 
Heilbron  as  president  of  the  bar,"  that  the  results 
may  well  have  been  different.  "He  may  have 
made  the  difference  this  year,  he's  just  a  guy 
whom  everybody  likes,  he's  sincere,  polite,  a 
class  person." 

While  Presley  said  he  did  not  expect  "too  much 
action"  on  bar  issues  during  the  coming  term,  he 
hasn't  given  the  state  bar  a  clean  bill  of  health. 

"For  the  next  year  or  so,  the  Legislature  is  go 
ing  to  take  the  position  of  'Let's  give  the  bar  time 
to  work  out  its  problem,'  "  he  said.  "I  hope  they 
can  make  vast  improvements." 

But  if  the  bar  doesn't  succeed,  Presley  said  he 
is  "prepared  to  introduce  a  bill"  to  remove 
discipline  once  and  for  all  from  the  State  Bar  of 
California.  ;  Vi  " "'" 


Bill  Lockyer 

"I  think  the  bar  was  in  jeopardy;  it  still  is. 
That  danger  has  been  dealt  with  temporarily,  but 
people  should  not  relax,  because  the  threat  is  still 
there,"  said  state  Senate  Judiciary  Committee 
chair  Bill  Lockyer  during  an  interview  this  week 
with  The  Recorder. 

But  the  state  bar  did  survive,  in  no  small  part 
because  of  its  president,  he  said. 

"Heilbron  is  one  of  the  most  interesting,  .in 
telligent  human  beings  I  have  ever  met,"  said 
Lockyer.  "I  found  him  very  persuasive,  very 
thoughtful,  and  adroit  at  handling  a  legislative 
setting,  where  you  have  to  take  punches  and  can 
never  swing  back. 

"Part  of  the  sign  of  Heilbron's  success  in  our 
house  is  that  the  1987  bar  dues  bill  passed  39-0. 
And  that  the  proposals  for  an  independent 
(discipline)  commission,  even  though  authored 
by  a  Senator  of  great  stature,  were  not  passed. 
Those  are  indicators  of  success,"  Lockyer  said. 

Reflecting  back,  Lockyer  praised  Heilbron  not 
just  for  being  an  effective  lobbyist:  "Some  of  the 
delightful  times  during  the  year  for  me  were  sit 
ting  around  in  the  office  just  chit-chatting  (with 
Heilbron).  David  is  just  a  very  interesting  per 
son,  and  we  would  talk  not  just  about  bar  issues, 
but  about  life.  I  enjoyed  that  a  lot." 
"I  think  it  would  be  fun  to  hear  Heilbron  reflect 
on  the  legislative  process,"  said  Lockyer. 

Despite  the  bar's  1985-86  successes,  Lockyer 
said  that  he  thought  Heilbron  "has  decided  that 
the  bar  has  very  little  political  clout. ' ' 

Asked  if  that  assessment  had  anything  to  do 
with  the  fact  that  the  state  bar,  unlike  other  lob 
byists,  cannot  form  political  action  committees 
nor  offer  politicians  the  the  contributions  that 
follow  therewith,  Lockyer  agreed  that  money  was 
part  of  the  issue.  "Policy  follows  politics.  You 
can  do  almost  a  vector  analysis  ...  (but  it's)  not 
just  money,  it's  contributions  of  time,  endorse 
ments  of  people  with  stature,  it's  ideas.  ...The  bar 
has  been  very  ineffective  in  those  ways," 
Lockyer  observed. 


398 


INDEX--Louis  H.  Heilbron 

accreditation  of  universities,   246- 

257,  329-330,  335-337 
adoption  laws,   55 
Alioto,  Joseph  L.,   231 
Altshuler,  H.I.,   59-60,  110 
American  Jewish  Committee,   291-293 
apartment  project  at  1200  California 

St.,   151-152 

arbitration  and  mediation,   181-182 
Armstrong,  Barbara,   23,  24-25,  100- 

101,  131 
Austria,  Allied  Control  Commission, 

80-83,  88,  97,  135 
Austria,  occupation  of, 

occupation  of  Vienna,   83-99 

training  for  military  government, 
63-69,  73-74 

Baker,  Lawrence,   129,  130 
Baker,  North,   310,  313 
Ballantine,  Henry,   18-19 
Bar  Association  of  San  Francisco, 

