Regional Oral History Office University of California --' The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California -*. T.."

Women in Politics Oral History Project

Mildred Younger

INSIDE AND OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS, 1929-1980

With Introductions by Jean Wood Fuller Carol Arth Waters Judge McIntyre Faries

An Interview Conducted by Malca Chall 1976-1981

Underwritten by grants from the Research Collection Program of the National Endowment for the Humanities, The Bancroft Library, and the Office of the Chancellor

Copyright a1983 by the Regents of the University of California All us.es of this manuscript are covered hy a legal agreement hetween the Regents of the University of California and Mildred Younger dated July 7, 1981. 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 at Berkeley.

Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 Library, 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 Mildred Younger requires that she be notified of the request and allowed thirty days in which to respond.

It is recommended that this oral history he cited as f 01lows :

Mildred Younger, "Inside and Outside Government and Politics, 1929-1980," an oral history conducted 1976-1981 by Malca Chall, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1983.

Copy No. TABLE OF CONTENTS -- Mildred Younger

PREFACE i

INTRODUCTION by Jean Wood Fuller vi

INTRODUCTION by Carol Arth Waters viii

INTRODUCTION by Judge McIntyre Faries x

INTERVIEW HISTORY xiii

BRIEF BIOGRAPHY xvii

I FAMILY BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION 1 Parents and Grandparents 1 Experiences as a Lobbyist's Daughter 10 Educational Goals and School Activities 18 University of Southern California: Debating, Merchandising, Art History 26 Japanese-American Student Peace Conferences 33

I1 THE WAR YEARS, 1942-1946 44 Marriage to Evelle Younger: His Background 4 4 Army Wife in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles 50 Businesswoman: The Art Mart 56

I11 THE YOUNGERS: IN AND OUT OF CIVILIAN LIFE, 1946-1952 Building an Exhibit Home in Pasadena On the Lecture Circuit for a Fee Republican Party Speakers Bureau as a Volunteer Broad-Based Community Activities The Relationship Between Community Activity and Education The Korean War and the Move to Washington, D.C. The Move to Los Angeles: Lecturing and Community Activity

IV DEDICATED ACTIVIST IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, 1948-1954 92 The California Federation of Republican Women 92 Some Background on the California Republican Party Organization 100 Delegate to the Republican National Convention, 1952 106 Seconding the Nomination of Earl Warren for President . 110 Presidential Hopefuls: Earl Warren, Robert Taft, Dwight Eisenhower 113 Mildred Younger's Role in the Civil Rights Platform Controversy 124 Seeing Politicans as Just People / The Fair Play Amendment, the Nominations, and Other Issues Facing the California Delegation The Convention Speakers The Dwight Eisenhower-Richard Nixon Campaign, 1952 Recollections of the $18,000 Expense-Fund Scandal Insights into the Warren-Nixon Hostility: The Effect and Meaning of Personality Clashes in Politics Mildred Younger is Elected Vice-Chairman South of the Republican State Central Committee, 1952-1954 The Role of Women in the Republican State Central Committee An Interest in Issues and Organizations Which Study Issues Financing the Political Party Republican Party Leaders and Workers

V CANDIDATE FOR THE: STATE SENATE, 1954 Organizing the Successful Primary Campaign A Very Dirty Political Trick Experiences as a Woman Candidate Coping with Defeat in the General Election The Contested Election for Republican State Central Committee Vice-Chairman, 1954 Writing the State Republican Party Platform

VI NEW HORIZONS, 1955-1958 Phasing Out of Political Party Activity Exciting Experiences as a Radio and Television Newswoman, ABC and CBS Appointments to State and Federal Boards and Commissions

VII THE POLITICAL PROCESS AND WOMEN IN POLITICS Women and the Political Party Women as Candidates The Need to Have a Strong Community Identity: Mildred Younger's Experiences What Differences Will Women Make in Government? Is the Woman Candidate More Acceptable in 1978 Than She Was in 1954? The Equal Rights Amendment The Demands on the Wife of a Governmental Official Meeting People Keeping the Full Schedule Accepting What Is Decorating the Attorney General's Offices VIII EVELLE YOUNGER'S CAMPAIGN FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA: THE EXPERIENCES OF THE CANDIDATE'S WIFE, 1977-1978 The Early Stages of the Primary Campaign Understanding State and Local Issues Attitudes and Expectations: Housewife Plus Sometimes It's Great Fun Looking into the Future as Possible Private Citizen Mildred Younger's Activities: Present and Future The National Board of the American Heart Association The Commission on Libraries and Information Science Painting Evaluating the Campaign: Winning the Primary; Losing the General Election The Effect of the Media on Campaign Plans and Costs Campaign Strategy, Managers, and Advisors The Campaign Hiatus in Hawaii Adjusting to Life as a Private Citizen

TAPE GUIDE-

APPENDIX A - Republican State and National Officers

APPENDIX B - Article about Mildred Younger and Spastic Dysphonia

INDEX

PREFACE

The following interview is one of a series of tape-recorded memoirs in the California Women Political Leaders Oral History Project. The series has been designed to study the political activities of a representative group of California women who became active in politics during the years between the passage of the woman's suffrage amendment and the current feminist movement--roughly the years between 1920 and 1965. Theyrepresent a variety of views: conservative, moderate, liberal, and radical, although most of them worked within the Demo- cratic and Republican parties. They include elected and appointed officials at national, state, and local governmental levels. For many the route to leadership was through the political party--primarily those divisions of the party reserved for women.

Regardless of the ultimate political level attained, these women have all worked in election campaigns on behalf of issues and candidates. They have raised funds, addressed envelopes, rung doorbells, watched polls, staffed offices, given speeches, planned media coverage, and when permitted, helped set policy. While they enjoyed many successes, a few also experienced defeat as candidates for public office.

Their different family and cultural backgrounds, their social attitudes, and their personalities indicate clearly that there is no typical woman political leader; their candid, first-hand observations and their insights about their experiences provide fresh source material for the social and political history of women in the past half century.

In a broader framework their memoirs provide valuable insights into the political process as a whole. The memoirists have thoughtfully discussed details of party organization and the work of the men and women who served the party. They have analysed the process of selecting party leaders and candidates, running campaigns, raising funds, and drafting party platforms, as well as the more subtle aspects of political life such as maintaining harmony and coping with fatigue, frustration, and defeat. Perceived through it all are the pleasures of friend- ships, struggles, and triumphs in a common cause.

The California Women Political Leaders Oral History Project has been financed by both an outright and a matching grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Matching funds were provided by the Rockefeller Foundation for the Helen Gahagan Douglas component of the project, by the Columbia and Fairtree Foundations, and by individuals who were interested in supporting memoirs of their friends and colleagues. In addition, funds from the California State Legislature- sponsored Knight-Brown Era Governmental History Project made it possible to increase the research and broaden the scope of the interviews in which there was a meshing of the woman's political career with the topics being studied in the Knight-Brown project. Professors Judith Blake Davis, Albert Lepawsky, and Walton Bean have served as principal investigators during the period July 1975- December 1977 that the project was underway. This series is the second phase of the Women in Politics Oral History Project, the first of which dealt with the experiences of eleven women who had been leaders and rank-and-file workers in the suffrage movement.

The Regional Oral History Office was established to tape record autobio- graphical interviews with persons significant in the history of the West and the nation. The Office is under the administrative supervision of James D. Hart, Director of The Bancroft Library. Interviews were conducted by Amelia R. Fry, Miriam Stein, Gabrielle Morris, Malca Chall, Fern Ingersoll, and Ingrid Scobie.

Malca Chall, Project Director Women in Politics Oral History Project

Willa Barn, Department Head Regional Oral History Office

15 November 1979 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California at Berkeley CALIFORNIA WOMEN POLITICAL LEADERS ORAL HISTORY PROJECT

Frances Mary Albrier, Determined Advocate for Racial Equality. 1979, 308 p.

Marjorie Benedict , Developing a Place for Women in the Republican Party. In process.

Odessa Cox, ChaZZenging the Status @a: The Twenty-seven Year Campaign for Southwest Junior College. 1979, 149 p.

Pauline Davis, California Ass& lpoman, 19 52- 19 76, In process.

Ann Eliaser, From Gmssroots Politics to the Top Dollar: findraising for Candidates and Nan-profit Agencies. 1983, 306 p.

March Fong Eu, High Achieving Noncomfomist in Local and State Government. 1977, 245 p.

Jean Wood Fuller, Organizing Women: Careers in Vozunteer Politics and Government Ahinistrath. 1977, 270 p.

Elizabeth Rude1 Gatov, Grassroots Party Organizer to Treasurer of the United States. 1978, 412 p.

Elinor Heller. In process.

PatriciaHitt, From Precinct Worker to Asdstant Secretary of BEW. 1480, 220 p.

Lucile Hosmer, A Conservative Republican in the Mainstream of Party PoZitZcs. 1983, 200 p.

Kimiko Fujii Kitayama, Nisei Leader in Democratic Politics and Civic Affairs. 1979, 110 p.

Bernice Hubhard May, A Native Dcncghterts Leadership in Public Affairs. Two volumes, 1976, 540 p.

LaRue McCormick, Activist in the Radical Movement, 1930-2960: The International Labor Defense and the Comnist Party. 1980, 166 p.

Hulda Hoover McLean, A Conservativets Crusades for Good Government. 1477, li4 p.

Emily Pike, RepubZ5xn Party Campaign Organizer: From Volunteer to Professiomi. 1983, 389 p.

Julia Porter, Dedicated Democrat and City Planner, 1341-1975. 1977, 195 p.

Wanda Sankary, From Sod House to State House. 1979, 109 p.

Hope Mendoza Schechter, Activist in the Labor -Movement, the Democratic Party, and the Memkan-American Comity. 1980, 165 p.

Vera Schultz, Ideals and Realities in State and Local Government. 1977, 272 p. Clara Shirpser, One Woman's Role in Democratic Party Politics: National, State, and Local, 1950-1973. Two volumes, 1975, 671 p.

Elizabeth Snyder, CaZiforn&zfsFirst Woman State Party Chairman. 1977, 199 p.

Eleanor Wagner, Independent PoZiticaZ CoaZiEicns: EZectoraZ, Legislative, and Conomuzity. 1977, 166 p.

Carmen Warschaw, A Southern Californicr Perspective on Democratic Party PoZitics. 1983 (edited transcript in The Bancroft Library), 450 p.

Carolyn Wolfe, Educating for Citizenship: A Career in Conomuzity Affairs and the Democratic Party, 1906-1976. 1978,. 254 p.

Rosalind Wyman, "It's a Girl:" Three Terms on the Los AngeZes City CowzciZ, 1953- 1965; Three Decades in th Democratic Party, 1948-1,079. 1979, 150 p.

Mildred Younger, Inside and Outside Government and PoZitics,'Z929-2980. 1983, 353 p.

January 1983 The Helen Gahagan Douglas Component of the California Women Political Leaders Oral History Project

Volume I: The PoZiticaZ Ccplrpaigns Discussion primarily of the 1950 Senate campaign and defeat, in interviews with Tilford E. Dudley, India T. Edwards, Leo Goodman, Kenneth R. Harding, Judge Syron F. Lindsley, Helen Lustig, Alvin P. Meyers, Frank Rogers, and William Malone.*

Volume 11: The Congress Pears, 1944-1950 Discussion of organization and staffing; legislation on migrant labor, land, power and water, civilian control of atomic energy, foreign policy, the United Nations, social welfare, and economics, in interviews with Juanita E. Barbee, Rachel S. Bell, Albert S. Cahn, Margery Cahn, Evelyn Chavoor, Lucy Kramer Cohen, Arthur Goldschmidt, Elizabeth Wickenden Goldschmidt, Chester E. Holifield, Charles Hogan, Mary Keyserling, and Philip J. Noel-Baker.

Volume 111: Family, Wends, and the Theater: The Years Before and After PoZitics Discussion of Helen and Melvyn Douglas and their activities at home with their family and among friends, and their work in the theater and movies, in interviews with Fay Bennett, Alis De Sola, Cornelia C. Palms, and Walter R. Pick.

Volume IV: Congresmm, Actress, and Qera Singer Helen Gahagan Douglas discusses her background and childhood; Barnard College education; Broadway, theater and opera years; early political organization and Democratic party work; the congressional campaigns, supporters; home and office in Washington; issues during the Congress years, 1944-1950; the 1950 Senate campaign against Richard M. Nixon, and aftermath; women and independence; occupations since 1950; speaking engagements, travel to Russia, South America, Liberia inauguration, civic activities, life in Vermont.

*William Malone preferred not to release his transcript at this time.

. July 1982 INTRODUCTION by Jean Wood Fuller

When I first met Mildred Younger, in mid-1940s, I was serving as President of the Southern District of the Federation of Republican Women. One of my main objectives was to vitalize the organization by infusing it with young women of talent, who were interested in helping the Republican Party. One of the young women who was attracted by this endeavor was Mildred Younger.

Mildred was one of those with a high degree of talent with a particular forte in public speaking. She was always ready to serve wherever her ability could be of use. The federated clubs were always anxious to have her as a speaker because she always attracted much more than usual interest, consequently the clubs' attendance zoomed and thus their local memberships grew.

When I took office as President of the Southern California Federation, the membership was composed of stalwart women who had been long-time volunteer workers in many campaigns. At my first meeting of the elected Board of Directors, I explained, as one of my goals, bringing some younger women into appointive positions on the board. Without exception, they all agreed this would be an excellent idea. I must give full credit to these older members who graciously welcomed and cooperated with.the newly appointed younger members.

By Mildred's unstinting efforts with several units of the Federation, her enthusiasm carried out into all the clubs of the various counties. Thus the membership of the Federation began to grow with the consequence that attendance at the yearly conventions grew larger and larger each year.

Mildred and I considered ourselves as "moderates, l1 but it must be admitted there were some members. who were far to the "right" in their thinking and actions. Hence there were some tussles between the factions.

As I progressed to the presidency of the California Federation of Republican Women, consisting of three divisions, Northern, Central, and Southern, I was able to carry my idea statewide to bring as many young women as possible into positions of responsibility. It was a pleasure to see the responses from the many Republican candidates for the state and national legislatures. They began appointing our members to the State Republican Central Committee, and to be delegates to the Republican National conventions. I had the honor toserve on the Platform Drafting Committee of the 1948 convention and Mildred Younger served on the same select committee in 1952. INTRODUCTION by Carol A. Waters

I first remember her standing in her stocking feet on a conference room couch in the Los Angeles Ambassador Hotel.

She stood there for easier access to a blackboard placed high on the wall on which she outlined the game plan for electing then Assemblyman Laughlin E. Waters as National Chairman of the Young Republican National Federation.

She was his campaign manager. She was bright, articulate, a skilled political strategist, friendly, beautiful, and an all around impressive lady. She was two decades ahead of the early vanguard of competent women political leaders.

It was 1949. Young Republicans from Southern California, having wrested control of the state organization from our colleague-adversaries in the north, were confident we could overrun the Dewey-dominated eastern Young Republicans and elect a Southern Californian as National Chairman.

Millie led us well in a hard fight. We learned about national politics. We lost. And, we made friends in the Republican Party in every state in the Union.

Between then and her own race in 1954 to unseat State Senator Jack Tenney (Los Angeles County was represented then by only one State Senator), every Republican seeking statewide office wanted her among his strategists and public spokesmen: Warren, Knowland, Knight, Nixon, Kuchel--an endless list.

We dined together one night quite late--you do that in campaigns--when she was running for the State Senate and I had returned to Los Angeles from my Washington, D.C. assignment as a Special Assistant to'secretary of State Dulles after a two-year term as National Co-Chairman and then Chairman of the Young Republican National Federation. Aspects of that primary campaign, in which she defeated Jack Tenney, and then lost narrowly to Democrat Richard Richards in the general, were reminiscent of the most vitriolic and abusive tactics of early U.S. politics. Throughout, she comported herself brilliantly, decently and set a style for women candidates who followed her.

Until I returned to California in 1961, our contacts were infrequent: an hour's conversation leaning against a concession stand in the San Francisco Cow Palace during the 1956 Republican National Convention, dinner when she was in Washington, D.C. on her way to or from meetings of the Federal Women's Correctional Institution Board in West Virginia. vii

In 1954 I was offered an appointment with the federal government, so my path and that of Mildred's were separated by geography, but not ideology. I remember making a trip back to California at the time Mildred was serving on a radio talk show program where she invited me to be her guest speaker. I was extremely pleased though concerned about Mildred's physical condition as the result of an automobile accident. It was shortly after that when she completely lost her voice which lasted for seventeen long years. To me, this was a great tragedy because she had the potential to be elected to a statewide office. It was a terrible quirk of fate.

Though Mildred's own political potentials were cut short, she was of invaluable support to her husband as attorney general of California, as well as raising a marvelous son who now sits on the judicial bench in Los Angeles.

Her friendship and thoughtfulness to me have been extremely heartwarming and even though we are still widely separated geographically I still feel very close to her. I join her many friends in wishing her all good wishes in her many endeavors.

Jean Wood Fuller

28 July 1981 Santa Rosa, California Like all who knew her, I was shocked and distressed at the news of her nearly complete voice loss in late 1958. How cruel that she should not be heard. A woman who could spellbind an audience at a Party national convention, in a living room meeting, or as a CBS Network newscaster. What a dreadful loss for the public and for her.

Seventeen years later I phoned her husband, State Attorney General Evelle J. Younger, to find out about the success--or failure--of a brand new experimental surgical procedure to restore her voice. He said, "I'll put Mom on and she can tell you herself." Her voice was music to my ears. Did it sound the same? I thought so but, after seventeen years, it was hard to tell.

Our friendship, which distance made spasmodic in the fifties, had an opportunity to prove rtself as a fine one in the sixties when I came home to California. Almost immediately, although she wasn't making any speeches herself in those days, we wrote the Speaker's Manual for the Nixon for Governor campaign. Senator Charles Percy of Illinois saw it and described it as the best and most useful manual he'd ever seen. We welcomed the praise.

It was then I developed my own way of listening to Millie's wispy voice. I would sit opposite her so that what I could not hear I could lip read. I concentrated on what she whispered to the point that I often ended with a headache after a prolonged conversation. Telephone conversations with her were the least difficult because they were without the distractions of facial expressions, movement, color, etcetera.

These were the years in which friends and strangers alike presented sure fire cures for her speech problem. She tried many of them including hypnosis prescribed by Governor "Goody" Knight.

I have no idea how many reams of paper Millie used in her advisory notes to Evelle during the sixties and seventies as he ran for and was elected District Attorney for Los Angeles County ('62 and '66) and State Attorney General ( '70 and '74) . She became famous among friends, staff , and campaign supporters for those notes, often torn from the corner of a yellow pad and paper clipped to a news story she thought deserved Ev's attention and comment. As one of his volunteer campaign leaders, I also received a share of her notes.

Thirty-two years later, her friendship is a priceless and treasured gift. She is great fun, mentally challenging, thoughtful, caring, and getting better about being on time for lunch dates.

Carol Arth Waters 11 August 1981 Los Angeles, California BEVERLY HILLS JUDICIAL DISTRICT 9355 BURTON WAY BEVERLY HILLS. CALIFORNIA 90210 xm- X~xxx=L~ McIntvre Faries Retired Judge of the Superlor Court Sitting on Assignment

July 23, 1981

Malca Chall Oral History Project Bancrof t Library Berkeley, California 94720

Dear Mrs. Chall:

Your letter of the 13th asked that I write you concerning Mrs. Evelle (Mildred or "Millie") Younger; as I fatuously consider myself the "old observer" (see footnote to this letter) I am flattered to do so, My friendship with the Eberhard family goes back to high school days with her Uncle Claire and with her father Ray to the thirties and forties when he was attorney for the Los Angeles Teachers Association and its advocate before the California Legislature. He was a valued citizen, excellent lawyer, possessed of a sly sense of humor; and he should have been a judge. Mildred's sister Elisabeth Eberhard Zeigler was a judge of the Municipal Court and then she was appointed, rightfully, to the Superior Court. Her appointment was a good one. Yes, husband Evelle served on the Municipal and our Superior Court and served later as Los Angeles County District Attorney, then Attorney General of California.

I remember that Governor Goodwin J, Knight once telephoned me saying, "I am looking for a bright, capable, industrious woman to appoint to the Los Angeles Superior Court Bench. Can you name the best woman?" I replied "the woman is Mildred Younger." We agreed, but Mildred was not a member of the Bar.

Further reminiscing. Although a slate pledged to Congressman Thomas Werdel opposed Warren in 1952 it was obvious that the Warren Slate would be the California Republican delegation to the Chicago Convention. As a member of the five-person committee chosen by Warren to advise on putting members On his California Delegation, I recognized that General Eisenhower (who was not planning to enter the California primary) was rising, so I telephoned the Governor and discussed this with him pointing out that there were loopholes in the California legal provisions dealing with the support of the candidate. I mentioned no names. I knew that among those under consideration were the Youngers who had lived in Washington, and that Ev had been with the F.B.I. and was also during World War I1 a distinguished member of the Air Force. Warren substantially told me "If you consider such leaders as honest people and they are recognized in their districts as the right persons to be on the delegation and sign to support me as the forms require, I will approve such persons as delegates.'' What he was conveying to me was that leaning to Taft or Eisenhower was not ground for rejection. Warren was a "big" man:

About then there was a Republican meeting in San 'Francisco. It was sponsored by the Republican National Committee and at that time I was the Vice-Chairman of the Party's National Committee, and its Committeeman from California. Each candidate for the party's nomination was to have a woman advocate. I knew that Millie would be the perfect speaker for Governor Warren at this big meeting. Also, I wanted either Millie or Ev on the delegation. We decided that Mildred should be the delegate.

Mildred looked beautiful! She "wowed" the audience and the News Media; putting in the shadows nationally known speakers such as Katharine Kennedy Brown, who spoke for Taft.

At the convention Mildred was the most valuable member of the Platform Committee. She was also valuable in the controversy of the seating of delegates and helped me in the fight in which we overcame the diehard groups. opposed to the televising of the National Committee's proceedings concerning the seating of disputed delegations.