120 

Barrows,  David,   10-11,  15,  62 
Bates,  Mrs.  Talcott,   185 
Bay  Area  Education  Television 

Association,   342-343 
Bennett,  Eugene,   118 
Bergeron,  Victor,   258-259 
Betzina,  Keith,   165-166 
Blumenthal,  Emma,   289-291 
Blumenthal,  Louis,   289-291 
Boalt  Hall  School  of  Law,   18-25, 

100-101 

Boas,  Roger,   349 
Bomse,  Steven,   167 
Braden,  Tom,   184,  187,  198 
Branion,  R.  C.,   36-37,  44,  45,  103 
Brawner,  Fuller,   344 
Brown,  Edmund  G.  "Pat",   184,  189, 

195,  202,  206,  215,  240 
Bunzel,  John,   228 
Burdick,  Eugene,   303 
Butz,  Otto,   322,  325-326,  335 

California  Historical  Society,   116, 

304-315 
California  State  Bar  Association, 

120 
California,  State  Board  of 

Education,   184-190,  192 


California  State  College  System, 

185-186,  189-234 
California,  State  of 

Departent  of  Social  Welfare 

Commission,   27-56 
California  Toll  Bridge  Authority, 

37,  119 

Carleton,  H.  R. ,   42 
Carrael,  California,  development  of, 

113-114 

Caton,  Curtis,   167 
Christopher,  Warren,   185 
Cladek,  Arthur,   84-85 
Clark,  Mark,   81-82,  89,  92 
Clinton,  J.  Hart,   230 
Clish,  Herbert,   343 
Conant,  James,   317 
Coons,  Arthur  G.,   190 
cooperatives,  self-help,   46-47 
Coordinating  Council  for  Higher 

Education,   234-246 
Costigan,  George,   18-19 
Council  on  Post  Secondary 

Accreditation,   246-256 
Cross,  Ira,   13 
Crum,  Bart,   287 
Cutler,  Lee,   147,  149 

Dachau  concentration  camp,   93 
Day,  James,   344-345,  350 
de  Silva,  Joe,   137 
Dinkelspiel,  Lloyd  ST.,   37,  101, 

103,  106,  108,  114,  122-125,  129, 

131,  148,  162,  170,  172,  273, 

285,  288,  289 

Dinkelspiel,  Lloyd  Jr.,   166-167 
Distributors'  Association,  San 

Francisco,   142-143 
Dominguez  Hill  State  College,   204- 

205 

Drake's  Plate,   307 
Dumke,  Glenn,   201,  203,  206,  216, 

221,  230,  234 
Dunsmuir  House,   122 
Durham,  (professor),   13 

Ehrman,  Florence  Hellman,   116 
Ehrman,  Sidney,   26,  113-117,  135, 

168-170,  172,  176,  285,  289,  304 
Emergency  Relief  Administration, 

37-45,  103 


399 


Emergency  Relief  Commission,   48-49 
ERISA  (Employee  Retirement  Income 
Security  Act),   143-145,  160-161 

Falconer,  Don,   120,  129 
Farmer,  Garland,   302-303 
Federation  of  Regional  Accrediting 

Associations,   246 
Fine,  Alvin,   279-282,  316,  363 
Fischer,  David,   303 
Fleishhacker,  Mortimer  II,   344, 

351,  359 

Ford  Foundation,   344,  351 
fraternities 

financial  guidelines,  23-24 

hazing,  9 

Frederick,  Walter,   269 
Free  Speech  Movement,  Berkeley,   215 

Gallagher,  Buell,   198-201,  235 

Gallenkamp  Shoe  Stores,   136-137 

Gettell,  Raymond,   14 

Giovinco,  Joseph,   311 

Golden  Gate  Bridge  District,   119- 

120 

Golden  Gate  University,   320-342 
Golden  Gateway  project,   149-151 
Golden,  Isadore,   35 
Goodfellow,  W.  S.,   115 
Guggenhime,  Richard  E.,   131,  132, 

137,  170,  172,  175 
Gump's  store,   164,  166 

Haas,  Walter,   337,  359 

Hausman,  Irving,   283 

Hayakawa,  S.  I.,   223-225,  228,  229, 

231-232,  260,  347-348 
Reggie,  Richard,   303 
Heilbron,  David,   8,  64,  373-370 
Heilbron,  Delphine,   25,  60,  62-65, 