Before the United States Supreme Court decision (the so called Warren Court) of "one man-one vote," each California county had but one State Senator. Thus Los Angeles with forty percent of the voters or residents had only one of the forty State Senators. Los Angeles County's State Senator was Jack Tenney, a Republican, and he was Chairman of the Unamerican Activities Committee. We thought him insufficient and not well balanced on his pet subject. Millie ran against him for the Republican nomination. Tenney, I was told suggested he would bow out if appointed a Municipal Judge, if there was a vacancy. No, I was not consulted by any one. The Governor rightly refused to make such an appointment. Tenney ran. Millie defeated Tenney for the Republican nomination. She would have gone on to victory in the finals, but unfortunately during the campaign her management made a horrible mess of its office. My wife, Lois, was asked by Millie to go in there and straighten matters out. She tried for a week but had to give up. So Millie's campaign went downhill and she lost. xii

Unfortunately there was an infantile paralysis epidemic which cost Millie and Evelle a daughter; also Millie lost her voice. She could no longer speak except in a forced whisper. An amplifier did little good. She looked thoughtfully at you as you talked; she knew how to treat the over- cocktailed dinner guest, to cope with the stale parsley on the "rubber chicken"; to stand and smile in response to boring after dinner toasts; and so forth. However the tragedy drew that close family even closer. She was a loving asset to her husband and son, now a Superior Court Judge.

Praise be to God and our surgeons: She can now speak lucidly though not as in 1952. She has been my friend always. In 1953 my chief political friend Senator William F. Knowland and his close personal friend Governor Earl Warren both kindly "twisted my arm" via telephone and I went on the Los Angeles Superior Court Bench. Since then I have not been in politics; but I will always "choke up" when I think of Millie and Ev and their loyalty and friendship in the two periods when I was bereaved.

Millie is a national asset: - Sincerely yours,

(Ret ire

P.S. Footnote: See A.J. Marquis, "Who's Who In America, 1948-1966" also Bowker's "Who's Who In American Politics, 1980-1981." xiii

INTERVIEW HISTORY

Mildred Younger and her role in the Republican party were often mentioned by those consulted for names of potential interviewees when, in 1972, the California Women Political Leaders Oral History Project was being planned. I11 health, never specified,would,we were told, prevent her from being interviewed. Disappointment at losing such a promising interview turned to excitement, when, in November 1975, we learned from Barbara Stidham, then president of the Northern Division, California Federation of Republican Women, that Mildred Younger's voice had been restored through recent surgery. By January 1976 Mrs. Younger had accepted our invitation to participate in the oral history project.

We began the first of eleven interview sessions on March 8, 1976 in San Francisco. Our final session, some five years later, on July 7, 1981, took place in the Youngers' home in Beverly Hills. During eighteen interview hours we covered much of Mrs. Younger's life: growing up in Los Angeles the daughter of a prominent Republican attorney and lobbyist; high school and college years as a member of champion debate teams; experiences as a prominent public speaker; activities in the Republican party; the losing election campaign for the state senate; fascinating pioneering work as a radio and TV newswoman; and her role as the mother of Eric, now a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, and the wife of Evelle who rose through the ranks from municipal court judge to California state attorney general, then lost his bid to be governor of California.

Within this span of time there were Mildred Younger's seventeen years when she suffered almost total loss of her voice, a condition now known as spastic dysphonia. Although she continued, albeit with difficulty, to move in the public sector as a member of local and state boards and commissions, and on election campaigns for her husband and others (notably that of Richard Nixon in 1962), she suffered deeply all the pain and distress of the handicapped.

The loss of her voice was especially painful since Mildred was a renowned public speaker and was well launched in a career as a radio and TV commentator. While the illness did nothing to diminish either her keen intelligence or her deep concern with social and political issues, it sabotaged her ability to articulate as before how she felt, and what she thought, and even what she might need.

Her Brief Biography and the information in the introductions written by long-time friends and political associates Jean Wood Fuller, Carol Waters, and Judge McIntyre Faries attest to Mildred Younger's personal attributes and exceptional background. The oral history, begun soon after she had full command of her voice, gave Mildred an opportunity to review her activities in and out of politics and to reflect on those experiences. We worked from chronological outlines which I sent ahead prior to each recording session. Mrs. Younger frequently took the lead in the subject on which she wanted to concentrate during an interview, or a question might prompt a flow of ideas and memories. We followed these leads knowing that the chronology could be picked up at another time. In fact, because we did cover similar topics in varying degrees at different times during the five years, segments of the transcripts have been edited together to provide continuity in the chronology as well as in the ideas expressed.

Because Mildred Younger is introspective, questioning, stimulated by discussion, and a trained debator, she has provided more in this lengthy oral history than a simple detailed recounting of the many significant events which she has observed and in which she has participated, and the many well- known persons in public life she has known. She has added an enriching dimension and texture to the background stories by reflecting on the relation- ships between people and events, by analysing her own reactions to various experiences, and by candidly discussing both the amusing and stressful aspects of working to achieve high goals in school, in politics, in business, and as a parent and the wife of a public official. And because she also has an adventuresome and funloving side to her basically serious personality, she has recollected many of her experiences with a goodly dash of laughter and sharp wit.

Although the Youngers' permanent home is in Los Angeles, as attorney general, Evelle Younger spent at least one day each week in his offices in Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Mrs. Younger often accompanied him when he left Los Angeles. In San Francisco they owned a comfortably furnished condominium on the ground floor of what had once been an apartment building. Here, whenever she had a few hours free, usually prior to the return flight to Los Angeles, we held eight of our eleven interview sessions, each from one and one-half to two hours long. [March 8, April 7, August 2, September 29, November 8, 1976; March 8, May 9, 19771 At first arrangements were made through the attorney general's private secretary because threats on the Youngers' lives required special precautions. Eventually I was permitted to schedule appointments directly with Mrs. Younger.

The scene for the interviews shifted to her home in the Los Feliz hills for the interviews on May 26, 1977 and February 13, 1978. Here, Mildred Younger--art historianby interest, painter by hobby, and interior decorator by necessity because of the many homes they have lived in since her marriage in 1942--had assembled an exciting collection of prints, wall hangings, and artifacts, much of it highly colorful folk art, gathered mainly from places where they had traveled. Two active Australian Silky terriers, very much a part of the household, often shared space on Mrs. Younger's lap while we talked. On February 13, 1978, just as the state primary campaign was getting underway the planned ten interviews covering Mildred Younger's life from her childhood through to the present, were concluded. The oral history had begun in early 1976 when Evelle Younger and probably only his family and a few close associates knew that he might be a candidate for governor in 1978. As we continued our interviews into 1977 Evelle Younger became, in fact, a candidate. By 1978 it was obvious that Mildred would be assisting in the campaign, and not as she had in the past seventeen years, silently from the sidelines. What would that mean to her? What would she be asked to do? And what would it mean to her if Evelle were to lose the election? We talked briefly about this during the February 1978 session. As it happened, Evelle Younger won the primary campaign, but lost the general election to incumbent governor Jerry Brown. The Youngers moved out of their three temporary homes around the state, then moved from their long-time permanent home on Chislehurst Way and into an old house in Beverly Hills which they remodeled extensively.

But many questions nagged at me. In the gubernatorial campaign, Mildred Younger had been used in several capacities--as surrogate speaker around the state, as "brain trust," and advisor on small and large issues. How did she view those experiences? How had this campaign differed from other campaigns? How was she coping as a private citizen, a change which she had, in early 1978, viewed with some apprehension. She and I decided that we should have one additional interview to answer these questions.

By this time there were no funds available for another interview. Fortunately both the chancellor of the Berkeley campus, Albert Bowker, and the director of The Bancroft Library, James Hart, considered Mrs. Younger's oral history important enough to warrant adding university funds to those provided by the initial grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. Thus, with everything in place, we could tape one final chapter to the memoir. This we did on July 7, 1981.

But first I had a tour of the new home. Its large rooms offered an ideal background for those paintings, art objects, and furnishings which had come from their former home, and those which had been more recently acquired during a tour of China. The newly added second floor had a well equipped painting studio with a specially designed glass ceiling to let in the light. Next to the studio was a comfortable den, the walls of which were covered with a representative sample of pictures primarily depiciting Evelle's years in politics. It looked as though the Youngers were ready to settle into private life.

Review of the transcript proved to be more of a problem to Mildred than she had expected. She received the edited transcript to read and emend during the summer of 1980, about a year before our extra final interview. She started to review it while she was recovering from spinal surgery necessitated by a back injury she had sustained when moving, Frequently between 1980 and late 1981 we conferred by phone. I was persistent and encouraging. She was reluctant, but determined, characteristically, to complete a job once started no matter how distasteful. She wondered what had happened to her ability to speak English--a common complaint of all interviewees when they first see their transcripts. Another time she said that she was upset because she felt she had not given a balanced account of her family in the first chapter--that she had been unfair to her mother and sister. She said that she had talked to me as though she were having a conversation with a friend, a factor which she thought may have lent some superficiality to the second chapter. She also expressed concern that people would not understand the reasons why she had put such emphasis on how broke everybody was during the pre-war years. There was, she said, a vast difference between the times she was talking about and today. In the twenties and thirties people lived primarily on their earnings, using credit, if at all, only for a mortgage on their homes. Borrowing was not an option. Today people may not have much more money but they have credit, and they also have such benefits as social security, and health insurance. That, she felt, would explain why people reading her account might not understand why she felt the dreadful lack of money during her youth. Then again, she had concern that my questions and her answers did not reflect that the real explanation for her having emerged in politics as rapidly as she did was on account of the media coverage she had received because she was young, good looking, and articulate. The Warren-Werdel campaign [during which she first came into prominence] was on the front pages daily.

Gradually she worked through her misgivings and through the manuscript. She revised sentences for clarity, added sections from a few paragraphs to a few pages to provide additional facts and greater depth to the topics being discussed. Except for some final checking during 1982, she had completed the major review of the transcript by the end of 1981.

The seven years during which this oral history has been in process have been momentous years for Mildred and Evelle Younger, as were many of the years preceding 1976. The story has been well and faithfully told.

Malca Chall Interviewer-editor

28 January 1983 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California at Berkeley BRIEF BIOGRAPHY

Born, Los Angeles, California Glendale and Los Angeles High Schools University of Southern California; B.A. Art History Member, seventh and eighth annual Japanese-American Student Peace Conferences Marriage to Evelle Younger In business in Los Angeles: the Art Mart Builds home in Pasadena; lecturing for Republican party; on private lecture circuit talking on various subjects Korean War; hiatus in Washington D.C. with Evelle and son Eric Move to Los Angeles; more lecturing for Republican party, and many community activities: Chair, L.A. County Mothers' March, March of Dimes Member, board of women's division, L.A. Chamber of Commerce Delegate, pledged to Earl Warren, Republican National Convention Secretary, Platform and Resolutions Committee, chairperson, Civil Rights subcommittee Seconds nomination of Earl Warren for president Vice-chairwoman, South (women's division) Republican State Central Committee Candidate, state senate. Defeated by margin of less than one- half of one percent of the vote Chairperson, Platform Committee, Republican State Central Committee Radio and Television newswoman: ABC and CBS; nominated for an Emmy, 1956 Chairperson, Western States Division, United States Committee for the United Nations; appointed by President Eisenhower Member, Advisory Commission, Women's Reformatory at Alderson. West Virginia; appointed by President Eisenhower

*Mrs. Younger is uncertain of the exact dates for the committees listed in this section. Member,. "Republican Committee on Programs and Progress" appointed by President Eisenhower Co-chair , Southern California, ballot measure to enlarge state senate Member, "Committee of One-hundred" to reorganize the state legislature Suffers loss of voice--spastic dysphonia--requiring curtailment of many activities. Nonetheless Mildred Younger continued to serve on community boards and commissions and on campaign committees at local and state levels. Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement Fund Investment Commission Los Angeles City Board of Library Commissioners Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Association Board "Brain Trust," Richard Nixon gubernatorial campaign Successful surgery restores voice National Commission on Libraries and Information Science; appointed by President Gerald Ford Lay member, National Board, American Heart Association Member, Council of the Rose Institute, Claremont Men's College Member, Commission of the Californias Member, support group, spastic dysphonia

Honors and awards:

AID: Humanitarian of the Year Award (Los Angeles County) American Heart Association (Greater Los Angeles Affiliate): Heart of Gold Award University of Southern California: Merit Award I FAMILY BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION [Interview 1: March 8, 1976]//i/

Parents and Grandparents

Chall: When were you born and where?

Younger: I was born on September 13, 1920, in Los Angeles, California--on Hope Street.

Chall: On Hope Street?

Younger: Yes, which I think is a nice place for parents to choose to have a baby.

Chall: I think I even know where Hope Street is, which means something.

Can you tell me about your parents. Tell me first who your mother was and where she and her family might have come from.

Younger: My mother's maiden name was Lucy Dorival, which is a contraction of French for "valley of the gold". I happened across a Dorival family crest once in a library. It was apparently established by a king of France. But I know nothing more about it. Mother's mother was British, born in Edinburgh. Her surname was Lake which probably means it was an English family from the Lake Counties. Our grandfather Dorival was from a substantial and relatively old family. There are a surprising number of French-name villages and towns in southeas tern Minnesota. He was a dentist with a professional degree from the University of Iowa.

##This symbol indicates that a tape or a segment of a tape has begun or ended. For a guide to the tapes see page 341. Chal1: Where was your mother born, in Minnesota?

Younger : In Wells, Minnesota.

Mother and her sister went to a teacher's college, which was somewhat unusual in those days. And that was in Winona, Wisconsin, I think. And there again, you see, there was some sign of affluence. Caledonia, Minnesota, where they lived, is a little tiny town which is still referred to legally as a village. It had to have been a pretty substantial family to send its daughters away to a teacher's college.

Chall: But you didn't know your grandparents, or did you?

Younger : Yes. They retired and moved out here when I was a small child.

Chall: From Minnesota?

Younger : Yes. And there again, he must have been relatively substantial to have been able to do that. I remember them living in a little house in what now may be one of the Redevelopment Agency areas. But at that time, when Southern California was "bungalows," as we referred to them, that was a pretty nice place for a couple to retire.

Chall: Had your mother preceded them to Los Angeles, or did they all come together?

Younger: Mother preceded them. My father had grown up in the same small town in Minnesota and had come out here to go to USC law school. He had taught in a one room school house and had done some undergraduate work at the University of Minnesota, but I don't know how many years were required at that time, and I think that that was during the time that you didn't have to have any required number of years--

Cha11: Academic credits?

Younger : Yes. And he came from a much less substantial family financially. It was a farm family. Although that grandfather held a responsible local government position in Caledonia. But Daddy had gone to the University of Minnesota. My impression is that he worked in order to get an education and that he was on his own financially when he came out here to go to law school.

Chall: And his name?

Younger: Ray Eberhard. [spells it] It's probably on your pencil. [laughs] Chall: It's not that.

Younger : [laughing] Oh, you don't have Eberhard Faber.

Chall: Was he a member of the Eberhard-Faber family?

Younger : We can only assume that they're all related. By accident we found a darling little university town in Germany with one of the first universities of the humanities (it may have been the first that ever existed). It was founded before America was discovered. Eberhard, the Bearded, was the founder. Tubingen is the name of the town, and the University of Tubingen is still a very major university of the humanities.

Chall: Then your father's family, I take it, was German in origin.

Younger: His father was. His mother's family had been in this country for a long time. She may have been related to the George Mason who was part of the Constitutional Convention and refused to sign the Constitution because it didn't outlaw slavery.

Chall : A southern family.

Younger : Virginia. I've forgotten the name of the plantation now; it's in the same area as Mount Vernon. And much of the Constitution was drafted there. But there were a number of members of the Coktitutional Convention who took part in the writing and did not sign, over the slavery question, in spire of the fact that they were slave owners themselves.

When you go there, there is a family tree that you can buy for a dollar. I remember buying one for my uncle. There are gaps in it; I assume those gaps were probably people who moved West.

Chall: Yes, like your father's family.

Younger : That's right. Her family -was involved in the Revolution--whether or not it was the same family.

Chall: So they've been here a long while.

Younger : But we don't know much else, except that my father always used to say that his great grandmother was a man. And this delighted him. [laughter] Of course, what it means is that they were from the Isle of Man. There were only two family names on the isle of Man. My sister's been there; I have not been--although I'd love to go.

Chall: So your grandmother's name was-- Younger : Mason. It probably would have been that her mother's maiden name would have been Man. No, she was the other family which was Corlett. But Corlett and Man were the two names on the Isle of Man. When my sister went there--she was on a cruise of the British Isles with my brother-in-law--she timidly asked if there was anyone named Corlett still living on the island. The man just looked at her in astonishment and suggested that she go and look at the little thin telephone book for the Isle of Man. It's about 50 percent Corlett and 50 percent--probably 40 percent Corlett and 40 percent Man and the other 20 percent are more recent names. [laughter] But of course, there were an awfully lot of pirates, because that was the place where the pirates dropped things off, picked up supplies and the like, you see, at the British Isles. This came as quite a shock to my father [laughter]. I was doing a paper in high school on the subject. Obviously, there were many pirates who took part in building up the population [laughing].

Chall: Was your father's father an immigrant from Germany, or had he been in this country?

Younger: I'm not sure about that. I just kind of have a feeling that it's possible that his family came over and may have even dropped down from Canada or something like that.

Chall: But then he ultimately moved to Minnesota and farmed.

Younger: hat's right. We had the gun that my grandfather carried as a railroad guard on a mail car in North Dakota. Unfortunately it's now gone. There was a good deal of lawlessness on the railroads. North Dakota must have been pretty bleak and wild. I think there was a farm there too, but, good heavens, how in the world they made a living on a farm in North Dakota in those days, I don't know.

Chall: They probably had a section, a homestead.

Younger: Probably some thing like that.

Chall: There were many homes teading.

Younger : Yes, and that could have been how they came to Minnesota too.

Chall: I think one of the Dakotas (it may have been North Dakota) was very largely, I think, German--

Younger: Yes, well I suspect it was something like that.

Chall: Came over and homesteaded. Younger: Yes, and they needed more money than they could make on it, and that's how he ended up, you know--probably the railroading and the farming went on simultaneously--very long hours.

Chall: You don't know that you have any relatives in North Dakota. Nobody kept up with--

Younger: I don't think that we do have.

Chall: So your father came out to go to law school. Did your mother come out to see him, do you think?

Younger: He went back and got mother.

Chall: So they'd been long-time sweethearts, I guess.

Younger : That's right. But in the meantime mother had gone to teacher's college, as it was called in those days. And she did teach, I think, for a couple of years.

Chall: Did she teach after she was married ever?

Younger: Not that I know of. No, I don't believe so. I don' t think it would have been very acceptable actually.

Chall: No, I didn't think it would have been. That's why I was checking whether there was an aberration there.

So then they came out here to Los Angeles. About when, do you think?

Younger : My father graduated from USC Law School in 1915, I think. This makes our son a third-generation Trojan, and there aren't very many of them. Daddy was a brilliant, brilliant man, and his specialties during his lifetime were areas of law that were extremely important in the development of California--public school law and water law. And obviously, without specialists inwater law and public school law, California would not be the state that it is now. It just happened that those were the areas that interested him. And he was in Who's Who. He drafted much of the legislation that had to do with public schools and water. He had a meticulous scholarly mind.

Chall: Did he work in his own law firm or was he with a firm?

Younger: He started out in the city attorney's office in the civil division. My uncle was the--or became later the chief of the criminal division (my uncle is two or three years younger than my father. My uncle is still living but is--well, his memory is good, but he can't communicate much. ) Chall: Is that your father's brother?

Younger: Right. And he came West--but was of an age that he had to go into the service. My sister had been born during the First World War.

Chall: Your sister's older than you, then.

Younger: Yes.

Chall: Andwhat'shername?

Younger: My sister is Elisabeth Zeigler. And she is a judge of the superior court in Los Angeles. Has been on the bench for twenty-six years, having originally been appointed to the municipal bench by Earl Warren.

Chall: And when was she born--how much older is she than you?

Younger: Well, let's see. She was probably born in 1917.

Chall: Are there just the two of you?

Younger: Yes, and it was a great disappointment that neither one of us was a boy [laughs], a terrible disappointment!

Chall: To your father or your mother or both?

Younger: Everybody in those days. Good heavens, what do you do with two girls! [laughing]

Chall: Then your uncle went in the service?

Younger: Afterwards, he became the head of the criminal divison of the city attorney's office in Los Angeles. You see, my father was in the civil division. And that was probably the reason my uncle went into that office, but it was criminal law rather than civil law that fascinated my uncle. And I think that between my uncle and my father, they had a tremendous impact on my husband [Evelle Younger]. I remember my husband, maybe down around the courts, would call him, "Uncle Claire." Of course, my husband is physically much larger than either one of them were, and my uncle would say, "You big lout, I am -not your uncle!" [laughter] He pretended to be very upset by this.

My father and uncle were unusually close and enjoyed each other tremendously. But they were very different in many ways. For instance, Daddy didn't drink or approve of drinking. Uncle Claire always had a delicate air of bourbon about him. After Evelle and I settled down here Uncle Claire decided that Daddy Younger: would never teach his son-in-law some of the facts of Los Angeles. He took Evelle around to his favorite haunts in places like Chinatown where a couple of slugs of bourbon could be had while exchanging gossip and rumors before work in the mornings. It may have been illegal but Uncle Claire had no kids of his own and delighted in passing on some of the secrets of the criminal law practice to his willing pupil.

Chall: I take it his name was Claire Eberhard.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: Did they ultimately leave the city attorney's office and open up a private practice?

Younger: Yes, they both did, although at different times. In later life they practiced together, sort of nominally. But in those days, really, while there were a few big law firms, I think most of the young lawyers pretty much would share space and perhaps a secretary with another lawyer but not really have any--it wasn't a firm as such. Sometimes they would call themselves a firm, but they weren't really.

Chall: How did your father get into water law, for example? That would have quite a bit to do with the state of California, wouldn' t it?

Younger: Yes, and that may have been the reason he left the city attorney's office. My sister probably knows more about that than I do. I remember that he carried the bonds personally from the city of Los Angeles to Chicago when Hoover Dam was built. I was not more than four or five years old when those bonds were sold.

Chall: That's around 1930--

Younger: No, it had to be earlier than that, you see, when the bonds were--

Chall: When they started to build it, that's right.

Younger: But you see, that was an unusual project, an entirely different concept than we have now, because the bonds were actually voted by the city of Los Angeles following a bond issue election. And you see, he must have still been in the city attorney's office at that point.

Chall: This was for the city of Los Angeles's water supply, from the Colorado River.

Younger: That's right, so there was very little if any federal money involved. The money actually came from city of Los Angeles bonds to build the dam, and I doubt that there was ever another major water project built that way. Chall: Then he would have known all of the major figures of the Metropolitan Water District?

Younger : Oh, very much. My sister has many of those pictures. He later became a lobbyist for the Metropolitan Water District, you see, which was formed to distribute water. And he was very much involved too, as a deputy city attorney, in the construction of, and the legal aspects of the construction of the Owens River Valley project, which brought water into Southern California. We were raised on going to the Owens Valley, and all the stories that went with it. And of course there was violence involved in that, as there remains today. But it's a complicated kind of a concept with the city of Los Angeles owning vast amounts of the eastern slope of the Sierras.

Chall: That must have been an interesting time to be around.

Younger : Well, Daddy became an outstanding authority on water law and served as friend of the court in many of the cases that followed; for instance, when the United States Government claimed rights to the water going into El Toro Marine Base in the Fallbrook case. My father served as friend of the court on the riparian water rights. And of course, he was in private practice by then.

Chall: How long did he live?

Younger : I don't really remember how long ago Daddy died. Again, Betty would be better at this than I am. My guess is that he's been gone ten or twelve years. He had a long terminal illness and I'm inclined to think in terms of the illness, and it kind of clouds--

Chall: And he was active until his illness in the law?

Younger : He stayed active much longer than most people would have. He had Parkinson's disease, and he also had angina, and I remember very well his terribly slow walk. I would particularly remember it as he would walk up the little hill into the state Capitol. For some reason or another, I think that that was--I kind of have a picture of it in my mind, of realizing how very difficult it was for him. I think he was desperately frightened. He knew about the angina but it was a matter of years before the terrifying neurological disease was diagnosed. We were often cruelly impatient when he was actually performing small physical miracles. It was heartbreaking. He was slowly robbed of all his great humor and dignity. His mind was destroyed and still he lived on. Experiences as a ~obbyist'sDaughter

Chall: When he was working as a lobbyist, did you move to Sacramento?

Younger : Yes .

Chall: About when would that have been?

Younger: Well, we moved in the sense that anybody moved to Sacramento in those days, because then, you see, the legislature only met every other year, although there were frequent special sessions. The first time that I went to Sacramento, my sister didn't go because she was in school, and I wasn't. And she either stayed with relatives or something like that. But I was too young for school, so that it made sense to take me and not her, because it didn't disrupt her school that way.

I had diphtheria the next time, shortly before we went up, and really wasn't well enough to be put into school.

Chall: So, you had two years.

Younger: Oh, well this went on as long back as I can remember, that either both of us or one of us went to the sessions of the legislature or some part of it.

Chall: As you grew older were you taken out of one school and put into another for the winter sessions?

Younger: If I remember correctly, I either missed a lot of school or something, but I never went to school in Sacramento. But I did go to almost every committee meeting of the legislature and every session of the legislature growing up.

Chall: Is that so? You were a little girl and you just went along? Younger : Yes .

Chall: Did your mother go? Was.she interested in that--in the government?

Younger: It wasn't a question of interest in the government. Somebody had to keep house.

Chall: Oh, I meant, did she go to the committees?

Younger: No. Although I believe she may have in later years.

Chall: You went. Younger : Yes.

Chall: Did you accompany your father, and your mother was at home, as you say, keeping house?

Younger: Yes, that's right.

Chall: And there wasn't anything else for you to do so your father took you to meetings.

Younger : Daddy took me along. I don't remember exactly when Rolph was governor, but I do remember clearly that he was a very heavy man.* My father had taken me into his office, for some reason or another, and James Rolph asked me to come and sit on his lap. This presented a very great problem to a little girl, because I couldn't tell where his lap was. [laughter] I remember to this day the uncomfortable dreadful feeling I had, you know, as he lifted me up and put me on what was a lap, I assume, wondering what do you do next, if you're not very securely located on the governor's lap. Somehow I guessed that I had best keep quiet about the problem.

But, we were raised with a very great respect for anyone who was in public office, and the great feeling that every inch of California was sacred and that the Capitol was especially sacred.

Chall: Well, it must be interesting to look back, because you've seen the Capitol change and the government organization change considerably.

Younger: Yes.

Chall: The Capitol itself was a small organization in those days.

Younger: That's right. I hope I'm not mixing up Rolph and Merriam.

Chall: Well, Rolph I think came before Merriam--I'm not sure.**

Younger : I do think Rolph was the very heavy one.

Chall: Yes, Jimmy Rolph, the mayor--"Sunny Jim" they called him, had been a mayor in San Francisco.

--

*James Rolph was governor January, 1931 to June, 1934.

**Frank F. Merriam was governor 1934-1938. Younger: I don't really remember his background. My impression is only that it was Governor Rolph who didn't have a lap.

Chall: You're probably right. I think Merriam came after. Merriam preceded Olson. I think you're talking about when you were a very little girl.

Younger: Yes, yes. Certainly if it involved lap-sitting I had to have been quite small [laughter].

And as a matter of fact, my first gainful employment was in Sacramento. The first day that they ever permitted a girl to be a page in the legislature, I was a page. And really, I had a lot of acquaintanceship with men who later went on to become very, very influential. I was a page in the assembly. I earned five dollars. Chall: How old were you, do you recall?

Younger: I think I was nine. I'm not positive, but I think I was nine. So I was an early woman's--

Chall: You mean they allowed them as long ago as that to be pages? They picked practically babies.

Younger: Well, they didn't keep it up for very long, and I think I may have been the only one. And the reason that my employment was as short- lived as it was was that there were certain ones of them who insisted on buying me goodies, peanuts and candy bars and raisins. I remember raisins were a very big thing, being California products. I got deathly sick by the end of the day, and my mother said flatly that that was the end of my career. [laughter]

Chall: Only one day!

Younger : Let's dig out the badge someplace.

Chall: You must have been the darling of the legislature, because I'll bet there wasn't another little girl tagging around.

Younger : Oh, I suspect that there really were other little girls, but I just don't remember because I was much more fascinated with the legislators than I was with the other little girls.

Chall: When your parents were in Los Angeles between sessions and your father was working as a lawyer, and then when they were in Sacramento, were they together interested in other civic and cultural affairs, and going to them? Younger: No, I would say not, distinctly not, and that I regret very much. And that again was an economic thing. Women were--or married woman--were not very apt to seek employment outside their own homes, and I think that much of Mother's bitterness over the years was over the fact that there was so much menial work to do.

Chall: Oh, so she was not a satisfied housewife?

Younger: Not in the least, no.

Chall: What did she do? She did her housework--

Younger: She did her housework, and she did it with a vengeance. I remember her anger. And I don't think it was because she could put her finger on what was wrong, because the options just weren't there, inspite of the fact that she could have become a teacher in those days, very easily.

Chall: They were accepting married women as teachers in Los Angeles?

Younger: I don't--maybe they weren't. But I kind of think they might have been, because after all, there weren't an awful lot of women who had teacher's credentials, from any place.

Chall: Were there women's clubs that she joined?

Younger: I don't remember Mother ever belonging--no, wait a minute, I take that back. She was a member of the Eastern Star.

Chall: Was your father a Mason then?

Younger: Yes, must have been, I think. I know about Mother because I have her pin in a drawer at home. I have a PTA pin, and an Eastern Star pin, and there's a third little organizational item of some kind.

Chall: So she did some of the things that women do.

Younger: Yes, but not very many because we were darn poor. She certainly had no help with us or the housework. Children were a full-time job.

Chall: I see. Your father's law practice and lobbying work didn't really bring in enough--

Younger: It brought in very little money. And as a matter of fact, he volunteered much of it. I think this is how he first became a lobbyist for the public school teachers. They couldn't pay to experiment. And representation was a brand new concept. /I /I Chall: I want to get back to your mother and her attitude toward what she was doing as a housewife. Was she an intellectual? Would she have been interested in music and books or was she just--?

Younger: I don't think Mother ever had a chance to develop any of those interests.

Chall: She was just an unhappy housewife and not knowing why.

Younger: I would say so, yes. A very frustrated person. She was quite an introvert, which didn't make it easy for her to move out to begin with. Then she really became a very angry person. Now, after my father died, actually after he became very ill, she couldn't have been more devoted and couldn't have done a finer job. And after he died, her personality changed completely. She had a great sense of guilt, and I think this was very prevalent among middle western women, a holdover of the Protestant ethic, that there was an element of fault or personal blame in everything.

Chall: That your father had had a heart condition and--?

Younger: Everything really. I remember so vividly the egression that Mother used about anything that went wrong, "What have I done to deserve this?" Which after all is an extension of a religious concept, and of a rather fearful religious concept, of a very heavy-handed--

Chall: Punishing God.

Younger: That's right. And I think this was a middle western strict Protestant approach.

Chall: What was her religious upbringing?

Younger: I'm not sure that they were always Methodists. My sister and I were both--I'm not sure that I can even come up with the right terms because I'm not active in or even a participant really in any church. But we both were--I keep thinking of "inaugurated" and that's got to be wrong [laughing]. I'm not sure that Methodists are baptized. But whatever happened, it happened in the Methodist church. [laughs]

My husband is an Episcopalian. I think there was not that much difference really when--as the churches changed and evolved in the United States and particularly in the Middle West. Because I noticed that when, the few times that we would take Mother to church on special occasions, after Daddy died, that she knew many of the prayers and much of the prayer book of the Episcopal church. And I think it must have been because in a small town you couldn't support many churches and probably you had more than one denomination going to the same church. Chall: That might be, or she may have moved around a bit. But you think that both your parents were Methodists.

Younger: Officially they were Methodists, but as I say, there had to have been this mixture.

Chall: Did you go to Methodist Sunday school?

Younger: Oh, very definitely, yes.

Chall: And did your mother go to church on Sunday or on Wednesdays?

Younger: Not on Wednesday. But I remember that Sunday was a no-no, you couldn't sew on Sunday. You most certainly couldn't go to a motion picture even if you could afford to go any other time. And I never knew how many of these decisions were economic either. Maybe you didn't do a lot of things on Sundays'not really because of religion, but because you were too darned broke to do them.

Chall: And playing cards was not allowed at all?

Younger: Mother played cards I remember. I think it was her only real recreation that I remember. She and her sister and I think possibly one of my father's sisters--a very small circle of people--would play what was called "500". I don't remember the rules of the game; it was kind of a predecessor of bridge, I think, And that was the big social occasion.

Chall: And it was primarily the family.

Younger: Yes, as I remember it. I remember very few friends that were her friends. And as a matter of fact, this is another interesting conmnent: I only remember one time ever entertaining at home for anyone who was not family. There were family Sunday dinners and there were family picnics.

1 Both families--your mother's and your father's together.

Younger: Yes, yes. Not necessarily together. But usually one or the other. All this was very much a carryover from the Midwest.

Chall: Yes. I would assume that your father was an extrovert?

Younger: I think he probably must have been, although he was a very studious man. He wrote a good deal; he read avidly; he collected books. After his death and after Mother's death, his library was left to my sister and me; the lawbooks were left to our son, who disposed of them of course because they were outdated and they took up an incredible amount of room for lawbooks that are not kept current. Younger: We found many books that had prices still written in them, and they would be marked down from one dollar to fifty cents. Some were marked fifteen or twenty-five cents. Daddy valued books above all, above anything. This was his greatest luxury, a book, always. So he couldn't have been a complete extrovert, to have b een--

Chall: Then he wasn't the sort of lobbyist who's the gladhander in the legislature that one thinks of in terms of making friends--

Younger: Daddy did not drink, he did not smoke; he did not approve of either. He never had a client that could have afforded to buy anybody a drink. [laughs] You know, this is quite different from the picture of the lobbyist.

Chall: Yes. And he must have been somewhat different from the lobbyists who were there at the time.

Younger: Yes, because that was of course in [Artie] Samish's day, part of it was. I've been told that my father was considered the most effective and the most reliable lobbyist in Sacramento. But again, the story was a very different one, because in those days the legislators didn't have big staff of their own, and the legislators very much had to rely, and I think they do to a pretty good extent today still--they had to rely on the input of lobbyists to find out about specialized fields. And it was the lobbyists who frequently drafted legislation, and the lobbyists who would find the compromises that would bring two sides together. The lobbyists were very much bipartisan, as opposed to playing one side against the other. Then they served a function which is now probably served by legislative aides and that sort of thing. We're not talking about a full-time legislature--that makes a huge difference. And the legislators had to learn who they could rely on, and sometimes they didn't vote according to who they could rely on but who made life a little more comfortable for the legislators, who were also very much underpaid. But generally, lobbying was quite a different function, I think, than what has come down to us. And I'm sorry the history books tell us the things they do about lobbying.

Chall: Your father was obviously somewhat different too from the run-of- the-mill--

Younger: I have a feeling that there were a good many like my father, and that the few who were not were the exception, rather than those who were. But I remember distinctly when I was in high school, in my high school civics class--I had a very prim elderly spinster lady teacher. And we had an assignment, textbook assignment homework. She called on me for the definition of a lobbyist. Well, even in those days, the textbook definition of a lobbyist, included "bribery1', and you know, references to liquor and women and this Younger: sort of thing. And I said, "DO you want the textbook definition or the actual definition?" She was very unhappy with that kind of smart-alec behavior, which it was. And she said she would have the textbook definition and we would then talk about any criticism I might have of the textbook. She knew nothing about me at all. She didn't about any of her students, really.

I gave the textbook definition and said that "that is not true." And she said, "Well, Miss Eberhard, and what do you think a lobbyist does?" And I told her; I told her about the terribly long, hard low-paid hours and that sort of thing. And she said, with dollar signs in front of her eyes obviously, "And for whom does your father lobby?" And I said, "For the Los Angeles School Teacher's Association." She had been paying his salary, you know, for many years, for benefits that teachers couldn't get any other way except through legislation. And I didn't do it to be a smart alec, I did it out of just plain anger that--

Chall: That nobody knew.

Younger: That's right. But I expect that the oil companies and any number of other industries that were growing and that had--certainly it's a holdover of the railroad influence in the state; there had to be lobbying activity. But I think that there was a tremendous number of individuals who worked extremely hard at just plain informing the legislators about various groups that needed legislation and why. And I don't think they were ever really credited with the function they served. My sister became the lobbyist for the Business and Profess ional Women.

Chall: When your father was through with a long day, would he generally return? Was he a family man? Did he have time for the two children and his wife?

Younger: He had very little time. He worked terribly long hours. Well, in Sacramento when we would be up there, it would frequently be mid- night or after before the committee hearings were over. You see, the length of the legislative sessions was also mandated by law. This meant that there was an awful lot of hard concentrated work, and very frustrating work.

Chall: Your mother was probably lonesome.

Younger: Of course she was, she was terribly lonesome. But she did not make friends very easily either. Educational Goals and School Activities

Chall: Inasmuch as your father was taking you around in the leg-islature when he was there, and your mother was an unhappy housewife, would they have been interested in the girls being educated to go in a somewhat different direction than housewife? Were they concerned with your education?

Younger: I don't think I can answer that until I tell you something else. And that is that they were separated, And they separted at a time when this was very much frowned upon. The suit that Mother brought was for separate maintenance. And my father countered with a suit for divorce. So that there were some very tumultuous times as we were growing up.

Chall: How old were you then when that came about?

Younger: Well, I think I was called as a witness in the trial when I was probably around eleven, ten or eleven.

Chall: Oh, a trial, a public trial!

Younger: Oh, of course, of course, because these things were not taken lightly in those days.

Chall: So there was hostility on both sides. And yet your mother after all that took care of your father many years later when he was dying?

Younger: Yes, yes. And was probably happier when she was really needed and knew she was needed than she had been in the years before.

Chall: So at the age of eleven you were living with your mother, you and your sister?

Younger: Yes, and for some years before that.

Chall: Just with your mother?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: You saw your father occasionally?

Younger: Yes. And Daddy was terribly interested in our educations in a positive way, but of course he wasn' t living there. Mother was interested, but interested in a way that was quite different, because she really wasn't very optimistic about what girls could look forward to, and she knew that educations were important, but Younger: in a way they were important because parents had an obligation to educate children, rather than because it was exciting. And both attitudes really were imporant, because we had to achieve in school in order to satis fy both parents--although their reasons were different.

Chall : They expected you to bring home good grades.

Younger: Oh, yes, very definitely. There was no question about it. And furthermore, they expected us not to cause trouble and not to get into trouble, and we didn' t.

Chall: And yet your sister did go into law. She became a professional woman.

Younger: Yes, and I wanted to be a lawyer from the time I was a little tiny child, and there wasn't the money to even think about two girls in law school. In those days, can you imagine?

Chall: That was in the thirties.

Younger: That's right. Well, wait a minute--late thirties, very early forties.

Chall: But your sister did gointo college and into law school. Was she supported by your father through this time?

Younger : They were back together by then.

Chall: In the forties?

Younger : Yes, and I think it was kind of economic necessity that brought them back together. Daddy was injured in an automobile accident probably around 1934 or '35. And there was no question of being able to both support the family and be laid up for any substantial period of time. I think that was the end of the separation.

Will you turn off the tape recorder for a moment while I go in and get the rolls?

[While enjoying rolls and coffee Mrs. Younger talks about an experience in Washington, D .C.: Dorothy MacAllister was president of the American Association of Library Trustees. She invited fourteen of us to come to Washington at our own expense, of course, in a desperate effort to get some federal funds for libraries released, in which of course, we failed. But, interestingly enough, she lived in then-Minority Leader [Gerald] Ford's congressional district. Her husband was a federal judge. And she did the proper thing; she went through her congressman to get an Younger : appointment with President Nixon. Her husband had been appointed to the federal bench by a Democrat. I've met him since then. We were from all over the country and we went pleading for library funds, and it just happened to be then-Congressman Ford who was the one who took us into the Oval Office. Isn't that funny how things go?]

Chall: When you were in high school or at any time in school, did you find any special subjects that you liked more than others?

Younger: Well, it was perfectly obvious to both my sister and myself that we had to get scholarships if we were going to go on to college. I think we both pretty much patterned our activities in directions where there were potential scholarships. We both had tremendous intellectual curiosity. My sister had gone to what was then a junior college, I think it's probably now part of the state college system, for a year and a half or two years, I think, before she got a half-scholarship to USC. And her's was a debating scholarship, as mine was.

Chall: You mean they gave you scholarships so that you would come on to the debating team?

Younger : Yes, and they were very much like athletic scholarships really, because, you know, this was an area of competitkon between colleges and universities.

,mall: So you were both debaters in high school?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: Was that one of your primary extra-curricular activities?

Younger : Oh yes, and very demanding. It took a great deal of time.

Chall: What high school did you go to? Were you both in the same high school?

Younger: No, my sister graduated from Glendale High School and I graduated from Los Angeles High School. But I had actually gone to Glendale High School for I guess it was a year or more, although that's a little foggy in my mind because that was at the time that the junior high schools were becoming three years, some of them. I'm a little foggy as to whether that meant there were three years in high school as opposed to the four years and the old two years in junior high school.

Chall: But you hadn't moved.

Younger, Yes, we moved. Chall: Oh, you moved, so that caused the change too.

Younger: But I'd been president of the student body in Glendale in junior high school, and had, you know, been an eager beaver.

Chall: You were an active person in school then?

Younger: Yes, I must have been, though I really don't remember the activities awfully well.

Chall: Did you run for office in high school?

Younger: Yes. I've forgotten what the--I guess it was called girl's vice- president or something of the kind at L.A. High.

Chall: Girl's vice-president?

Younger: I think that's what it was called.

Chall: Was there a separate girl's division?

Younger: Pretty much so, yes. Certainly a girl would not have thought of running for president of the student body.

Chall: Or any other officer of the student body--maybe secretary?

Younger: I think secretary probably was a girl. But the student councils were very much boy and girl, separate.

Chall: They were?

Younger: Oh yes.

Chall: Did you win the election for girl's vice-president?

Younger: Must have.

Chall: Other than that, you were mostly on the debating team; you worked at debating.

Younger: And worked very hard indeed at scholastic things.

Chall: Getting good grades.

Younger: Oh yes.

Chall: Youwere collegeprep then.

Younger: Oh definitely, definitely. Chall: Were thereany subjects that youparticularly liked?

Younger: Well, I discovered in high school simply through a required course--and this breaks my heart that these courses that I found so very enriching are disappearing from school curriculums largely because of cost--but I discovered through a required course and a very sensitive, very fine teacher, that I had some talent in the field of art. Now this was no place in the family, and as a matter of fact, again going back to the Protestant ethic, painting wasn't something that you learned about in the family, because most of the great painters of the world, up to the point that they were rigidly realistic and therefore acceptable as "art", were religious painters.

And if you look at the history of western art, most of the really great paintings that are of historical significance are religiously oriented, and they are not acceptable to strict Protestants, because you're talking about images. So there was none of this in my background at all. I remember I disliked the physical ugliness in which we lived. Pictures, colors, textures anything that was gracious and pretty was sinful.

Again, this was a transitional time, very definitely, as far as our culture was concerned, because kids growing up were sort of an embarrassment to parents. There hadn't been any merchandising decisions, for instance. And a little girl went from little girl clothes into women's clothes. And it was a very awkward kind of situation. That's how I got interested in merchandising, aside from needing the money desparately. Stores were just beginning to put together shops that were oriented to clothing for teenagers and college students.

Chall: College students I do remember. 88 Chall: We'll pick up your merchandising a little later when we get into your jobs. I want to finish up on the school now.

Younger: Well, now wait a minute, you can't overlook the merchandising from this standpoint--

Chall: Where did you start?

Younger: Well, I started actually being aware of clothing when I was quite young, because it was perfectly obvious that I wasn't going to have clothing unless I learned to make it. So I started sewing and making the majority of my own clothes when I was eleven or twelve years old. Chall: Even before junior high school, before you-would have had sewing in school?

Younger: No, in those days you got sewing in grammar school.

Chall: Did you?

Younger: Oh yes. I won an award for darning socks. I remember that very distinctly--when I was in grammar school. And the award was a huge pair of bobby socks, which were rather new at the time, and they had white feet and lavender tops. I always considered them much too sacred to wear, but I kept them. They may be around some place. I think it was that and the award for the miscellaneous dog that we had. His award I think was because he was the biggest dog.

Chall: In a dog parade? [laughter]

Younger: Yes, [laughing] that was my first prize. And those socks. They were very precious. I can still dam socks very well. Don't often find the time, but I'm inclined to take them with me to meetings when it isn't too much of an embarrassment. [laughter]

Chall: So you startedsewing your clothing early and being interested in fashion.