98,  99,  168,  274,  297-298,  361- 

370 

Heilbron,  Flora  Karp,   3-5 
Heilbron,  John,   363-370 
Heilbron,  Louis  (grandfather),   1-3 
Heilbron,  Simon  L.,   2 
Heller,  Clara  Hellman,   116 
Heller,  Clary,   112 
Heller,  Ed,   112 
Heller,  Ellie,   112 
Heller,  Emanuel  S.,   111-113,  115, 

116,  273 


Heller,  Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe, 

45,  100-183 

early  days,   104-106 

growth,   166-170 

Happiness  Committee,   173-174 

office  space  changes,   145-147 

postwar  years,   136-163 
Heller,  Meyer,   281 
Hellman,  Flutie,   123 
Hellman,  Isaias,   116 
hillside  support  case,   106-108 
Hiram  Walker  company,   142-143,  167 
Holliday,  J.  S.,   307-309,  311 
Holmes,  Samuel,   14 
Hoover,  Herbert,   131-132 
Hopkins,  Harry,   33,  35,  38,  45 
House  of  Prime  Rib,   156-158 
Human  Rights  Commission  for  San 
Francisco  City  and  County,   316-320 


indigent  laws,   27-30 
Interf raternity  Council,   23 
International  House,  Berkeley, 
269 


263- 


Japanese  relocations,  1940s,   133- 

134 

Jewish  Community  Center,   289-291 
John  Morrell  company,   163 
Johnson,  Hiram,   118 

Kaiser,  Lee,   130-132 

Kerr,  Clark,   192,  230,  233,  235, 

245 

Kidd,  Alexander,   19-20 
KQED  radio  station,   142,  158-160, 

342-357 
Kurtz,  Ben,    14 

labor  law  and  practice,   135-166 
Langendorf,  Stanley,   138-139 
Langendorf  Baking  Co.,   138 
Leiffer,  Don,   196,  199 
Leonard,  J.  Paul,   343 
Linforth,  Ivan,   15 
Lipman,  F.  L.,   133 
Loewenberg,  Jacob,   15-16 
London,  wartime  life  in,   69-75 
Luckman,  Charles,   205 
Lundquist,  Weyman,   167 

McAuliffe,  Florence,   54,  114,  118- 
122 


400 


McCone,  Michael,   312 

McEnerny,  Garret,   115 

McGovney,  Dudley,   22 

MacMillen,  Wayne,   30,  32,  34,  36 

McMurray,  Orrin  Kip,   22 

Marget,  Arthur,   92 

Marks,  Milton,   259-260 

Master  Plan  for  Education, 

California,   187,  189-195,  199,  233- 

235,  238,  241-242 
Maushardt,  Nancy,   312 
May,  Samuel,   12 

Menuhin,  Yehudi,   115,  164,  276 
Merriam,  Ted,   198,  207,  229 
Meyer,  Martin,   271-272,  285-286 
Monaco,  Albert,   105,  129 
Moore,  Richard,   158-159 

negotiating,   139-143 

Newman,  Louis,   272-274,  285-286 

Olson,  Culbert,   120 

Packard,  David,   310 

Palmieri,  Victor,   205 

Paulsen,  Stanley,   216 

Pearl  Harbor  attack,   57-58 

Pers,  Jessica,   177 

Perstein,  Arnold,   16,  18 

Petrilllo,  James,   153-153 

Phi  Beta  Kappa,  Northern  California 

chapter,   357-358 
philanthopy,   359-360 
Pigin  (Russian  representative  in 

postwar  Vienna)   89,  91,  93,  94, 

95-96 

Pomeroy,  Harold,   50,  59 
Popofsky,  M.  Laurence,   167 
Post-Secondary  Commission,   243 
Powers,  Francis  H. ,   113-114 
Powers,  Robert,   307 
pro  bono  practice,   171-175,  178 
probate  and  estate  planning 
practice,   128 