Younger: Yes. Had to be really. The more prosperous little girls inadvertantly created pressure on the little girls who couldn't afford any better. A good many of us must have looked perfectly ghastly. Chall: Were you aware of the economic differences?

Younger: Terribly aware.

Chall: Among your school friends. You could tell by the way they dressed and the--what they did?

Younger : And by the amount of care and time that their mother's spent on their appearance.

Chall: You were aware of that?

Younger : Oh, very much so.

Chall: And you were trying to compensate in some way?

Younger : I suppose the fact that we were as highly motivated as we were intellectually may have been in part a compensation. I think of it generally as being primarily our father's influence, although it was Younger: my mother who was a gardener and a very successful one. She loved to garden. And gee, I collected California wildflowers from the earliest possible time, and collected stamps. Anything that didn't cost money. In those days either people didn't buy and sell stamps, or I didn't know that they bought and sold stamps.

Chall : Yes, most children traded.

Younger: Yes. And you learned an awful lot of things that you wouldn't have known otherwise from collecting stamps--learned about other countries and you learned about the economy of your own country and that sort of thing.

Chall: So you found a talent in art which you couldn't do much about except appreciate the fact that you had a talent in art.

Younger : Well, one of the unfortunate things about finding a talent in art-- and this must have happened to thousands and thousands of kids, maybe more than that, and probably frustrated a good many possibly good artists--is that it isn't like practicing the piano. That is, if you practice the piano, it goes away. There's no way of pres-erving a practice lesson. Although I suppose they get tape recorded these days. But if you paint something and your parents are absolutely astounded that here is a picture to hang on the wall, they do it, and you have to live with that dreadful mistake the rest of your life [laughing]. It's still hanging there, you know, twenty years later. It's still on a wall. And that's kind of a dreadful experience.

My sister's house is full of paintings by me, which my husband covets, because he does the same thing as my parents did. It's sacred, because there it is; it's a fact of life. So that, it's not like so many things that you learn and you can make mistakes and forget about it. A drawing or painting is something you can use, and you do use it.

Chall: Did you paint during high school then?

Younger: A little bit, yes. And we've still got the very first picture!

Chall: Now, what about the debating team. That took lots of work, didn't it.

Younger: Yes, that was extra-curricular.

Chall: Did you win any prizes or awards for your school?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: Was it a mixed team, boys and girls? Younger: Well, wait a minute: at Glendale High School I do remember that I had a boy colleague; I don't remember that I had one at L.A. High School although the team was mixed. I adored the one at Glendale High School. I thought he was the most brilliant boy that was ever born. And he may well have been, because he won a very highly scholarship to Stanford. I've lost track of him completely. I think he became a lawyer and I think he lives in Southern California, but I don't know. But I remember that he was a great influence and it was a great honor to be his colleague, because he was the outstanding light at Glendale High School.

But at Los Angeles High School the coach was a volunteer lawyer, and I learned many, many years later--after I lost my voice, as a matter of fact--that the reason that he coached that debate team (and he's a fine trial lawyer), the reason he would give up the hours to coach us in debate, was that he had had a voice loss and had become intensely interested in the whole subject of speech. Because he had been able to be a very successful trial lawyer and suddenly had a voice loss, he went off to the desert himself to get his voice back, which he accomplished. And he had a marvelous voice. I think there was a divorce involved, primarily because he lost his ability to make a living for a while.

Chall: He taught the debating team?

Younger: That's right, as a volunteer. He took time from his law practice to do that. And he was a very strong influence in my life.

Chall: What was his name?

Younger: Murray Kesslar. Brilliant, brilliant man. And by golly, we studied just as hard learning logic as we did any of the subjects we debated on. And to this day, it is almost impossible for me to go to any gathering of any size anyplace in the state and not run into somebody that I either debated against or with.

Chall: Is that so. In high school?

Younger: High school, and college. They went into so many different fields, it's quite interesting.

Chall: They're generally successful.

Younger: Yes. [phone rings. Returning after her phone call, Mrs. Younger discusses briefly her assignment to be the official state representative who will greet President Ford's wife, Betty, when she arrives in Los Angeles .] Younger: I'm no expert on protocol and that sort of thing, but I just have this feeling we're doing things less than the way they ought to be done.

Chall: You may have to become a protocol expert before long.

Younger: Well, the state's a little short in that area [laughing]. I don't want that to be taken as a snobbish kind of remark, because there's a lot of foolishness that goes on that's unnecessary. But there are also--you know, manners are in a way a sign of respect, and obviously, regardless of -who the first lady is you show respect when she arrives. And the only way you can really do it is probably with a tangible kind of recognition of the fact she's arrived. Protocol is simply the formal recognition of official position.

Chall: She's arrivinginLos Angeles?

Younger : Yes.

Chall: So you're the representative from the state.

Younger: That's right. I will be traveling with her part of the time.

Chall: Okay, back to the debating coach, Mr. Kesslar, and the fact that you said you still meet your debating partners and opponents.

Younger: Oh yes, for instance the dean of the Medical School at UCLA was in the same boat that I was in. He earned a scholarship to Stanford as a debater from Beverly Hills Hfgh School. Now, he was ahead of me but he had brothers and cousins, and they were legendary because they were so good. As a matter of fact one of them--and I forget the various first names--one of them writes for the Chronicle here (in San Francisco). Is it Abe Mellinkoff that writes here? The dean of the UCLA Medical School is Sherman Mellinkoff, and there were other Mellinkoffs as well. They all had the same last name, and I'm not sure which were brothers and which were cousins, but they were all debaters for Beverly Hills High School, and their ages kind of overlapped.

University of Southern California: Debating, Merchandising, Art History

Chall: Did you get a scholarship immediately upon graduation?

Younger: Yes, and I was in a winter class. I didn't dare say I would rather try to correct this, you know, not being in a regular graduating class, because I was so afraid I'd lose the scholarship. So I took Younger: it, and then went four and a half years as an undergraduate and always took as many units as were permitted, so that I could get as much education as was possible. It was such a precious gift.

Chall: Did you have four years of scholarship?

Younger : Four and a half years.

Chall: Of scholarship?

Younger: Yes. I had three different kinds of scholarships during the time.

Chall: You started out with a debating scholarship.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: And then what did you get?

Younger: One was--and I don't remember whether they were semesters or years-- one was an art one--painting. Another was a straight academic scholarship. The scholarship, you know, was an absolute necessity as was working in addition to going to school.

Chall: How much did--not in terms of dollars and cents--but how much did your scholarships allow you? Was it all your tuition? Was it USC?

Younger: Yes, it was USC, and it was tuition, yes.

Chall: And you lived at home and commuted to school.

Younger: Yes, frequently by foot. Because street car fare was seven cents, and I could think of better things to do with seven cents.

Chall: How many miles did you walk?

Younger: It was probably four or five.

Chall: Is that right?

Younger: I usually got a ride to school, but frequently I would walk home in order to save the seven cents. Those were the days when it was perfectly safe. I walked through neighborhoods that are now pretty bad neighborhoods. One favorite route took me past the SPCA where I could get a kitten for fifty cents--so the walks were worth it.

Chall: What kind of jobs did you have?

Younger: I worked for Bullock's. And as I say, it was during these years when this whole new field of merchandising was developed. California was emerging as a leading manufacturer of clothing. So that this all kind of went together. I worked in Bullocks' "Collegiene." Younger: The girls who worked there as "campus representatives" as we were called, came from the various colleges in Southern California. We got extra training--we were sales persons on Saturday, but we were supposed to be kind of campus fashion authorities. Again, this was a tremendously important influence in my life. The woman who was our director, or whatever you would call it--and boy she was a hard taskmaster--had been a public schoolteacher. Her name was Peggy Stark, and she absolutely insisted we do things right, and she was not above calling attention to things we did wrong in front of the others.

We were failures, for the most part, as sales persons. But we worked nights, frequently, doing one-person fashion shows to promote the store, and we got the magnificent sum of five dollars a week, which could encompass, you know, a great many hours during the course of a week. But you learned an awful lot about merchandising-- and clothes.

Chall: All day Saturdays for certain, you were always there on Saturdays.

Younger: That's right, as a sales person.

Chall: And you might have worked nights if she wanted you, for other training reasons? Of course, stores weren't usually open at night in those days.

Younger: No, they were not open at night, but for instance, anyplace that they could show clothing, you see, we were expected to go and to work.

Chall: Fashion shows.

Younger: That's right. She would usually rotate the girls, but, I would say we probably averaged one night a week, and there would be some weeks when there would be more than one night, and other weeks when there wouldn't be any. But this didn't bring in any extra pay or anything. But it secured our jobs, which was important, and you learned a lot about merchandising that way, very rapidly.

Chall: Did you do that after you finished college? Did you continue in any area of merchandising?

Younger: No, because I was married within a week after I finished college.

Chall: Were you on the debating team all four years or four and a half years?

Younger: Yes. But you were only eligible to compete four years. Chall: Did you travel around the state and around the United States deb ating?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: You must have been quite a fine debater.

Younger: Well, in those days you didn't just debate, good heavens. The overhead was much too high to send kids places to compete in only one event. You did extemporaneous speaking, you did oratory, sometimes there was declamation, oh, impromptu--oh, all kinds of things.

Chall: You had to be prepared to do all of them?

Younger: That's right, that's right, very definitely.

Chall: It must have taken a tremendous amount of time.

Younger: It did, and it took a great deal of study. This was where the approach that Murray Kesslar had used in teaching us was so tremendously important, because I had a very good background in logic because this was his orientation. This made it much easier, you know, to know how to study about a subject and how to build a case and where to put your arguments, depending on where you were on the team, whether you were the first speaker or the second speaker, and which refutation you had--that sort of thing. Of course the books on logic--it seems to me that Shaw was the author of one of the books; I think I still have it--had nothing to do with debating, but just had to do with thinking and approaching a subject. But it was extra-curricular at that point. And you know, there was no way you could get as good an education in that particular area as you could in an extra-curricular activity.

Chall: Particularly like debating.

Younger: Yes. It was a marvelous kind of training.

Chall: Were you nervous when you were speaking?

Younger: Oh yes, I'm sure that--I've always contended that when you hear a very dull speaker, the speaker is dull because he isn't sensitive to his audience which comes out as nervous. That takes an awful lot out of you to be terribly sensitive to your audience, but you really aren't much good if you aren't.

Chall: As a debater or whatever you were asked to do on these teams, you were representing your school, you were not only aware of the audience, but of the judges and the other teams? Younger: That's right. You were competing.

Chall: That's difficult.

Younger: Well, I think it's probably much more of a strain than you realize at the time. But it is excellent discipline and I'm sorry that that too is being played down in our present curriculum.

Chall: I don't hear much about debating anymore.

Younger: Very little, very little. Yet it was obviously terribly important because as I say, I still today cannot go into any kind of a sizeable group anyplace in the state without running into somebody who either 1ives.next door to somebody who remembers me as a debater or were themselves involved.

Chall: And it must have been very important to have been awarded scholar- ships. Schools must have felt their reputations were based on this kind of skill.

Younger: Yes. And scholarships were rare in those days. It was before many organizations--and government--started granting them.

Chall: I see. That's a good background. You thought you were going to go into law, then?

Younger: That's what I wanted to do from the time I was a little girl.

Chall: How did you happen to meet your husband in college?

Younger: I was working for Mademoiselle magazine in their back-to-school promotion issue in New York during the summer of 1941, moonlighting as a model, largely because the magazine felt the prestige was enough to pay. I think we made the grand sum of $150 for the entire summer's work. These were girls from all over the United States; there were probably, I guess, ten or twelve of us, and we were all dead broke. My roommate came from Carlton College, for instance, in Minnesota.

The only shoes she had brought with her were saddle shoes. But I had a pair of black pumps that stretched. And all of us shared those black pumps. Our social calendar was restricted to who needed the black pumps. [laughing] It wasn't that we were all that busy, it was the shoes that were that busy.

Chall: Well, you were all picked--as I recall from when I knew somebody who was picked by Mademoiselle--through competition in art, or dress designing or some such thing. Younger: Yes. I think we wrote essays.

Chall: You were picked from USC, or was it all of California?

Younger: Let's see, I.donlt remember whether there was another Californian or not. If there was, it was not more than one.

Chall: You wrote a fine essay, then, apparently--

Younger: On merchandising.

Chall: Well, you must have known it pretty well.

Younger: No, I don't think so. But you see merchandising was not an academic subject until later, but working for Bullock's during those years was like taking merchandising or part of a merchandising course.

Chall: Did you work for Bullock's for the four years you were in school?

Younger: Yes. And my sister had before me.

Chall: And in addition to being paid a hundred dollars a month, were you also--

Younger: Oh, we weren't paid a hundred dollars a month. I think it was $150, period.

Chall: Was your board and room paid for?

Younger: No!

Chall: So you lived for a summer in New York on $150!

Younger: Well, of course things have changed substantially since then as far as prices are concerned and kids have also probably changed. And also, the climate on the streets has changed. Either it wasn't as dangerous in those days or we weren't smart enough to know that it was dangerous, I'm not sure.

Chall: It probably wasn't as dangerous. And subways cost a nickel.

Younger: That's right. And furthermore, if we worked at it very hard, we could work out ways that we could ride indefinitely on the subways, without going through the gates that cut off your nickel. [laughs]

Chall: The transf ers.

Younger: That's right. Chall: That must have been quite an experience for you.

Younger: We would walk frequently from Seventh Avenue to the Henry Hudson Hotel, which I think is on 57th or 59th, someplace in there, which was then the Henry Hudson Hotel for Women.

Chall: Had you ever thought of going into'merchandising?

Younger: No, it was definitely a means to an end. Well, I dreamed of law up until the time that my sister went to law school. And it was perfectly obvious, there not being scholarships available for graduate school, at least for law school, that there was not going to be the money for two girls in law school. This seemed like a terribly frivolous thing in those days. And a girl probably couldn't earn her living as a lawyer.

Chall: Yes, your sister was making a real breakthrough at the time.

Younger: That's right. Well, I guess Betty would have graduated--law school being three years--she would have graduated and been studying for the bar when I was ready to go in. And the folks just simply could not have stood the tuition and everything else involved for a second daughter to go to law school. Now maybe if you were talking about a boy it would have been different.

Chall: What were your plans then?

Younger: Well, I got a teaching fellowship to New York University in the history of fine arts. As I began to realize that the potentials were lousy as far as having a chance at going to law school, I had changed my major--I had gone into the School of Fine Arts, which would have led to a B.F.A. instead of an A.B. And then I got to thinking about what that degree would be worth, relatively speaking, after graduation, and it wasn't much. It wasn't nearly as valuable as a bachelor's degree. So, I transferred back into the Letters, Arts and Sciences college and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Of course you couldn't be a Phi Beta Kappa in fine arts. I changed my major--I think I did that every semester because I was interested in everything under the sun--but I changed my major to art history--

Chall: That was an academic subject.

Younger: That's right. It was then an academic major. I could take some painting courses and some ceramics and that sort of thing. At the same time I was getting an academic degree that meant more than the B.F.A. did at that time. I was fascinated by art history, and did get a teaching fellowship at NYU. I think I was the first west coast student to even be accepted at NYU. And my particular--well, Younger: I guess she was the head of a very small department in the history of fine arts at USC, was so pleased she couldn't stand it, because of cou.rse this meant a great deal to her professionally to have a student recognized by NU, which I think was probably the granddaddy of all the schools as far as art history was concerned.

Chall: What year was this?

Younger: Well, it would have been someplace in '41 that I applied, and it would have been effective upon my graduation. I would have been able to work towards my masters while teaching, you see. But, as a practical matter, there wasn't even the money to get to New York, let alone live there. And there wasn't any extra money involved. I would have had to have worked in addition to teaching and studying.

Chall: Did you turn down the scholarship, the fellowship?

Younger: I didn't turn it down until very late. The war, of course, had started. And I think the war came as even more of a shock to those of us who had been interested in the Japanese-American peace conferences than it did to those who had not that background. % % Younger: I had met Evelle while working for Mademoiselle in New York. We simply joined thousands of others who married under the pressure of war time. The eighth time we met was at the altar of the University Methodist Church, July third, 1942, a week after I graduated.

Japanese-American Student Peace Conferences

Younger: The Seventh Japanese-American Student Peace Conference was held in the summer of 1940. Those conferences have now resumed. Although there are very few women students, the Ivy League colleges are in the majority and they've dropped the word Peace.

Chall: Who sponsored the peace conference? Under whose auspices did you go?

Younger: I don't think I know that.

Chall: Was it a church?

Younger: No, no. Looking back at it, a number of univiersities and--probably-- the State Department were involved. None of the students realized or cared that the government would have had to be involved in some way. We would have been very proud to know it--and probably better behaved . Chall: You were picked from USC?

Younger: We were from all over the United States--mostly the West.

Chall: Your way must have been paid for you.

Younger: No.

Chall: You managed to pay?

Younger: That's right. The whole family chipped in. And I had a hundred dollars spending money for the entire summer which bought an awful lot. Round trip fare,board and room, travel in the Orient all added up to around $300. But the summer before that USC had been host school for the Japanese students for the conference, and kids had come from all over the United States for that conference.

The peace conferences were designated by numbers. I think I was a member of the seventh and eighth peace conferences. They alternated: one year university students would come from Japan, and the next year students would go there from the United States. There's a book across the room there that I bought while I was there, and it may have a name of the conference in it.

Chall: I've known people who were pacifists who might have been interested in this at that time.

Younger: Well, this is interesting. The book, you see, says in it, "A gift from the ~asnStudent Association."

Chall: "August 16, 1940."

Younger: Yes. I thought I had bought that book, but it was a gift. Fantastically interesting book.

Chall: ch%singura. Have you seen the movie?

Younger: No, I have not. I have another copy of the book with a much more classic binding in Los Angeles.

Chall: Oh my! Well, if you ever have a chance to see ~hhusin~urado so.

Younger: Oh, I would love to see it!

Chall: Let's see, but you don't know who--

Younger: I don't know who put those conferences together to begin with. I would think that the governments must have been involved, as a practical matter. Younger: And the other book, with the more classic Japanese binding, has, I believe, different illustrations in it, though they're the same type.

Chall: That's a collector's itempractically.

Younger: Well, the other one, I think, is a much finer edition.

Chall: What did you do in Japan--you had two conferences with Japanese students.

Younger: I was involved in two. One at USC and one at Tsuda College in Japan. We presented student papers on different subjects. Thre were competitions to be conference members. The general subjects had been pre-arranged, so that there 'd be several roundtables. Each roundtable prepared a single paper on its subject. Then the mutual papers were brought together. I imagine that they were published in some form, but I don't remember in what form, and I don't remember that I ever had a copy of any finished report.

Chall: All the Japanese students had to speak English, of course.

Younger: Yes. And I think this was my first concept, really, of the difficulty of people communicating with one another. The Japanese had to make the majority of the adjustments. And the concessions were made, as they so frequently are, within terribly limited boundaries. Their English was excellent--but let's face it-they were communicating in a foreign language and they were limited. Their papers, I'm sure, were translated by people who knew more about translating than the students did. But as far as our learning Japanese, we just plain didn't. So the translation all had to go the other way, which was not really fair, and I think we were all very conscious that we were terribly limited.

Chall: What was the experience like in Japan?

Younger: Tremendously interesting, and of course, being undergraduates we had unlimited energy and curiosity. Travel was much more limited in those days. At least half of us had not met before and we were off on a great adventure. We wanted to share it.

Travel was by ship and that was certainly something most of us had never experienced. The Asama Maru was huge and a constant source of delight. We even loved the boat drills. And, of course, we explored everything.

Our breakthrough into first class came in a funny way: there was a man on board, a Japanese businessman, who, at least as far as we were concerned, seemed to be an extremely wealthy man. He Younger : approached me saying he believed I was Japanese. When I said, no, that I was not Japanese--his English was quite good--he then was absolutely positive that I had Japanese ancestry of some kind. My hair was very dark and I was heavier as a student than I am now, and looking back at photographs, I suppose I could have looked a little Oriental. My sister had always kidded me about being Chinese so I wasn't too surprised.

At any rate, he invited me to meet his friends in his suite. Well, now, none of us had figured that there was any potential for ever seeing how first class traveled, and by complete accident, we had the opportunity.

Chall: How did he happen to see you, if he was first class and you were second class?

Younger : Well, of course, there were no limits on the decks he visited. And after a few days out we had quite a bit of freedom to move around. The ship wasn' t crowded although our three-to-a-cabin was pretty tight. Some of the boys had as many as four in very small cabins. The poor man may not have realized that I was one of the intolerable crew of undergraduates [laughing] who were probably making life difficult for the first class passengers.

But that's how we finally got to really see first class and meet other passengers. I was too naive to realize that there might have been any motive involved, other than cultural purposes, in his invitation to come to his suite the next night. So I said, "May I bring my friends?" And I think looking back on it, he was probably stunned by the question. [laughing] I really was too naive to realize it. (The man's name was Ohata.)

Chall: What did he say, yes?

Younger : What could he say?

Chall: Weren' t you chaperoned on this trip across?

Younger : In theory, yes. And I invited the dean of men from the University of Southern California, who was one of the chaperones, as one of my friends. He was a marvelous, marvelous man who had a great influence on me. Great sense of humor, terrible punster--always made a pun out of everything--but a very cultured gentleman, white- haired and looked exactly like a dean ought to look. He played the organ at our wedding.

Chall: What was his name?

Younger: Francis Bacon--he was a dear, dear friend and advisor to all of us as long as he lived. Younger : But we moved in, literally, into our new friend's suite. And he invited some of his business acquaintances, I suppose in anticipation that the friends I was referring to would be girls! They weren't, of course, they were a mixture. And I remember that terribly over- crowded suite. I was delighted to share the "breakthrough" into first class with all of my friends-- But he was the perfect host. He probably knew full well what was going on and was probably terribly amused at how naive I had been, having not only asked to bring friends, but to bring a large mixture of friends.

Chall: You weren't invited back, were you?

Younger: Yes, we were invited back, as a matter of fact. And from then on in, the ship Is captain who was apparently terribly impressed with the Japanese gentleman who had adopted me treated us all like we were first class passengers. I remember the dining salon! We got huge quantities of food'any time we wanted it. Tea time was really something special--what sandwiches and pastries. There were all kinds of things that improved perceptibly after we had been invited to this suite. I suppose these first class suites were rather unusual, I don't know.

Chall: He must have been quite an important man.

Younger: He must' have been, from the captain's reaction. We were pretty impossible as a group, of course. But the students were mostly outstanding young people--and may have been a pleasant diversion. But the fact that we suddenly had moved into this man's circle changed our status completely. That evening I had my first drink of an alcoholic beverage and it was Japanese sake. And you have no idea how many ancestors you can toast, particularly if your friends are fully aware that you'd never had a drink and would give anything to be sure that you got the full effect. So that anything that the Japanese didn't think of in the way of toasts, my friends thought of. And holding on to the amount of sake that we drank that night was probably one of the major feats of my life. I remember many trips around the deck, because I was determined not to do what they were determined I was going to do, which was to get very drunk. [1augh ing ]

Chall : One could, I think, on many toasts of sake.

Younger: Yes, and they went on and on and on for hours. But, well, the whole thing of course was a marvelous adventure. The year before had also been a wonderful experience. There were, I think, ten American students who went with the Japanese by bus to Seattle, where they were to pick up their ship af ter the conference.

Chall: Were you among them? Younger: I was one of the ten--thereld been two of us who were supposedly the chaperones of the girls' dormitory, where the Japanese girls were staying. My impression is that the girls did not have as broad educations as the boys and any bilingual talents were confined to the boys. We couldn't communicate with any of them on any level, and of course, their habits were entirely different than we had provided for or that we could have provided for. Everything, from bath towels to sleeping accommodations, food, everything was new and strange to them, and they couldn't really express the differences. And we just plain didn't know what they were.

Chall: They had to sleep in the beds.

Younger: That's right, and everything was-- I remember that the other girl and I would sit up all night and giggle about the funny things that happened and the misunderstandings. And we picked up a few words in Japanese that did us no good at all, just as they picked up all the wrong words in English that did them no good. Their fascination with the world "hell1', which they couldn't pronounce, was totally inappropriate and we couldn't explain why.

But then ten of us went with them on the buses to Seattle. As it turned out, their ship was laid up for ten days extra. And we spent ten days at a YMCA camp out on one of the islands in the [Puget] Sound. meir tolerance for being rained on night and day through the leaky roofs of the YMCA barracks was no greater than ours.

The only recreation that was available was to sit on the dock in the rain and fish. And their concept of fishing was different from ours. If they caught a fish--and we were catching funny little miscellaneous fish--they would take it off the hook and leave it alive on the dock. So that we spent--oh, ten days I guess-- surreptitiously killing fish by hitting them on the heads with the heels of our shoes because we didn't have the heart to see the fish floundering around. This was really a cultural difference. We were certainly showing a different concept of what you do with a living thing, having caught it. As far as they were concerned, let it die. And our concept was to put it out of its misery as quickly as possible.

Chall: Were they all girls?

Younger: Oh, no. I don't remember whether it was fifty-fifty or not. It may have been. But it's my impression that there were more boys than girls. And we could talk to the boys more easily. Their language skills were much greater.

Chall: There were ten of them? Younger: Oh, no, there were sixty of them and only ten of us that traveled with them.

I remember we taught them--and it was a terrible mistake-- 11Oh Susanna," and they didn't really want to learn anything else after they'd learned that one. So all the way to Seattle we heard that song over and over and over again like a broken record. I can never hear it without thinking of those awful long days on those buses where communication was almost limited to that song.

Chall: How was it when you were in Japan, how was the cultural exchange?

Younger: Somewhat better, because of course, there they had the advantage of the few teachers who were bilingual. It's hard to remember that it's such a relatively short time ago, but that Americans were novelties in Japan. And we were in 1940. People would gather in groups in the towns, for instance, and look at us. They hadn't seen Americans before or if they had it was very rare. And we had an unusual number of boys who were over six feet tall. There were six or eight over six feet four inches. Of course, this meant not only that they never got a night's sleep because they were too long for the beds, but it also meant that they were very unusual in Japan, particularly if they were blond and blue-eyed and that size. This was something to be talked about and thought about; this was a different species.

Later, one of the boys from Stanford told me a wonderful story. When these young giants were approached by Japanese on the streets they were invariably asked why they weren't in the army. We, obviously, were much less attuned to the idea of being in the military because the Japanese had been at war in China for a number of years. Our students answered that they had been turned down because they were too small to be soldiers!

Chall: Did you meet for your conferences at one of the schools and then travel through Japan later?

Younger: Yes, at Tsuda College, and I believe probably now Tokyo has grown so much that it is now in Tokyo, but at that time, it was a train ride outside of Tokyo. Our stop was Kokubunse. We enjoyed the countryside very much and learned quickly that there were vast differences on the farms around the college. Our curiosity was endless so we sopped up all the information we could on all subjects.

Chall: To go from Los Angeles to Seattle by bus is a long trip.

Younger: Yes, it certainly is, and it was longer then. Chall: And were you able to travel that far in Japan and see different types of countryside?

Younger : Oh yes, and we sometimes made unauthorized side trips on our own, But it was evident from the time that we got off the ship that there were overtones that we didn't know about. For instance, all of the cameras that were of any degree of sophistication were taken from the students when we landed. I was able to keep mine because it was the simplest conceivable camera, and they thought it couldn't possibly take any pictures of any sensitive kinds. A few of the students got away with keeping motion picture cameras. I suppose they must have hidden them. But we were puzzled by this; it came as a great surprise and disappointment that the cameras were not permitted.

And we very quickly discovered that we were followed wherever we went. And you know, American undergraduates just instinctively, not having the vaguest ideaof why they're being followed--any red-blooded American kid in those days would' automatically try to outwit anybody who was trying to follow him. This didn't lead to any more comfortable relationships, because we usually succeeded, and it took a good deal of planning, and we used some rather spontaneous methods. We did discover that those who were following us liked to go to bed earlier than we did. And many of our adventures were therefore after [laughing] we had theoretically all been tucked in for the night.

Chall: You found quite a bit of nightlife around in the--?

Younger: Well, we found a lot of things we weren't supposed to see.

Chall: What did you see?

Younger : Oh, for instance, in one of the villages where we stayed, .I remember that a group of us went into a small Shinto temple at night, and to our great amazement as well as to the great amazement of those who were inside, there were army troops being billeted in the temple. What we saw was what was going on in Japan, which as American undergraduates we were totally unaware of.

Chall: Well, you knew they were fighting in Manchuria.

Younger: Yes. And we knew they occupied Korea or Chosen, as they did Manchukuo of course. And we knew that there were alliances with the Germans, but we really hadn't anticipated all the evidence of war that we saw. And I don't think this made it any easier on American travelers afterwards, that out of just plain impulses of young people, we were stumbling into things we weren't supposed to see. Chall: And did you discuss this among yourselves, your surprise?

Younger: Oh, of course.

Chall: Did you discuss it with your Japanese colleagues at the conference?

Younger: Yes, as a matter of fact, I remember one night that there was a professor of economics whom we met someplace, and we were traveling on one of the even-then extremely efficient trains. And he stayed on way past his stop. He had written some books on economics, which I think I still'have; I think they're in Los Angeles. He was incredulous at my views on economics as opposed to his views on economics. I believe he gave me those copies of his books subsequently.

But it was--well, it was like going to a communist country is now; where you find a tremendous void in understanding about what's going on in another country and how different the thinking is. He was absolutely astonished at what I did and didn't know about the economy and what he did and didn't know.

Chall: You were trained in the American systenr-American economics? Had you studied economics at all?

Younger: .Yes, to some extent, I'd had four or five courses and, of course, some of the national debate topics dealt with economics.

Chall: But you weren't bringing to each other economic theories as much as an understanding of the society--

Younger: Oh yes, one of the roundtables was on economics. I don't remember the exact subjects; I think there were about ten roundtables. And I think I was a member of the one on economics.

Chall: Was the reason for your being together in this way an attempt to bridge a gap in understanding about one another's cultures?

Younger: Yes, that's right.

Chall: The society--the economics and problems? Do you think you were doing it?

Younger : Well, I've always wondered whether we weren't the real cause of the attack on Pearl Harbor-- [laughs] Perhaps history should be rewritten, I don't know. Probably turning sixty American under- graduates loose is a terrible mistake under any circumstances. [laughing] For logis tical reasons we had to be separated into two groups to travel through the southern part of Japan and across the China Sea to Korea and up through then Manchukuo to Harbin. Chall: Oh, you went up there?

Younger: Yes. Every train platform on the South Manchurian railroad had great stacks of what appeared to be straw. Of course, we never knew how long the stop was going to be at these bleak little stations. There was no town in sight in many cases. And on the platforms there would be what appeared to be heaps of straw, which we very quickly discovered were transshipments of German armaments and airplane parts.

Chall: You discovered it by going up and nudging the straw?

Younger: Yes, sure. We looked. Chall: You -were difficult to handle. Younger: We certainly were. But we didn't do it to be difficult, we did it simply out of curiosity, and probably if there had been people with us with whom we could have communicated better, we might have accepted their answers. But we looked because we couldn't under- stand.

Chall: Chances are they didn't anticipate that American students are so different from Japanese students. Japanese students would certainly not have done that in the United States.

Younger: Yes, that's right, they were much more disciplined than we were. They were docile and used to being led. We weren't.

But it did lead to some very interesting experiences.

Chall: You were telling me earlfer that those of you who had participated in these conferences were less surprised or more surprised at the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Younger: Well, more hurt, perhaps. It seemed very personal. But in some ways things suddenly made sense that had not made sense at the time we were there.

Chall: Were you hurt by the fact that many of the people that you had come to know and perhaps like in these conferences were at war with you?

Younger: Terribly. And I'm sure the same thing is true of them. Although Japan was the aggressor. For instance, the book that we looked at that talks about the Japan-American Students Association--no, the Japan Student Association. Well, I think the Japanese-American Society that is now quite active here in the Bay Area may be an outgrowth of people who did communicate a number of years back, as well as an outgrowth of the concentration camps and that sort of thing that we established. Chall: What was your attitude about the camps during the war?

Younger: I think that in retrospect it wa.s a perfectly terrible thing to do, but at the time, I think it was a natural response. We had been attacked. We were at war. And it was all a complete and total shock. America was literally numb.

Particularly in Southern California where we had a large Japanese population. Not only do the Japanese have distinctive racial characteristics they also have a profound sense of family and culture. Shinto is based on ancestral concepts.

It must have been almost impossible to respond as quickly as a state of war demands and to even consider fairness. No one had time to ponder anything but national survival. As far as anyone knew we were living next door to the enemy who had attacked Pearl Harbor. It wasn' t fair but it was real.

Immediately, we had blackouts. I remember them very well. I studied in a closet.

By Monday, December eighth there was hardly a boy on campus. My class picked up and went to war. I was vice-president of an almost non-existent student body.

Remember, the United States had no intelligence capability prior to World War 11. We in Southern California felt betrayed as well as threatened. I think we've forgotten that, that as dreadful as it was and as unfair as it was in retrospect,. if you're suddenly at war--

Chall: And therewas a feeling of terror here or fear?

Younger: Of course, there's no question about that. Remember that a Japanese submarine did torpedo the coast near Santa Barbara.

Chall: I just wonder how you felt about it, knowing the Japanese as you did.

Younger: Dreadfully ambivalent.

Chall: Had you known any Japanese-Americans?

Younger: Yes, we went to school in Los Angeles with a lot of Japanese- Americans. There had always been compulsory Japanese language schools, and Shinto was widely practiced. There simply wasn't time to look at individual cases in the beginning. We were certainly lax and unfair. But basic loyalty was the question at the time. And nobody knew the answer. The Nisei, of course, ended up proving themselves very patriotic citizens but war was an almost incomprehensible shock to the whole nation and the west coast in particular. I1 THE WAR YEARS, 1942-1946 [Interview 2: April 7, 1976]##

Marriage to Evelle Younger: His Background

Chall: All right, today I want to get on with your family background. I think \hen we left off last time, we had just about prepared you for marriage. I think you were graduating from college.

Younger: Nothing prepared me for marriage. [laughter]

Chall: Very good answer!

Younger: If there hadnqt been the pressure of the war and I had had a chance to think about it, it would have been a very long engagement. It would have been quite different [laughing].

Chall: Well, let's see, you were married when?

Younger: July 3, 1942, which was the week after I graduated from the University of Southern California.

Chall: Where was Evelle Younger--you met him in New York, as I recall.

Younger: That's right. He was an FBI agent when we met.

Chall: Well, how did you happen to meet your husband when you were in New York? Was this a blind date or--?

Younger: Actually, it was a blind date for my best friend, who had just arrived in New York. The bureau agent whom I had been dating was the son of a buyer from Hovland and Swanson, which is the biggest department store in Lincoln, Nebraska. And the agent was also from Nebraska, as was my husband. His mother had taken him to the fashion show that Mademoiselle magazine had put on, in which I had been one of the models on the back-to-school promotion. He and I had gone out together several times, and when he called and said Younger: that he had the Fourth of July off and would I spend the day with him that day, I said I couldn't because my best friend was arriving from a convention someplace in the East, and I obviously was not going to go off and leave her. And he said, "If I can get her a blind date with another agent, would you be willing to go out?" And I said, "We would be delighted to." Because of course it's hard to see New York without transportation, without someone who knows it considerably better than we did, and that sort of thing. And my husband was Mary's blind date. So that's how I came to meet him.

Chall: And then you saw him in California again?

Younger: Well, actually--

Chall: What year was this?

Younger: That was in 1941--Fourth of July 1941 was the day I met him.

Chall: So you were married about a year later.

Younger: Yes, and as a matter of fact, when he proposed--I don't know if I told you this or not--my father couldn't stand him.

Chall: Oh, had he come out here to work in California? How had your father--?

Younger : No, the way that he got to California was that he was one of the agents--I think there were about 160 agents who--that was when agents had to be lawyers, Evelle had been inspired to join the bureau because the son of the man who owned the farm which was next to the farm on which my husband had lived as a small boy, had been killed in the Dillinger shootout in Kansas City. It was Dillinger that the gang managed to free from the FBI when he was being transported from one federal prison to another. And they still show the bullet hole in the station in Kansas City; they take you out of your way on any taxi drive through Kansas City to see it. And that neighbor had been killed in the escape. That was what had interested my husband in the FBI to begin with. He had at a very early age learned a good deal about the bureau,because of that family.

My husband was too young to enter the bureau when he passed the bar in Nebraska, because he passed the bar at the age of twenty-one. You see, he'd entered the university when he was fifteen years old--

Chall: Oh my! Younger: Which was a serious mistake and we knew it, and we held our own son back from the public school's determination to push him ahead, because of my husband's experience. My husband had made rather mediocre grades as an undergraduate, but then when he got in the FBI class, he led the class, because he was more mature. But he'd always been too young really, as an undergraduate. But he'd had to wait, to join the bureau and went to Northwestern, in the interim, until he'd met the age requirement.

Chall: What was the age requirement?

Younger: It was either twenty-two or twenty-three--mus t have been twenty-two.

Chall: And most boys would have passed the bar--it would have been a logical age to--

Younger : It would have been early to have passed the bar--twenty-three would have been more likely. But I think my husband was twenty-three when we were married; so he would have gone into the bureau when he was twenty-two. He took graduate work in criminology at Northwestern after passing the bar in Nebraska, waiting for the FBI appointment.

You know, if you enter college when you're fifteen, that's awfully, awfully young. And that puts you out of law school awfully young; you're skipping things. And that had a great influence on our decisions about our son's education. We never permitted him to go ahead; instead we asked him, and he complied, to take extra courses--

Chall: And mature with his peers.

Younger : That's right. For instance, Evelle was always younger than the girls he dated, because he was young for his place in school.

Chall: How did your father happen to take an immediate dislike to him?

Younger: Well, oh, I'm forever--having such a dreadfully untidy mind--

Chall: Well, the sidelights are always interesting. The digressions are sometimes more relevant than the answers to the questions.

Younger : Yes, I imagine they are. But when the attack on Pearl Harbor came, in December of 1941, there were something like 160 agents who had reserve commissions out of the ROTC. Actually my husband had been in the National Guard and had followed the common practice of lying about his age, because he'd needed the money desperately. These were dust bowl days in the Middle West, and the kids needed anything they could earn. I think they got paid three dollars Younger: a month during the summer training, but that bought shoes for the school year. And the military has since recognized the years before he was eligible. The early National Guard experience was widespread in the Middle West. He had then gone into ROTC at the University of Nebraska.

So there were 160, I think, agents who had the option of joining the military as officers or of staying with the bureau. And the pressure was very heavy to stay with the bureau. I don't think that Mr. Hoover really ever forgave the handful of them, about nine, did leave the bureau to keep their commissions. They were, of course, exempt because they were all involved in what was actually a vital war effort in the FBI.

He was assigned in Washington. The letters they received pointed out the great importance of the agents who held commissions. One of them, pretty obviously dictated by Mr. Hoover, was signed by Secretary of War [Henry] Stimson, and the other one came from Mr. Hoover. Both of them said that they understood perfectly the contributions to the war effort of any member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And my husband, being as young as he was, took it upstairs to--was it Mr. Tolson, who was J. Edgar Hoover's chief assistant over all those years, and said, "Now if I'm this important to you, can I get a transfer out of Washington? I want to go to California and get married."

Mr. Tolson told him to get back to the basement and get busy. During his lunch hour he walked across the street to the old Munitions building in Washington, with both letters and his ROTC papers, and asked the recruiting officer if they wanted him, and they said, "Desperately." Because, of course, this country had no intelligence capability at the beginning of World War 11.

This is one of the things I worry about on the exposes on the CIA and that sort of thing, because I remember back when we had nothing (at a time when there should have been a very good intelligence capacity) except what little the FBI had managed. It worries me to think in terms of totally exposing and therefore destroying intelligence capabilities. Thousands and thousands of Americans were killed, and I don't think there'd be any dispute about this, that didn't have to be killed in World War 11, because there wasn' t an intelligence capability. There was no knowledge at all of what was going on in the world. The bureau had the only input that there was and it was very slight as far as national security was concerned, although my husband was involved in the raid on--oh, they made the movie, "The House on 42nd Street" about it, about the man who sold the design of the Sperry gyroscope. I can't think of his name right off the bat. [Rhoder] He was a German. And that Sperry gyroscope was of tremendous military Younger : importance. And he did live in New York. But they changed the arrest in a good many respects in order to make the motion picture. That was actually my husband's role that Lloyd Bridges played.

Chall: So your husband had had some background in this field?

Younger: A very little. But when he went to the Munitions building and asked them, "What do I do about these two letters?", their answer was, "Yes, we want you, and we want you desperately, because we obviously have to have a counter-intelligence corps, and we don't have any source of trained people." And he said, "Well, where will you send me if I go on a leave-of-absence from the bureau?" This was the only thing he could do really, though he never went back to the bureau, but it explains more years showing at the bureau on his record than he was actually active because they could not resign at that time.

But they said, "Where do you want to go?" And he said, "To California to get married?" He had not proposed, I should put in.

Chall: You didn't know he was coming to get married?

Younger: No, I'd no idea of that at all.

And they said, "Would the Presidio of San Francisco do?" And he said, "Yes, it certainly would." And that was how he got to California. And he stopped in Los Angeles in order to clear up the matter of proposing, having changed his entire career, and my father took an instant dislike to him, which over the years he obviously got over. But when my husband phoned from San Francisco to Los Angeles--and it was during the blackout days--I remember taking the call in a room that could be closed off because it was a windowless room. My father was in that room at the same time, and I turned to him and I said it was Evelle and that he wanted to get married and he wanted to get married on the anniversary of our meeting, which was July fourth. My father's only rejoinder, and it came instantly, was, "Never marry a man on Independence Day!" So we were married on July 3, 1942.

Chall: Not really !

Younger: Yes. [laughter]

Chall: Did he ever give you a reason?

Younger : Well, I think it's a pretty good reason not to get married on Independence Day [laughing]. Chall: That showed the pressures he'd been under.

Younger: That's right. [laughing] But I don't think that Daddy thought that he'd get the instant change of plans to July third. And that was how we got married, how we got together in order to get acquainted, which involved marriage before we got acquainted. [laughter] A little confusing!

Chall: Well, I thought that was interesting. Considering the problems your parents had had with their marriage, one would assume that the children would take a little bit longer.

Younger: Yes.

Chall: But that might not even be a proper assumption--

Younger: Well, war added tremendous pressure, because you literally didn't know where anybody in the service was going to be.

Chall: And you liked him well enough to--

Younger: To want to get acquainted [laughing].

Chall: And that was the way.

Was your mother a little startled by this?

Younger: My mother's mother had just died, and her father had just moved in with us; he was very ill. And Mother was not a social person at all; she was extremely introverted. It was a terribly unfair thing to do to Mother, really, in retrospect, because she was under, you know, the grief of her mother's death and the necessity of moving her father, who was bedridden, into our house. And the necessity of disposing of her parents' belongings, and that kind of thing; she was under terrible pressure. Looking back, of course, it was a very cruel thing to do. But young people aren't apt to be very thoughtful.

Chall: Were you the first married--were you married before your sister?

Younger: No, my sister was married before I was.

Chall: So this wasn't necessarily a wedding that had to be the family's big church wedding.

Younger: Well, it was a church wedding, as my sister's had been.. But it certainly couldn't get very much attention. And weddings during the war didn't get very much attention. There were an awfully lot of them. Chall: What about your husband's family, did they come out for the ceremony?

Younger: Yes, they came out from Nebraska for the wedding.

Chall: How many were there?

Younger: At the wedding?

Chall: I mean how many of his family--were both his parents alive?

Younger: Yes, both of his parents were alive, and a cousin, who's now a practicing attorney in California, was also there. My husband had been contributing out of his magnificent FBI income, which was something like $250 a month, and considered beyond the wildest dreams of a young man in those days, even for a young lawyer in those days to his cousin's education.

Chall: He didn't have any brothers or sisters?

Younger: No, he was an only child. He and his cousin were very close. So there were the three of -them, and there were aunts and uncles. Both of his parents had come from very large families. /\ /\ Younger: But the ones who stayed with us were just his mother and father and cousin. But thinking back on the dreadful strain on Mother, that was so cruel.

Chall: Yes, just having all those people in the house.

Younger: Yes. Mother had never had help of any kind. But there certainly were no hotel rooms during the war.

Army Wife in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles

Chall: Well, then what did he do? Did he go overseas soon or--?

Younger: He had a three-day pass, which had to take care of the driving time to Los Angeles and back to San Francisco. He had saved gas coupons for quite a while. We lived here in San Francisco until after our son was born.