Radin,  Max,   21 

Reagan,  Ronald,   220,  221,  227-231, 

236,  267,  344 
Reconstruction  Finance  Corporation, 

30-33,  35,  37,  119 
Reichert,  Irving,   274-277,  278, 
286,  288 


relief  concepts,  historical 

evolvement  of,   52-56 
Rhine,  Larry,   276 
Rice,  Jonathan,   345 
Richardson,  John,   202-203 
Rindor,  Reuben,   278 
Robinson,  Henry,   110 
Roche,  Theodore,   118 
Rolph,  James,   30,  34-36,  122 
Romberg,  Paul,   259 
Roosevelt,  Eleanor,   162 
Rosston,  Ed,   175 
Rothwell,  Easton,   303 
Rural  Rehabilitation  Corp.,   47-48 

San  Francisco  Bakery  Employers 

Association,   138 

San  Francisco  Bay  Bridge,   119-120 
San  Francisco  State  College, 

protests  and  strike,   214-234 
San  Francisco  State  University 

Advisory  Board,   257-262 
San  Francisco  Symphony,   112 
Scheuer,  James  H.,   149-151 
schoolbooks,  publishing  of  in 

California,   185-188 
Schottland,  Charles,   50,  59 
SDS  (Students  for  a  Democratic 

Society,   214,  216-217 
Seager,  Pamela,   305,  308,  310 
Seidel,  Vaughn  D.,   342 
Sharp,  Russell,   322,  325 
Simpson,  Roy,   184,  188,  191 
Six  Companies,   130,  177,  312 
Sloss,  Mrs.  Max,   274 
Smith,  Robert,   222-224 
Smith,  Junius,   78,  80-81,  93 
Somerskill,  John,   216-222 
Sperling,  JohnD.,   256-257 
Splivalo,  Rheba  Crawford,   27 
Staley,  Eugene,   302  ' 
Stauffer,  Tom,   336 
Stern,  Julian,   166 

Tangiers,  Alexis,   152 
Tarnoff,  Peter,   303 
Teamsters'  Union,   161,  227 
Teggart,  Frederick,   12,  276 
Temple  Emanu-El,   113,  270-288 
transient  camps  (California),   40-43 
Traynor,  Roger,   20-21,  331 
Treasure  Island  development 
contract,   54-55 


401 


U.S.  government,  Board  of  Economic 

Warfare,   58-62 
Union  Trust  Co.,   115 
United  Airlines  crash  lawsuit,   108- 

109 

University  of  Phoenix,   256-257 
University  of  California,  Berkeley, 

8-17,  115-116 

class  of  1928,  269 

Wallace,  Henry,   60 

Warren,  Earl,   51,  105 

Weinberger,  Caspar  "Cap",   150,  167, 

230,  343-344,  346-347 
Wells  Fargo  Bank,   102,  111,  114, 

115,  125,  133,  145,  146-147,  162 
Western  Pacific  Railroad,   114 
Western  Jewish  History  Center,   315 
White,  Jerome,   117-118,  119,  130 
wine  cellar  settlement,   155-156 
Witkin,  Bernard,   16,  24-25,  102, 

114 

Wollenberg,  Charles,   50 
World  Affairs  Council,   160,  294- 

304,  344,  349 
World  Trade  Center,  San  Francisco, 

147-149 

Yost,  Casimir,   303 
Young  Women's  Christian  Association 
(YWCA),   361-363 


Carole  E.  Hicke 


B.A.,  University  of  Iowa;  economics 

M.A.,  San  Francisco  State  University;  U.S.  history  with  emphasis  on  the 
American  West;  thesis:  "James  Rolph,  Mayor  of  San  Francisco." 

Interviewer/editor/writer,  1978-present,  for  business  and  law  firm 
histories,  specializing  in  oral  history  techniques.   Independently 

employed. 

Interviewer-editor,  Regional  Oral  History  Office,  University  of  California, 
Berkeley,  1985  to  present,  specializing  in  California  legal,  political,  and 
business  histories. 

Author:   Heller,  Ehrman,  White  &  McAuliffe:  A  Century  of  Service  to  Clients 
and  Community,  1991;  history  of  Farella,  Braun  &  Martel;  history  of  the 
Federal  Judges  Association. 

Editor  (1980-1985)  newsletters  of  two  professional  historical  associations: 
Western  Association  of  Women  Historians  and  Coordinating  Committee  for 
Women  in  the  Historical  Profession. 

Visiting  lecturer,  San  Francisco  State  University  in  U.S.  history,  history 
of  California,  history  of  Hawaii,  legal  oral  history. 


2331