Chall: And when was that?

Younger: He was born on August 8, 1943. All during that time my husband wanted to go overseas so badly that it was just a perfectly terrible experience. I remember the motion pictures on the Presidio grounds. Younger: (We eventually had quarters on the Presidio grounds and were living there when our son was born.) But the motion pictures on the Presidio grounds were within walking distance. So we would march off to the movie just about every night, because they changed them every night on the military bases, and they cost only £ifteen cents a person, and that we could afford. He was a lieutenant and entertainment for thirty cents' was highly desirable [laughs]. They were all war movies. And all the men wanted to transfer to whatever service the movie was about every night.

Chall : So what were you doing while you were there? He was off, I guess, doing his secret work and you were--

Younger: That's right, and he never talked about it. For instance, I learned a few things, in retrospect, about the FBI. In 1941 I certainly had no idea at the time who was under surveillance. I really knew nothing about what he was doing, except that there was a peculiar aspect to it: he never got off work until well after dinner-time, or at least he said he never got off work until well after dinner-time, and this may have been an economic dodge so that he didn't have to feed me, I'm not sure [laughing]. So I would get to watch him eat dinner at the Auto,mat.

Chall: That's when you were in New York.

Younger: That's right. And we had our choice between the Automat and the Tbenty-one Club, and I never understood that. 'The reason was that they put new agents to work investigating people who have applied for their citizenship rights back, after they have committed a felony, and his first assignment was to Charlie Burns, who was then the owner of the Twenty-one Club, and who had been involved quite openly in violation of the Volstead Act. He was a very good citizen and he desperately wanted to be able to vote. And that was the reason the choice was between the--

Chall: It was feast or famine!

Younger: That's right [laughing]. You either ate at the Automat or at the Tbenty-one Club [more laughter], and nothing in between.

Chall : I 'think that would have boggled the mind of any date.

Younger: Well, it was confusing.

Chall: How did you feel about your first year or so at the Presidio? Were there other young women in the same position as you?

Younger: Yes, but it was my introduction to a type of life--which I'm sure is a very rich life in many respects, but one which certainly at that age I didn't understand, and didn't want anything to do with-- which was the military life, and the dreadful emphasis on husband's Younger: rank on anything that awife did. We obviously violated all kinds of rules. It wasn't as bad during wartime as it is during peacetime, because there were many reservists, although very few on the Presidio grounds.

Chall: That was regular army.

Younger: That's right. And the regular army didn't really ever know just what to do about reservists. They knew they needed them, but where you fit into their structure was very much in question. So it wasn't a happy experience. Of course, there were terrible shortages, and I didn't drive anyway, didn't know how to drive, but the gasoline shortage made that pretty academic. And while I have some fond memories of that time, the memories in general were pretty grim. They were dominated by war.

Chall: I see. But you were getting acquainted with your husband.

Younger: Yes, again under forced and peculiar circumstances, because G2, which was the counterintelligence branch, worked odd hours, and couldn't discuss anything they were doing.

And as I say, in retrospect, I've heard over the years of a good many things that were really--some tragic, some terribly funny. I remember that a rubber liferaft washed up on the shores of the Pacific, just outside the Golden Gate (and I didn't know this at the time), but,they were convinced that there had been a Japanese landing. Well, as it turned out, it was nothing to do with an enemy landing. Somebody had been fishing apparently in a rubber liferaft--made in Japan.

During those years actually he was involved in the project at Berkeley that had to do with the development of the atom bomb. And obviously that was off limits for any discussion. I didn't have any idea why both he and the couple that shared the quarters-- the quarters were divided into half; they were built rather like duplexes--that we had, and the man in the other half was deeply involved also in that investigation. He was also a G2, and he stayed on in the army.

But it was many years later when I learned that this was during the time of the [J. Robert] Oppenheimer investigation. And they certainly were all amateurs; there's no question about it. That play that was written, that was so devastating, about the trial of Oppenheimer, and which did refer to many of them who were involved in that investigation, was technically right, but practically it overlooked the facts of global war. We had so blandly assumed that we were totally isolated from the world and this sort of thing would never happen. Chall: Blundering, I guess, occasionally.

Younger : Well, we certainly did in intelligence activities or ignorance in World War 11.

Within a month after our son was born, Evelle was transferred to the Los Angeles office. We stayed with my parents for a while. But he had to go ahead, and I had to take care of the moving, as most service wives do. And we got very lucky--we found a flat in Los Angeles. And I remember that I had just finished wallpapering the bathroom at the time that his orders to Washington came.

So then the question was, how would the baby and I get to Washington? We couldn't do it on a lieutenant's salary--

Chall: How long had you been in Los Angeles--a few months?

Younger : I would say two or three months at the most, and then another move. And with a child who was still very young. But because of the experience at Mademoiselle and also at Bullock's, I knew a little bit about modeling and I knew that it paid very well. And it didn't mean going off and working full-time and therefore deserting our very young baby. That was before the days of babysitters, really. You had to find a compassionate friend, and you couldn't leave them for great intervals to take a job. So the way I made the money to get to Washington--of course it was by train in those days--was by applying for a job as a bathing suit model.

Chall: For some store--~ullock's or--?

Younger : A manufacturer because, you see, the money is very good and the hours are very short. And there are a lot of bathing suits made in Los Angeles. The only form of modeling in those days--I don't know whether it's still true or not--that paid better was lingerie, and I couldn't bring myself to that. But the pay scale was what determined where I applied for a job, and bathing suits were okay. So I very quickly made enough money to get our son and me across the country and made it in short hours that didn't take me away from him.

Chall: Then how did you find a place to live in Washington during the mar years?

Younger : Well, that was a good trick, and we had a good deal of difficulty, and ran into more of the realities of life in the military back there.

By this time I believe OSS [Office of Strategic Services] had been formed; I'm not sure. There is a book out that is highly inaccurate, although it was written by a man who should have known Younger: better (I have a copy of it), that refers to J. Edgar Hoover having been placated by having planted two of his agents in OSS, and one of the two was Evelle J. Younger. Well, of course, Evelle was an army officer at that time.

Chall: You don't think J. Edgar Hoover had anything to do with how his career was developing in army intelligence?

Younger: Of course not! And most certainly he would not have chosen a man who was, at that time, twenty-four years old to infiltrate the OSS.

Chall: Oh, I see, it was an infiltration, not just seeing to it that he could be put there.

Younger: That's right! The book interprets it as an infiltration, but that book credits my husband with at that time having been deep in informing Mr. Hoover about OSS--which is pretty funny.

So we went off to Washington, and Evelle was already there. And - again we ran into the really very difficult service type of life. But we got lucky: Evelle managed to talk the people who were just completing Park Fairfax--which then was way out in the country and of course now is heavily populated all around it--in Alexandria, to let us move in before it was finished. And we were the only people in that block of apartments living there. The plaster was wet, and we had no furniture; slept on army cots.

That was a difficult time. The weather was foul, of course, with snow and sleet and certainly there were no stores or transport- ation. And I -had to learn to drive because there was no other way that he could get to work and I could get groceries. For two or three days a week scrapple was the only thing in the meat counter. The other days a little fish or nothing. I believe Eric was a little over five months old.

Chall: You'd done a lot of moving around in a short time.

Younger: Oh yes, it was just--constant. So we bought all used furniture and I undertook to decorate it and fix it up. There was neither the time nor the money to move furniture across the country.

Chall: You've been doing that for a long time.

Younger: It seems to be my destiny in life to make over used furniture. But we made what was to us a fortune when we left Washington on the furniture I'd decorated [laughing]. Of course, that was in the days when you could buy used furniture for virtually nothing because so many families were in the service. I knew enough about furniture Younger: and furniture construction and that sort of thing, and about paint products, so that it wasn't difficult. There was improvising that had to be done. But it paid off, and I think that may have been our first savings account.

Chall: Ohmy,when was that, when did you have to sell it and leave?

Younger : Well, we had been there probably four or five months when he got his orders overseas, so that the furniture wasn't finished really [laughing].

Chall: But it was furniture, and someone needed it.

Younger : But it was furniture and people needed furniture, and because we had worked hard on it, it brought a substantial profit.

Chall: And then did you move back to Los Angeles?

Younger : Yes, because he was to leave from CampHahn,which is just outside of Riverside. Of course, departure dates were a deep secret. And again, he had had to go on before Eric and I did, but he was still there when we got here.

Chall: Was he going to the Pacific theater, if he were leaving from Riverside?

Younger: Actually he was attached to British troops in Burma. He went first to Karachi and was the officer in charge of the OSS operation-- or that may still have been G2. I forget at what point G2 became OSS, or what point there was a split. I think there is still a G2, but the functions were divided at some point. He was officer in charge there of the American counter intelligence operation in Karachi, and then he was sent to the other side of India. He was in New Delhi for a while, and then he went to Calcutta. And it was at that point that the American OSS officers there, of whom there was a very limited number, were assigned to the British. He went on the landings in Burma, which aren't really a part of our war history, because they were primarily British operations.

Chall: You were living in Los Angeles at that time?

Younger: Yes, and before he left he had insisted, and wisely so, that we use our small savings primarily from the furniture in Washington, and put a down payment on a very good piece of property which was extremely cheap at the time, which was the only way we could force ourselves to save under war conditions. And his checks home were almst entirely consumed by the monthly payments on the property. Chall: Had the two of you planned that when the war was at an end you would settle in Los Angeles and he would practice law, or what had he planned?

Younger: At that point we hadn't really planned anything. I went to Los Angeles because that's where my family was.

Chall: Did you live with them?

Younger: For a very short time, and then again, we got lucky--this was after he had left. I was able to get a one-bedroom apartment in Park La Brea, which coincidentally also was owned by the Metropolitan Insurance Company, just as Park Fairfax had been, and they were very much alike. But he also knew that we couldn't live on what he was sending home and pay the monthly payments on that piece of property, so he literally forced me into opening a business before he left, and it had to be a business where I could take our son with me, in spite of the fact that he was not a year old.

Businesswoman: The Art Mart

Younger: So I opened a business, and what little I know about conducting a business came from that experience. I signed a very bad contract, a very unfavorable contract with the Town and Country Market in Los Angeles, which was directly across from the Farmers' Market. Now the Farmers' Market was in those days in the county.

Chall: Is that right? And Park La Brea was right near, wasn't it?

Younger: That's right, it was within walking distance, and this was one reason it was so important.

Now, Farmers' Market was full and it had many, many people waiting. Town and Country was brand new, but it was across the street and it was in the city [of Los Angeles]. In order to get a lease, you had to sign a lease, which limited what you could sell. And it certainly limited your income, drastically. So that people in Farmers' Market were making a fortune, not only because there were entirely different regulations on the width of aisles and one thing and another, but because the management had been in business for some time and knew what it was doing, which was not true at Town and Country. And Town and Country literally doomed itself by these limited contracts that you had to sign. Farmers' Market thrived on intense competition while Town and Country starved on controls and exclusivity . Younger: But Eric went with me every day to work. And the only money that I could really make, because of' this very limiting contractual agreement was from the sale of things that I made myself after working hours . chali: What were you selling in your store? You were all alone in it, no partner, no helper?

Younger : I was all alone. Later on, I did hire a girl who painted and painted well. I was limited in my contract to selling only handmade things-- originals. Obviously, I didn't have the money to buy stock. So I took handmade articles on consignment, and this meant things in the field of art. And the European refugees who were coming in, people like Gertrude and Otto Natzler, the famous potters, had come with nothing but their knowledge and talent. I sold the first pottery they sold in this country.

Chall: How did you find them?

Younger: Oh, word kind of gets around, where there's someplace that will take miscellaneous numbers of items and almost anything that you can turn out.

Chall: Actually, you had probably one of the earliest boutiques--handmade, handcrafted--

Younger : Well, it wasn't a boutique in that sense, or at least I think of boutiques as being more clothing and carefully selected merchandise. And you see, this was one of the limitations in my lease; I could not sell clothing, because a master lease had already been let covering clothing. That was an area where I could have gotten a lot more merchandise. A good many of the people who wanted and who desperately needed to make money, primarily from Europe, were fine seamstresses and excellent designers, and I couldn't sell their things. I sold a very few pieces before I got into trouble.

I remember there was one woman, and I think she was from Austria, who made the most beautiful baby clothes I ever hope to see, and I got away with selling those for a little while. And then the people who had the master lease with the market management, though they did not sell baby clothes, were terrified that it was a challenge to their lease, and I had to stop selling the lovely handmade baby clothes . Chall: So you were selling pottery--

Younger : Paintings, some jewelry, mostly craft items, some textile things. That about covers the range of things, but there isn't much margin when you take things on consignment. But I still had to pay the market the fixed percentage of all my sales. I ended up working all night a good part of the time. Chall: What did you contribute? Paintings--

Younger: Things like hand-painted fabrics, fingertip towels, kitchen towels-- that kind of thing--paintings, anything else that would sell I learned to make, simply because the stock was so small. Wartime shortages were great, too. The only place that I could make a reasonable amount of money was on things that I had made myself after hours, or in the shop.

Chall: Was most of this going into paying the rent and the food for you and your baby?

Younger: Yes, yes. I had to have an income. And actually, it worked out to be an excellent education for our son.

Chall: Then he was at the state where he would have been wandering around a bit.

Younger: No, he was very slow to walk, which was a good thing. And he talked enough to make up for it.

Chall: Wasn't he crawling into your--

Younger: I kept him in a playpen in the shop. There was a room that was supposed to be a storeroom, but I actually didn't have enough stock to need a storeroom. I had a crib in there so I could put him down for his nap every day. He learned even more in the way of vocabulary and in the way of language skills by being there all the time with adults wandering in and out of that shop. He was talking in sentences by the time he was fifteen months old. I'd push him over every morning in his stroller. I11 THE YOUNGERS: IN AND OUT OF CIVILIAN LIFE, 1946-1952##

Younger: I am told by the White House that President Ford will forward my name to the Senate as one of the limited number of lay members .,* on the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. My interest in how kids learn may be more germane later on in the context of that political appointment that will be announced this week.

Chall: I won't go into it right now, but you have been, from what I've picked up here and there from you, you have been participating on boards having to do with libraries haven't you.

Younger: That's right. And the impetus was raising Eric under peculiar circumstances. Evelle was overseas. My father, who 'd always dreamed of having a boy now had the first grandson and the first boy, just enjoyed him tremendously and put a great deal of interest into his raising. Evelle's mother was the same, in a very different kind of a way. She too--her greatest joy in life was her only grandson. And between Evelle's mother, and my father, and me as arbitrator--believe me, when you've only got one, you need arbitration desperately. But he was an only grandchild on both sides. I was learning much about Eric's learning process with him being with me full time. I didn't feel I could take a job where I couldn't take him with me. It seemed to me that he was my responsibility.

Chall: It never occurred to you to leave him with your parents all day?

Younger: That's right. It wasn't convenient, but beyond that, I didn't think that that was the right way to raise a child, as long as I had the option of taking him with me to work. I very quickly found out that he was learning a great deal. Even at that age he was learning. And you know, I'm absolutely convinced that early childhood education is exceedingly important from my own experience of being in a situation where the child had to fit into a world which today we would reject as the best way in which to raise a young child. Or perhaps not. Perhaps young people are now making the same decision for reasons other than war. Chall: How many years did you have this little store? And by the way, did it have a name?

Younger : Yes, it was called the Art Mart. I kept it until my husband was coming home. I can't tell you which year that was. My impression is that he was gone pretty close to three years, which would make it probably 1945 or 1946, so that it would have been probably 2 112 years, something like that.

We came out well on the sale of the shop. There was enough good will built up--when I say "well," I'm talking in terms of I think it was $750, which in those days was a great deal of money.

Chall: By that time you'd paid for most of your lot?

Younger : Oh no, oh no, that was still going on. But the good will and the name, which fortunately I'd registered, did bring us the $750 when my husband came home, and we needed $750 very badly indeed.

Chall: Did they give them any money--I don't know whether they did that in World War 11--which was saved for them while they were overseas?

Younger: It seems to me that there was some severance pay. He had quite a bit of leave coming, and he came back with a serviceincurred injury, though it was certainly not a dramatic one. It was referred to as "jeep driver's disease." But it required surgery, so that he was hospitalized for--well, for the time that he studied for the California bar. He did his studying flat on his face at Birmingham General Hospital in Southern California, which is now a high school. "Jeep driver's disease" is a pyenital cyst at the end of the spine, which if you ride in a jeep up through the Khyber Pass and that sort of thing [laughing], you are subject to.

Chall: What an experience he must have had! He was all the time in that part of the Indian theater of the war?

Younger : Yes, he was all over that area, and of course, jeep was the only transportation they had, and frequently they would come to places where there would be railroad tracks in Af ghanis tan, but no roads, and they would put the jeep on the trains that. went through, where there was literally no way of getting through evenwith a four-wheel drive vehicle.

Chall: You found out all about that when he came home, I'm sure.

Younger : Yes. Unfortunately he didn't keep a good diary. That was too bad.

Chall: But he had plenty to Lalk about when he arrived. [laughter] Now then, were you restless in these war years--you were going to work every day with a baby at hand all the time. Did you have any kind of social life--your friends from college days--? Younger: Some, some, but it was pretty limited, because as I said, I had to go home and work awfully hard to make things on which I could make a better profit than I could on the consignment things.

Chall : So it was rather a pressured several years.

Younger : Yes, it was under intense pressure. We never knew what the news would be--whether the daily mail was to be dreaded or prayed for. But there were wives, most of them women I had gone to school with, who were, most of them, also with small children, most of them living at home. My sister's husband went overseas during this time, somewhat later on. And I remember that we did play bridge, I think one night a week, and that was my primary social activity.

Chall : Did you have a car at that time? You had learned to drive in Washington, as I recall.

Younger : Yes, I had a car, but we had to be exceedingly careful about where we went because gasoline was so short, so our social life was very much confined to how many gas coupons you had.

Chall : Now, when you got back to some kind of normal living, did you stay on in the Park La Brea flat for a while?

Younger: We did until my husband got out of the service--well, until he finished what was still service time in the hospital, and then took the bar examination. I remember that he had just gotten out of the service and was on terminal leave, which I think is the way that they picked up some money while using up accumulated leave. At the time that he took the examination to be an investigator in the district attorney's office, he had not yet had the result from the California bar examination. He came out number one on the civil service test for investigator and was moved down to number 36 or 37 because he was not a veteran under their regulations. He was still on terminal leave,and you didn't qualify for the service preference-- the break for having been in the service if you were still in the service [laughing]. So he came out number one on the examination, but he wasn't within the number that they could hire because he was on terminal leave, and technically was not a veteran.

Chall: Well, that must have been--

Younger: It came as quite a surprise to him. He was elated when he saw that he led the group that took the examination and then he was crushed when he found out that he wasn't a veteran because he was on terminal leave.

Chall: Technicalities, technicalities. Younger: Didn't make any sense at all really.

Chall: What did he do?

Younger: Well, the word came during that terminal leave period that he had passed the bar exam. My father, who had been in the city attorney's office years before, took him down and introduced him to the city attorney, and the city attorney hired him as a deputy. And he loved public law; his orientation prior to that time, of course, had been entirely in the public sector. So he was delighted.

But in the meantime we had to figure out someplace to move to, because the apartment was too small for three of us. I'd been sleeping in the living room all this time, so that Eric would have some privacy. But that really didn't work when my husband was back. It was pretty difficult. As a matter of fact I was sleeping on a couch that didn't--I don't think there were sofabeds in those days; I'm not sure. So it was a single bed, and there wasn't room for more than a single bed, so the two of us had to sleep on a single bed in the living room, and that wouldn't do for long. He was a large man and a heavy man.

Building an Exhibit Home in Pasadena

Younger: So we sold the lot, or our equity in the lot that we'd been buying, which had appreciated tremendously during this time, His decision had been a very good one, in spite of the fact that it had meant some rough years trying to make payments. But we sold the lot after we discovered that by being very clever about it we could get building materials. Building materials were very scarce, and we certainly didn't have enough money to make a down payment on anything, but we could build if we found a very inexpensive piece of property, and if we did it in a certain way.

I think that U.S. Plywood is still wondering what happened. But it occurred to us that if we were willing to build an all dry- wall house we could exchange their right to photograph and publicize the house, and advertise the house, for the chance to buy the materials wholesale. This was before dry-wall construction was accepted. It had been used for military buildings and that kind of thing, d-uring the war. But it was not yet accepted for residences.

We found a lot in Pasadena on an odd-shaped block that made it possible to cut this one particular lot into two, and we were able to sell the back half of it. It's right on the Arroyo, and it had a lovely view. Just above the Rose Bowl. We were able to Younger : sell the back half of it for enough to cover the price of the front half of it, because it apparently had been an estate or something, and it was just sitting there, and the price had not gone up on it. And on that we built the plywood house.

We hired a young architect who didn't real?ly do much more in the way of designing houses; he went into some other field. But he designed a very interesting house. I was interested in architecture too, and we worked very hard on the plans for that house. We used a product that was then entirely new called Weldtex for the exterior of the house and a great deal of glass. U.S. Plywood did indeed use it in a good many ads and brochures, because it was a demonstration of what could be done with dry-wall construction. The Los Angeles Times featured it on the cover of their colored Sundajr supplement and it had other coverage unrelated to U.S. Plywood's promotional campaign.

Chall: There was no problem with building codes in all of that?

Younger : Yes, we had to fight it out, because it was not an accepted form of home construction.

Chall: Yes, it was hard to get FHA money--

Younger: That's right. And then we used indoor planters and that sort of thing; which had not yet been used to any extent.

Chall: You were quite forward-looking. Did the two of you, you and your husband both have this idea?

Younger: He certainly had the idea that we had to do something about the living situation. I don't remember how much input he had into the concept of having an architect design a house.

Chall: The dry-wall idea?

Younger: That's right. This had to be sold all the way along the line. And the architect that we eventually found--we tried a number of people whom I'd been aware of or I'd met one place or another-- You see the school of fine arts and architecture were together at USC at the time that I was an undergraduate.

Chall: Some of these were your contacts.

Younger : So that I knew some of them and met others through architects that I'd gone to school with. But I think that the fellow that designed the house was actually only our second contact. We came back to him. The first one was a man that I had met when my husband was overseas, but he was so far out. Raphaelsoriano. Well, I knew that Younger: he believed that dry-wall construction was going to be a coming form of architecture, particularly for an area like Los Angeles where you don't have the great variations in heat and that sort of thing. And I had learned a good deal from him along these lines. But he was--he was just too far out as far as what we could live in or what we wanted to, and he was extremely strong-minded, and we would have ended up living in his house instead of our house. 60 the second architect--

Chall: Do you happen to remember his name?

Younger: Yes, Griswald Raetze. But my husband got very enthusiastic about the project, and had a good deal of input into what we wanted and what we did on the lot, which came out an odd shape because of dividing it. It was wider than it was deep, which was an unusual kind of a lot to build on and which calls for a different shape house than you would normally build.

But it was an interesting venture, and I think U.S. Plywood came out very well in the exchange; there was no other way in the world that we could have gotten the materials. We ended up by doing almost all of the finishing ourselves, because we couldn't afford to do it any other way.

For instance, we had a built-in dining room table, which was probably the best dining room table that we ever' had, but we made it a part .of the dry-wall construction. It was a beauty, an absolute beauty, but I remember, we finished that table top ourselves. It really was a very successful table. But again, this was part of what U.S. Plywood was interested in--

Chall: Using theproducts.

Younger: That's right--in new and different ways and in making dry wall quality construction. And so we came out all right on that too.

Chall: Were your walls plywood all through the house?

Younger: We did use some plasterboard, which was also new and which U.S. Plywood obtained for us. And you see, we were getting it all at a very advantageous price, because they were extremely interested. But they did not insist on any input into the house. The only thing that they insisted on was that we live up to our agreement that it be entirely dry wall. But they wanted as many things built-in as was possible, because this helped too from the stand- point of their advertising, and that explains the dining room table, the free form planters in the cement slab floors, built-in bedroom furniture and a number of other innovations.

Chall: I see. Well, you were experimenting. Younger: We were indeed.

Chall: So, did you live in the house?

Younger: Oh yes, we lived in the house--I was pregnant during the time we were building it. I remember that vividly. We were still living in Park'La Brea and weekends we would spend over there painting the house. And I remember how deathly sick I was [laughing]. Every time I opened a can of paint I got sick. But we were more anxious to be able to move than whether or not I got sick [laughing].

I remember our son--we had a Dalmatian puppy. This was one of the things that he desperately wanted and that we thought needed--a dog.

Chall: In the Park La Brea--?

Younger: Strictly illegal, but we knew we were going to be moving out, because we would have been moved out very rapidly when we got the PUPPY =

I remember one weekend when we were over working on the house, that our son wanted to paint too. He, who wasn't nearly old enough to be painting, painted the dog instead of the house. And that poor little Dalmatian came out flat white, because flat white was the only thing we could trust our son with. [laughter]

Chall: The black spots didn't show any more?

Younger: That's right. We had to clean that poor animal up, and that poor little thing's skin was so sore from cleaning it up, but we had to get the paint off. That was in the day of oil-based paint and turpentine was the only thing that worked. Eric had done a good job.

Chall: And by this time Eric was about three or four?

Younger: No, he wasn't--well, let's see, he would have been between three and four probably, which is a little young for painting.

Chall: Then in the meantime, was your husband working for the city?

Younger: He was working for the Los Angeles City Attorney's office.

Chall: And there was no problem about his working for the city and living in Pasadena?

Younger: Not at that time, no. Things were much smaller then than they are now. And shortly after we moved to Pasadena, he applied for and got the job of city prosecutor of Pasadena, and that of course was a Younger: big step for him. Again, it certainly didn't pay very well, but it was a position of community importance and it was excellent experience. It had previously been a half-time job and--like everything else-changed with the coming of peace.

Chall: Not so far to drive either.

Younger: That's right. So we became quite involved in the community then, largely because he was the city prosecutor.

Chall: I guess this would have been about 1948.

Younger: No, not that late, must have been '47, probably--

Chall: When he changed positions?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: Now, at this time--let's see, this was your second child.

Younger: That I was pregnant with. Yes.

Chall: And this is the child that died during the polio--

On the Lecture Circuit for a Fee

Younger: Yes. There was an epidemic that year. And our son had a cold; he had just entered kindergarten at the time that the baby was born. I was lecturing up until I wasn't acceptable due to my condition.

Chall: You didn't tell me about that.

Younger: Oh, I'm sorry. Again, I needed a job to supplement our income that was within the limits I had always placed on employment, which was that I could spend the majority of the time with our son, and lecturing fit. I could make good money for a short time period away from home.

Chall: What were you lecturing about?

Younger: Anything anybody wanted to hear.

Chall: You mean you were just a private free-lance lecturer?

Younger: No, I had an agent. Chall: . What subjects?

Younger: Gosh, I remember one series I did for, I think it was Bullock's, in their auditorium, on crafts for the homemaker.

Chall: By that time you should have known about it.

Younger : Yes, I did, the hard way. But, my audience was made up entirely of people with sore feet, which is sort of discouraging to a lecturer.

Chall: [laughter] Just rather tired.

Younger: They were women who had been shopping and who needed a place to sit down, and there were placards throughout the store saying that there was a program in the auditorium that day, and nobody cared what I talked about.

I'd done Red Cross volunteer work from the minute we moved in in Pasadena, which involved teaching crafts. There was a rather large army hospital--a facility developed from a large hotel in Pasadena, called the "Vista Del Arroyo." I don't know what they call it now, and I don't know whether it's still a military facility or not. I don't believe it's ever been reopened as a hotel. But one of the branches of the service had taken it over during the war for housing. Then when the war was over they had so many people who needed rehabilitation, many of whom were moved into that facility. So there was a good deal of Red Cross work connected--

Chall: Were these service men?

Younger : Yes, yes, veterans who needed rehabilitation of all kinds. There were a great many volunteer Red Cross activities needed in that community, because of this large facility.

Chall: I see, you were teaching the men in the-

Younger: In the hospital. So that I had to learn the crafts I didn't know for the Red Cross work. And then the others came easily. But that was just one series. I was talking on homemaking, about which I knew very little, and all kinds of ridiculous related subjects-- on politics actually, too.

Chall: How did you get the idea for doing this? Of course, you were a good public speaker and debater.

Younger: Yes, and that was the reason that the agent was willing to take someone who wasn't going to make great big fees, and she wasn't going to get a big commission, because she had a certain need for people who fit in at a much lower pay scale than well-known lecturers. Chall: So it was a lecture circuit. How did you get the idea to do this? Did you know about the lecture circuit?

Younger: No, didn't know a thing about the lecture circuit, but I knew that there ought to be some way that I could sell the ability to speak. As I say, we did what we had to do out of economi.c necessity. That was the one skill which I could utilize, and still not give up the raising of our son, and through which1 could make better money, certainly, than I could on an hourly basis.

Chall: So you were doing that at the time that you were pregnant?

Younger: That's right.

Chall: Until you were too pregnant to continue with it.

Younger: That's right, and I returned to it afterwards.

Chall: Your baby was born then sometime in 1947.

Younger: She was born in 1948 I believe, September 1948.

Chall: And she immediately became ill-or the two of you became ill?

Younger: Six weeks. No, not the two of us, I got polio two years later.

Republican Party Speakers Bureau as a Volunteer/l/l

Younger: When I was living in Park La Brea I had gone into a Republican headquarters. I remember it was a store front on La Brea Avenue and that I walked, taking Eric with me in his stroller. This was after Sue went to work for me one day a week. I felt very strongly that people had to participate in government, and that there were going to be a lot of decisions that had to be made when the war was over that had been left in abeyance during the time of a huge national commitment. So I went over to the Republican headquarters on La Brea. And there was one lady in there; I was terribly impressed. I was sure that I was in the infamous smoke-filled back room.

I know now that the headquarters were donated, that she was a volunteer, that the furniture was bummed from somebody else, and that when she went through her desk for the card that you filled out telling them what you could do, that that was probably the only thing in the desk. But I didn't know that then. I assumed that she was an exceedingly important person. Younger: I was filling the card out there in the room, and when I came to IIorganizations to which you belong," I said, "Do you mean organizations like Phi Beta Kappa?" And I'll never forget her answer to that one, because she said, "If you think you can get your sorority sisters to vote Republican, yes, put it down." It was then that I began to have suspicions that there were things about politics that I didn't know [laughter]. What a marvelous answer. But they never called me, so apparently I made no more impression on them than they made on me. But this was my first effort to become involved; it was still during the war years.

Chall: Was it near the time of an election?

Younger: Well, of course, every two years there were elections, so it could have been a.local election. It could have been 1946, something like that. Well, there would have been assemblymen , congressmen, et cetera. But in Los Angeles, as is true of all of California--

Chall: That's nonpartisan in the city.

Younger: That's right, those are nonpartisan elections in the city and county. But there were--and it may.have been a Senate election year; I don't know, I don't remember.

Chall: But something must have been--

Younger: Something triggered an interest in it.

Chall: So you didn't do anything.

Younger: No, because they never called me. Belonged to the wrong organization.

Chall: [laughing] You didn't have sorority sisters.

Younger: But that was the first venture. And then when we moved to Pasadena, it was rather natural that we become involved in politics--that both of us become involved in politics. And we joined the Young Republicans. I think there may have been, oh somewhere between six and ten members of the Pasadena Young Republicans. I remember the year that my husband was elected president, which I think was the year we joined; there were only five votes cast, and one of them was his [laughing]. And we've since met and laughed with the lawyer who was the other candidate. And of course, he voted for himself, so that the two 'deciding votes were somebody else.

But the chairman of the Republican State Central Committee, a man named Ed Shattuck, came and spoke to the Young Republicans, and we had all scrounged among our friends to get any kind of an audience out at all, and it was still pitifully small, probably Younger: thirty people at the most. And afterwards, I went up to him and told him about the experience of trying to volunteer. He'd spoken on the great need for volunteers, and I said, "All of this is fine, but I have tried to volunteer, and never heard a word back."

He said, ''What can you do?" And I said, "Well, I can speak; I can't do anything else. I could address envelopes or something of the kind, but speaking is the thing I'm best at.I1 And he was, I guess, the vice-chairman from Southern California at that point. I don't think he was chairman of the state central committee yet; he may have been.

Chall : I can check that.*

Younger: But he said right off the top of his head, "Would you like to be the chairman of the speakers bureau of the Republican State Central Committee?" Now, what I didn't know was that there wasn't any speakers bureau. [laughter] I became not only the chairman but the only member.

Chall: I see, and you weren't even on the state central committee?

Younger: Oh, no, oh my, no. I wasn't even clear on what the state central committee was.

Chall: So it was a very fine appointment [laughing].

Younger: Yes, it was,very impressive, terribly impressive.

Chall : I couldn't figure out why you started working as chairman in 1947 when you hadn't been appointed. Now I understand.

Younger: Yes.

Chall: Because there was a year there that didn't make sense to me.

Younger: That's why it didn't make any sense, because it was such a-- He was the kind of person who knew darned well that if he turned me aside after 1'd already been turned aside once, that I wouldn't be back again. And I'm sure that everybody that he inspiked to political effort that night was appointed to something very impressive. Because the truth of the matter is that there weren't that many Republicans to talk to. [laughs] You know, just coming out of the war years, and there wasn't very much in the way of organization going.

*Edward Shattuck was vice-chairman of the Republican State Central Committee, 1946-1948, and chairman, 1948-1950. Chall: So you all had positions now.

Younger: Just about anybody who made a good faith offer that he took any kind of a liking to ended up with a position.

Chall: And then what--when did you hear from him again?

Younger: Well, I didn't wait to hear from him.

Chall: You were off speaking then.

Younger: That's right. I remember the announcement was carried in the newspapers.

Chall: Oh, it was?

Younger: Oh, my yes, this was big news, the newspapers also being ignorant of the fact that there wasn't any speakers' bureau.

Chall: How had it been put in? Did the Young Republicans put it in or did Mr. Shattuck?

Younger: I think the state committee probably had some kind of a press secretary, probably a volunteer. There wasn't very much political news.

Chall: Not much in Pasadena at that time.

Younger: Well, even the Los Angeles Times carried it and the Mirror was then in existence, and it carried it. This was a big announcement. The fact that I had no background at all, and that kind of thing was-- [laughing]. Ed was an aggressive vice-chairman, or I don't think he would have made the appointment on the spot, or could have gotten a news story out of it. But -he announced it.

Chall: My, that's unusual [laughing] .

Younger: Yes, it's rather an unusual way to--

Chall: Well, in the meantime, you were doing, speaking. You were on your lecture circuit, so you would have had an opportunity to talk about politics.

Younger: That's right. Well, I became an immediate political expert, you see, because of my high position. [laughs]

Chall: This was used by your agent? Younger: That's right. And while she really wasn't much interested in having to carry a partisan label, this did somewhat fill out my very thin recommendations [laughs].

Chall: Did it get you in front of any of the Republican women's clubs?

Younger: Yes, very rapidly. But, of course, that was volunteer work--the agent wasn't involved.

Chall: Federations, and so forth?

Younger: Yes, very rapidly, and Young Republican clubs and that sort of thing. The Republican Assembly at that time, believe it or not, was considered the most progressive organization in the state.* That was another source of audiences.

Chall: But you weren't paid?

Younger: Oh my, no, good heavens!

Chall: When you spoke before the Republicans, that wasn't part of your paying--

Younger: No way ! As a matter of fact, you paid your own expenses, and if it was a dinner meeting you bought your own dinner, because everybody was that broke.

Chdl : That's right. But at least that 'gave you more experience, and I'm sure you must have met many people along the way.

Younger: I did, and they turned out to be significant people, because the numbers being so few, they were the ones who very quickly ascended into more important positions. It wasn't difficult at all to get involved in politics in those years and to get very deeply involved.

Broad-Based Community Activities

Younger: I had in the meantime been asked to join the Junior League in Pasadena. And the Junior League in Pasadena was not the social-- although there were always overtones of social acceptability in becoming a member of the Junior League. But they were really interested inworkers, as opposed to some leagues in those days that really were purely socid organizations. I think it would be true to say that now the Junior League generally has become very much involved in some very worthwhile projects. The Head Start Project, for instance, in many cities was initially Junior League.

*Henceforth the term Assembly will refer to the California Republican Assembly not to the state legislature. Chall: Were they interested in. projects in Pasadena at that time?

Younger: Yes, I remember that there was one in which I worked rather briefly that had to do with child care centers. And child care centers were an entirely new concept. This was an outgrowth of some kind of a center for disturbed children I believe. Somebody was smart enough to realize that there was a category of people who needed child care centers for working mothers. And that was a league project.

The league wasn't very big either, so that the people that I met ther.e are many of them still very good friends and have been worthwhile citizens in the intervening years. Oh, for instance , I met the lady there who founded the Alcoholism Council in Pasadena, which was the first of the big volunteer efforts outside of Alcoholics Anonymous which attempted to educate the public on the significance of alcoholism.

Chall: That was the late forties then.

Younger: That's right, and that started in Pasadena. Evelle, of course, was of much more interest to them than I was. But it was because she too was a member of the Junior League that it was something of of a bridge. But he, as a prosecutor, was seeing the implications of alcoholism on misdemeanor crimes committed in the city.

So it was a rather'different kind of a Junior League experience than was common in some cities at that time.

Chall: The two of you were quite active then in the community.

Younger: Extremely active. And I remember my husband was extremely active in the American Legion. Now, the American Legion was very important in those days, because there were so many veterans that needed so many services and a great deal of legislation was needed to expedite veterans' reassimilation into communities and civilian life. And the legion was the place they went to for their services. The American Legion was very much a service oriented organization then.

Chall: My recollections of the American Legion probably started after that when they were so active in the whole idea of "UnAmericanism."

Younger: That was later. It was much more service oriented. And very much oriented to the immediate needs of veterans. Some of the people from Pasadena did go on to very important positions in the American Legion statewide and nationwide. The director of veterans affairs, for instance, for many years in this state was a Democrat, and was a good friend of ours from the American Legion in Pasadena. Louis Gough, who was the national commander of the American Legion, Younger: much later on, of course, I think was probably the local Pasadena commander at the time that Evelle became active in Post 13. And the wives were almost as active as the husbands were, because with so many veterans and with that huge facility there, there was a good deal of need for service to veterans. So that the political overtones of the American Legion had not yet coalesced,

Chall: Was there a conscious decision by you and your husband, or maybe more on his part, to become politically active in order to move ahead in his field, or was this the way you both operated? You were both so active.

Younger: I think that it was a very natural kind of a thing. I do not remember a ,specific time at which he said, "I want to devote my life to being in public office." It may be that I've forgotten that, but in my memory there was never a discussion about it, per se. It was a rather natural evolution.

The Relationship Between Community Activity and Education

Chall: You were always a very, very active person, even when you were in school, particularly when you were in school, so this seems to be a natural for you. Your father and your uncle were not active in politics, but they were in government in a sense, so I can see that it would be an outgrowth for you. But I didn't know his background enough to--

Younger: Well, his having been in the FBI and then in the service, you see, these things all led in that same direction. As he grew up he decided he wanted to be district attorney of Denver. I think that something is important here, and that is that the reason that people like my sister and myself were so active was because we were raised in a typically middle income family where the emphasis had been placed in our minds on obligations, not only of citizenship, but obligations to learn as much as you could possibly learn and grow. If there was an opportunity to get active in something we did. And it was a selfish thing as well as having some benefit to the community. Because our entire lifestyle had been oriented to if you can trade energy and input into a learning process, you must do it, because you can' t afford to buy the learning process.

Chall: And not because it may pay off.

Younger: No, not at all, because that's the only way you're going to get this input. Chall: Education. Because education is so important?

Younger: That's right, that's right. And this very much carried over into those years.

Chall: So you did it even when you were a mother and a housewife, if the opportunity came.

Younger: Very definitely.

Chall: Well, you certainly put a great deal of energy into learning, and in a sense to giving and participating.

Younger: Well, that was the price of learning. We were investing in growth. I don't know whether we would have had so many very rich years from the standpoint of experience and learning if we had been able to afford to live differently. But we did everything we could. And my husband had very much the same feeling: if he was going, to get anyplace in life, he was going to have to participate. Because he was starting from scratch. He wasn't even a native, which I was.

This is a philosophy which I'm afraid that young people don't have today, largely because they have more money, which gives them more options. If you want to learn about government today, you can probably afford to go to a school and learn about government. There are many fine participatory courses now. We were a little early. And while we took courses in government certainly, both my sister and I, the really good education in government was obviously in being involved in government. And my husband felt the same way.

He came from a family that had been economically a very poor family, where he had had to put a great deal of himself into a great many different kinds of activities just in order to get his education. And it was perfectly clear that he wasn' t going to succeed at anything unless he was willing to make the first moves. He knew, as we did that there are many different kinds of wealth-- and investment . Chall: Did he ever practice law privately?

Younger: For a very short time, yes, before and after the Korean War.

Now, I got polio in 1950. We'd had the baby, the baby had died of polio in 1948, and that immediately led me into the March of Dimes, because I felt an obligation.

Chall: After '48. Younger : That's right. My sister had had polio when we were small children, and it was obvious that we were one of those families that didn't have any resistance. This intrigued me and it also caused me to become active in the March of Dimes because it was the place that was trying to do something about it. We learned much later that Eric had also had it and many of our friends and their families were affected.

Chall: All of this was in the Pasadena area, so that in a few years you were quite well known, I should think.

Younger : Yes, in many funny ways that were just purely coincidence. For instance, I remember the forerunner of the Times Women of the Year awards. I think it was initiated -by the Los Angeles Mirror before it became the Times-Mirror, although it was always owned by the Times. It was a tabloid; it came. out in the evening.

The Mirror decided to have this women-oriented single issue (there was no ceremony or anything of the kind), and we had understood when they called that they were looking for women leaders. This was when we were living in Pasadena. And as it turned out, the pictures that they used and the women they selected for the double-page spread were indeed women from different walks of life, but they had little to do with community leadership and a great deal more to do with glamorous pictures. And we were rather horrified. I remember my picture was published in that issue right next to an extremely attractive car hop in a drive-in restaurant.

Chall: Really?

Younger: But this wasn't at all what we had understood was the emphasis. But of course, this again is a comment on the change in the views on the role of women in our society. Because they had quite a mixture of kinds of women. I've forgotten who the other women were. The emphasis was on sex, it wasn't really on achievement at all.

Chall: It's hard to believe. That was really the woman of the year award?

Younger: It was the beginning of the concept of recognizing women.

Chall: They must have had a different title for that.

Younger: Oh, 1'm sure they did.

Chall: Do you have a copy of that someplace?

Younger: Someplace, but where I don't know. Chall: Well, let's see, I guess we were just at the point where we were recognizing that you were very active and you were undoubtedly taking leadership positions.

I think I read that in 1950 your husband was-

Younger: He was Los Angeles County Republican Central Committee chairman.

Chall: Then he was becoming quite active in the party itself?

Younger: Yes. But again you have to put it in the context of what the party was, and I assume that this applies to the Democratic party as well as to the Republican party.

Chall: You had to run for that position, didn't you?

Younger: Yes, the county central committee is elective. But I doubt very much that every district even had enough candidates to fill the ballot. I suspect that it was that poverty stricken. So that it was relatively easy for a man who had been the county chairman of the Young Republicans to become county central committee chairman. They were looking for new blood largely because they didn't have any blood, not because they wanted to get rid of the old blood. There wasn't any!

Chall: So he ran and he made it.

The Korean War and the Move to Washington, D. C.

Younger: Yes. And it was also in that year that he got the call. I was just beginning to walk again. I had the adult form of polio which is weakening rather than paralytic. I was out of the hospital; a therapist was coming to the house. I was learning to walk again, when on a Saturday morning the telephone rang--the telephone was on the bed and I answered it. It was long distance from Washington, which in those days was very rare, and it was for my husband, who was shaving, I remember that. I called him to the phone. He had been active in the National Guard up until maybe six months or so before. Shortly before the Korean War he had gone into the inactive reserve, so he was not eligible for recall during the Korean War. But when the call came the question was very simple 11voluntary or involuntary?" You are going to be recalled into the armed services either way, and this time it will be the air force rather than the army, because General Murray, who was one of the very few who had left the bureau at the same time my husband, but he had stayed in the service afterwards-- Chall: And already a general!

Younger: Yes. He was a young man--a graduate of Harvard Business School. General Murray ordered that everybody who left the bureau in order to keep their commission be called by name in order to organize the Air Force Office of Special Investigations--which is an internal watchdog operation.

So we sold our home in Pasadena so that we could be together in Washing ton. [Interview 3: August 2, 1976]##

Chall: When we left off the last time, it was 1950 and you were on your way to Washington, D.C. Your husband had been ordered to return and take part in the Korean War in the air force, as I recall.

Younger: Yes. They set up the Office of Special Investigations, and the head of it was a man who was one of the very few agents who had left the FBI, the bureau, when my husband had. There were just a handful of them that kept their military standing. They were all called by name regardless of whether or not they had any military standing. It was an internal intelligence operation.

Chall: And that's where they wanted him to be?

Younger: Yes. They needed everybody that they could get that had had training in that field.

Chall: So you sold your home in Pasadena, took the child, and went off.

Younger: Yes, we certainly did. Off we went! Complete with white rats. [laughter ]

Chall: Oh! Your little boy was then--what? In school?

Younger: Eric must have been about six and one-half.

Chall: So he couldn't part with his pets.

Younger: Well, not only that, but we wanted things to be as normal as possible for him. We were terribly disappointed. A move was the last thing we had in mind. Evelle was with a law firm, and here we . were going back into the service.

Chall: How long did it last? Younger: I think it was probably a year and a half to two years; we were in Washington a little over a year. Then he was sent to a base out near Bellflower. That's in Los Angeles County. Apparently there was need for setting up a branch there as well. And the nation was again at war--although it was a limited action and very different.

Chall: So you were on the move again. During your year in Washington with your child, did you work or give speeches--do anything of that sort?

Younger: I did a little bit. I had become a provisional in the Junior League in Pasadena. The one in Pasadena was very active and useful and was very helpful in the community. But I had not completed my provisional training. So I completed that in Washington and was a docent at the National Gallery before they got the recorded tapes and head phone system. It was a very interesting kind of experience. We were determined that this recall would be a positive experience for all of us.

Of course, helping Eric make the transition involved spending a lot of time being with him and taking him places. We frequently would spend the afternoons, for instance, in the galleries of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Marian and Hugh Scott were dear friends from before, and they were kind enough to kind of take us under their wings. We had a number of political experiences that weren't really political back there because we knew more people in government than we did in the military, by far. Evelle had been the county chairman at the time that we went back, and we knew most of the congressmen before we went. We had known Scotty and Marian--he was then a member of Congress--and they were just good, personal friends. That was tremendously helpful. I think it was a marvelous experience for Eric. And he remembered it so vividly. I'm incredulous at the amount he remembers about everything we did, every place we went-- much more than I do, much more.

Chall: He was young and at an impressionable age. Did you put him into a school?

Younger: Yes. We found a house that was in terrible condition back there, but in an awfully nice location. It was an absentee owner. I just drove around until I'd see a vacant house and then try to find out about it. This was a house that was owned by somebody who lived in Florida. The house was in just dreadful condition but it was a very nicely designed house; it had been designed by an architect. Though it was a very small house, it was a colonial house and we had I don't know how many acres of ground. The owner didn't know the house was vacant but he did know it was in very bad shape. We were in the District, right on the Maryland line. Younger : We faced Rock Creek Park, which was just an incredibly nice kind of existence, and he [Eric] could walk to school. Of course, schooling was even then a problem in the District.

Chall: Was this a private school?

Younger : No. We looked into St. Albans, at the National Cathedral, a little bit when we were looking in other parts of the city for a place to live, simply because the school situation was grim then. But when we found this house, there was a kind of a neighborhood school, and it was, I would say, probably fifty-fifty--maybe 60 percent black.

Chall: Integrated?

Younger : Yes, and that was perfectly acceptable. The schools that were not acceptable were where they were 90 percent and more non-white. We didn't think that this proved anything, to put him into a school where he was very much of a minority. We could go along with an even break, but we couldn't go along with a terribly heavy preponderance of--you know, when racial things were just beginning to get quite tense back there. And they were.

Chall: So in that school he really got along all right, then.

Younger : Got along fine.

Chall: It probably was a good experience for him.

Younger : Yes, I thought it was a fine experience for him. He came in one day, I remember, awfully bloody. I think my husband was home. This was when we had just barely gotten him enrolled in school; he was in the first grade, I guess. He came home covered with blood, not badly injured but looking like he was drawing his last breath. My husband asked him how it happened, thinking, "Good heavens, we've made a terrible mistake," or something. Well, it turned out that the little girl down the street had hit him and, after much confession, he came up with the remark that he hit her back first. [laughter] So that somewhat allayed our concerns.

Chall: [laughter] So I guess though it was bloody, it was a good, fair fight.

Younger : It certainly was, particularly in view of the fact that he hit her back first. [laughter]

Chall: Then when you moved to Bellflower--?

Younger: We moved, actually, to East Pasadena; it was pretty much on a straight line to Bellflower. Chall: I see. So you were back on home ground, practically.

Younger: Yes, but it was very brief, really. Again, we tried to make a home of it, but we knew it was a temporary situation, and we still didn't know whether he'd be sent .to Korea or how long we'd be there.

The experience in Washington was an interesting one. I remember, for instance, that the Nixons came for dinner one Sunday afternoon. We had two terribly aggressive, nasty white ducks. One of them had broken a wing someplace along the line, which didn't add anything to its general appearance; they weren't even pretty, you know, because here was one with this floppy, filthy wing. We never did know how that happened, and there was nothing to be done about it. But I remember that one of the ducks bit one of the Nixon girls, who were just a little younger than Eric, and it ended the pleasant af ternoon very rapidly. [laughter]

Chall: Was she badly hurt?

Younger: No, but if a duck wants to bite, it can. It's a nasty bite. The beak itself clamps down very hard on a small child. I remember it as being a perfectly disastrous occasion. [laughter] We had hoped to have a pleasant afternoon and it was just terrible.

Chall: You were entertaining your Senator, weren't you?

Younger: That's right. We didn't try again.

Chall: Is that right? Even without the children?

Younger: We did have dinner with them one night, I remember that, and I think he was probably the one who got us the Senate passes, that kind of thing. Of course, we had known him since the time he'd been a member of Congress.

I do remember another Sunday night when my husband had invited about fifteen congressmen that we knew to dinner. It was early in the summer when school was out, and the weather was perfectly ghastly. We'd invited the husbands and wives, but all the wives had gone home, for an excellent reason--because of this nasty, hot, steaming weather so typical of a Washington summer.

I remember making what the family affectionately called "Lobster Cuspidor" for the congressmen that night. I went into the living room to see if the gentlemen were ready to come to dinner, but I had left the Lobster Cuspidor on the very small dining table, and our Dalmation named Sweetie Face had eaten about a quarter of it by the time I got back and got drunk on the sherry. (That told me a little something about the recipe.) Younger: She sat in a comer burping the rest of the evening, propped against the two sides [laughing] of the wall. Fortunately, nobody but me knew what had happened. I added a little bit more sauce--I didn't have any more lobster--and put it back under the broiler, and presumably none of them knew. [laughter]

Chall: It was probably so laced with whatever you put into it that nobody would know! [laughter]

Younger : My dog was certainly drunk, and every time I would look across the room and see her sitting there, I realized what I had done. [laughter]

Chall: Uh my. I guess you took care of all the entertaining yourself. Did you have help with the dishes or anything of this sort?

Younger : No. We weren't in a financial situation to have help.

Chall: And were you regularly on a social basis with the legislators, the congressmen?

Younger: We knew them better than we knew anyone else, really.

Chall: So you felt this was your social life.

Younger: Pretty much. And they were marvelously entertaining, stimulating people.

Chall: Was it also done partly to keep your ties in with the party?

Younger: Not really, no. We had no idea when we'd be civilians again. They were just simply the people we knew.

Chall: What about Senator Knowland? He was in the Senate at that time.

Younger: We only saw Helen and Bill I think probably once. As you know, he was an unusual personality, and I could never really quite figure him out. She was always perfectly charming, but you always had the feeling that there was some tension. We didn't have much in common, really.

Chall: And Congressman Werdel? He was in Congress at the time?

Younger: Quite obviously, we had no relationship with him.

Chall: Why quite obviously? This was before 1952.

Younger: That's right. We had known of him in party circles previously, which was probably the most obvious reason. He was from the extreme right wing of the party. Chall : He had been all along, then.

Younger: Yes, yes. At least as far as I remember, he had been. I don't know that we'd ever even met him; there was no reason to. It was predominantly those from Southern California, south of the Tehachapis.

Chall: At the time, Mr. Nixon was a Senator, and you'd known him since he was a congressman--

Younger : Yes.

Chall: --and you felt comfortable with him, politically and--

Younger: Not really comfortable, I don't think. I think that we had a kind of a mutual respect. My husband was not particularly comfortable with him. My sister and Mrs. Nixon had been in school at the same time, though I think that they didn't overlap as much--you know, things telescope as you remember back. But actually my sister is probably three to four years younger than Mrs. Nixon, so that they probably knew each other superficially if at all.

Chall: This was at what school?

Younger: At the University of Southern California. I remember at the time having a strong impression that Betty knew her, .and she was, as always, lady enough not to deny that she knew my sister [laughter]; comparing their actual classes there's very little chance that they really did know each other.

Chall: You can be in the same university and hardly touch at all.

Younger: That's right. Of course, USC was much smaller then, so that probably there was more feeling of knowing other people.

Chall: So your social life was mainly the people you had already known.

Younger: I would say so, yes, and a few military. But I was never good at military life. Of course, it's true too of political life in Washington, where there is so much consciousness of protocol, which Californians are apt to take pretty lightly. Most of that particular congressional group were very little older than we were. Some were younger. Craig Hosmer, for instance, was in my sister's class at school. A number of them had been at USC law school when she was.

Chall: Betty--is that what you call her?

Younger: Yes--Elizabeth Zeigler. She's the superior court judge. [laughter] They're going to be blackballed by all of the steamship companies, I'm sure. They're on a cruise now which was supposed to take them up Younger: through the Scandinavian countries. A few years ago, they were on the Linblatt Explorer when it ran into an iceberg in the Antarctic.

Chall: That's your.sister and her husband?

Younger : Yes. At the South Pole, actually, and were eventually rescued by the Chilean navy. This time, I got a card from her (fortunately it was postmarked because she was obviously in a sufficient dither that she didn't put down where they were); it was mailed from Helsinki. They have bent a propeller near a Russian port. The choice was between going to dry dock in a Russian port without papers and limping to Helsinki, which they apparently voted to do. So they're having a somewhat unusual trip again this time.

Chall: Always an adventure.

Younger : Yes. I don't know how in the world a married couple of a conservative bent manages to get into the troubles they do by taking a cruise. [laughter]

Chall: It just goes to show but I don't know what it goes to show.

Younger: That's right. There's a message there.

Chall: Let's see. [referring to papers] I don't have a list of the various people who were in Congress in the 1950s. These are Republicans whom you entertained?

Younger: I remember Marian and Craig Hosmer were there; Oakly Hunter and his wife--I don't remember exactly how we knew them. Oh, I know how we knew them--in spite of the fact that he was from I think around the Fresno area--they were close friends of Ginger and Glen Lipscomb. Eric knew the Lipscomb daughters. We saw a lot of them. ShirleyandDonald Jackson, the Hillings--

There were a number of that category. Most of them were brand new at being congressmen, they all had good senses of humor, they were all pretty broke as we were, and they were in no way with enough stature that they were being invited to big, fancy affairs or anything of the kind. So it was a fun kind of time to be with a new congressional class that was probably behaving somewhat uncongressional.

I remember that Carl Hinshaw was still alive at the time, and he was the dean of 'the California delegation. He was from the district in which we lived in Pasadena. Carl would call from time to time; I think he was a widower, and he would call from time to time and invite us out. He had kind of a rakish streak about him Younger: too. He certainly knew the ropes much better than most of them did, but his tastes were not altogether strictly protocol-related. We got lots of fun insights into various things through Carl simply because he was a little offbeat and he was lonesome, and we were from the home district, and we'd known him slightly before. He was the man who designed the Pasadena Freeway; he was an engineer. I guess it was the first of the freeways. Of course, today it looks like an absolutely terrible design. But it was the first freeway in Southern California, and I suspect it may have been in the entire country. He was an interesting person, and a lonely person at the same time. He was happy to have us.

Chall: And you were happy to go out with him from time to time.

Younger: Yes. And never anything fancy because, again, he was not a wealthy man. Nobody was.

Chall: Life in Washington was costly, I take it.

Younger: Well, if there were more exciting places to go, we didn't discover them. I expect there were many fancier things to do and we could have been heartbroken about not being included, but this was wartime again and we found ourselves very happy with discovering Chinese restaurants. I remember Carl's favorite haunts were the oyster bars, down along the Potomac. There were some of the newsmen that-- as a matter of fact, I think that's where we got to know Roberta and Bob Hartman, later top aide and speechwriter for President Ford. I think he was head of the Los Angeles Times bureau then, or maybe not head of it. They too were in the same category of just people who were living and working in Washington and at that point still felt a little more closely aligned to Californians than they did to Washingtonians .

Chall: Yes, I guess it takes awhile.

Younger: Yes.

Chall: What were they interested in? Did they talk a lot about what was happening in the Congress--the legislation?

Younger: Oh yes, yes. And as I say, most of them were marvelous conversa- tionalists. Most of the wives were contemporaries, the kids were apt to be close to the same ages. While we certainly weren't a part of their close circle, the fact remains that there were enough of them and they were clinging closely enough together that when they had parties, they were nice enough to include us. They had great senses of humor and spaghetti, and salad, and french bread was an elegant party. Younger : Shirley and Don Jackson, for instance. He's one of the funniest men alive when he wants to be. We saw as much of them as anybody else. They had just bought a house, I remember, and he no more was cut out to be domesticated than anybody under the sun. I remember one Sunday afternoon, we went out to their tract house, and we took Eric with us. Don had just finished his great labors on their new lawn. Eric, of course, was bored to death; they didn't have any children. We was wandering around out front. Don's unrepeatable remarks about that brat on his new lawn were hilariously funny. [laughter] He didn't realize it was our little boy. Poor kid out there! He didn't know about new lawns, either.

' Chall: Eric didn't realize about new lawns?

Younger : No, and neither did Don. Or about proud parents. But it was a funny time because they were having a great new experience and a great new insight. We got to share some of it, and we thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated that.

Chall: It sounds as if this was one of the pleasanter times of your life over that past almost a decade--well, not quite; maybe half a dozen years--when you were away from your husband during the other war. Then coming back and building your house and being ill and all the other problems you'd had, this must have been nice.

Younger: That's right. We went with the understanding that the only way that it would make any sense at all was if we took full advantage of every opportunity to do everything we could--to see as much of the area as possible. I think it's the only time in our lives that Evelle ever really worked a nine-to-five day, which was all that was really necessary under the circumstances. Every weekend we went some place of interest; the Scotts would invite us up to Philadelphia; we took the ferry down to Williamsburg and drove back. They were inexpensive things but they were adventures that gave us an insight that I wouldn't have missed for anything. It was a fun time and we just decided we were going to make it a fun time. We did have to do a lot of work on the house because it was not only in bad repair-- it was actively filthy.

Chall: You'd just been through that, although building a new one. But it's like going through the experience all over it again.

Younger : Yes. I wallpapered it and painted it. But that was the only way we could get it because the man was faced with either major repairs or finding somebody who would fix it up and keep the rent low. So that was the way we got it. It gave us a very nice living situation in spite of the fact that--

Chall: You had to work for it. Younger: Yes. I stenciled scenes of Georgetown on white seersucker bedspreads for draperies.

Chall: My! You really went all-out.

Younger: They were very attractive curtains. But of course it took forever to do it. But they were bright and fun and very cheap, which was a very necessary part of the mix.

Chall: You've put your art and interior decorating skills to great use over the years.

Younger: I don't think I have many interior decorating skills. I like colors, and I know that I have to work with practical solutions.

Chall: You certainly learned how. Then I assume that you were sorry to leave Washington.

Younger: Not necessarily sorry; I think we'd had enough. It was a much more significant period because it was a happy time and because we did work at it and because it certainly supplemented Eric's education tremendously. It's just incredible that a kid remembers that young. He had his seventh birthday in Washington, and his birthday is August eighth. So we were there the summer he was seven. But that was just about the end of it; I think we got back here before the school term started.

When we came back, we had a beat-up station wagon. We put everything under the sun, including two dogs, in it.

Chall: Ducks ?

Younger: No, the ducks were somehow parlayed into a Great Dane puppy which came across the country with us. We came back through the South, again stopping at air force bases and that kind of thing.

Wait a minute! I can come closer to pinpointing when we came back, because we had Thanksgiving dinner--we didn't make it back for the fall semester. We had Thanksgiving dinner at an air base in Texas [Lackland]. We stopped in New Orleans. That was one of the places where we had to board the dogs. Most places, we would stay in some motel that was crummy enough to take our dogs in. [laughter] We traveled with a nasty, little inefficient icebox, and we could make our meals along the way. But all this was fun, and probably the least pressure that we've ever had. And yet it was tremendously educational. Chall: Before we get away from Washington, I was just remembering about the dates you were there and wondering whether the Republicans were thinking ahead to 1952. Was there talk among them about possible presidential nominees? Were they talking about Eisenhower at that time, or Taft?

Younger : My impression was that most of it was pretty light-hearted at the level that we knew anybody who was concerned; with the possible exception of--he was still in Congress then--Representative Scott, there wasn't much of anybody who knew much on a very high level. He had been Republican national chairman I think in 1948. So he would have been involved, and there would have been talk with him. If I remember correctly, General Eisenhower was still an unknown as to his political affiliations. But Scotty was very hopeful.

Chall : Yes, I think he was being wooed by the Democrats too.

Younger: Yes. But I think that they would have been a little early. Certainly Senator Taft was very much on the scene, and he was very much not acceptable to most of the people that we knew. But there was always gossip and bantering and that kind of thing, but I don't remember many serious conversations.

Chall: So that wasn't really something that was going on too strongly.

Younger : It may have been but we probably just weren't in on it.

Chall: Okay. Then we're leaving Washington and getting back to Bellflower, or East Pasadena. Then what? How long were you still in the service?

Younger: It seems to me it was a matter of six or seven months, and they were kind of jumbled months. Again, they were a period of adjustment and a period of moving into a brand new house that hadn't been landscaped, hadn't been painted. Looking back at it, I think I've spent as much time just covering walls and filling gardens as I have anything else. Certainly during those years we were still moving constantly .

Chall : What was East Pasadena like? Was that different from where you had first built your home in Pasadena?

Younger : Yes, it was quite remote at that time. We moved into a big housing development--the houses were not unattractive; they were nicely designed, but they were quite small and we had to buy the house in order to get it. But there was nothing planted or anything like that. Now it's completely surrounded by other housing, and actually it would have been a very good investment had we been able to hold on to that house because it became surrounded by much better housing than the development in which we'd bought. The Move to Los Angeles: Lecturing and Community Activity

Chall: At the end of the seven or eight months, then, you sold the house and moved--where?

Younger: We moved into Los Angeles.

Chall: For what reason?

Younger: I think primarily convenience.

Chall: Your husband's job, then--did he go back to his law firm?

Younger: He went to a different law firm.

Chall: But in Los Angeles?

Younger: Yes. And I think it was primarily a matter of convenience. I think we probably kind of took a pass at 1ook.ing around Pasadena and decided that it was just generally more convenient to move toLos Angeles and we could get a better buy on a house. Again an old dog who needed a friend desperately [laughter]--guess who.

Chall: You're just the one to find them and put them into order.

Younger: I've often felt that would be fun if you had some capital to begin with. But we .always started out with an absolute bare minimum, and that really isn't the ideal way to go about it.

Chall: Some people make a million dollars on that sort of thing.

Younger: Not if you're doing the labor yourself.

Chall: And living in it. This was a permanent home with you for how long then, in that location?

Younger: We must have lived there a little over two years. It was kind of a record; we didn't very often make it that long. chill: Then I assume you moved some place into a better house, or a different location?

Younger: We moved into a much smaller house. That particular house in the Los Feliz area was big and aggressive. I was working, and I didn't have help. I was doing a lot of volunteer things as well, and it was just an incredible amount of work. It was a three-story house with a full ballroom in the basement, which was about the last thing we needed. Then the backyard was down another couple of flights. Younger : And there was a lily pond down at the bottom of the yard in which Cuddles the Great Dane puppy would sit. I must admit, it was probably cool there. But the Great Dane was always covered with moss up to its middle. And he couldn't handle the tile floors; this was a big old Spanish house on which we'd gotten a very good buy, but the poor Great Dane just couldn't handle the tile floors. No matter where he fell down, I was the only one that he thought could pick him up. By that time he was outweighing me, and getting him back on his feet was quite a problem. It was not built for a family without help and with Mom working.

Chall : What work were you doing?

Younger: I was doing lecturing, for the most part. And it had become a pretty good business. In addition, the Republican National Committee was inviting me to do a. pretty fair amount of major speaking.

Chall : Back to your old working routine.

Younger: That's right. There was a sitting room off the bedroom which was a very nice arrangement. I remember sitting up late at nights typing there. And of course I was moving rapidly into the Warren delegation fight which carried a very heavy speaking schedule. My own campaign for the state senate was launched in that house. But we moved from that house between my primary and general campaigns, again into a house that desperately needed work.

Chall: At that time! That was 1954.

Younger: Right smack in the middle, yes.

Chall: So, in those years, that means that almost as soon as you came back into the Los Angeles area, your husband began to work at his profession again, and you began to earn money at yours.

Younger : Yes.

Chall: As a lecturer primarily.

Younger: Yes.

Chall: And what volunteer work? Did you continue working, then, with the Junior League?

Younger: I was county chairman of the March of Dimes, for instance. The Mothers March was a big undertaking. I was on the board of the women's division of the Chamber of Commerce and vice-chairman of the state committee among other things and I was speaking for the national committee. Younger: I was deeply involved in a number of volunteer activities then. Never did join the Los Angeles Junior League--or I joined it nominally, paid dues, but I never went to anything because I felt that it was too socially oriented, and I was already carrying a full volunteer commitment.

Chall: In addition to the March of Dimes, then, you were active in the Republican party. So those were your primary volunteer activities?

Younger: I would say so, although I seem to have been involved in an awful lot of things--the board of Volunteers of America--

Chall: How about boy scouts, cub scouts?

Younger: Yes. Eric of course was at that stage. I wasn't deeply involved-- and I tried not to be--either in PTA or in any of his activities simply because I knew darn well I came on too strong, and he was an only child. I had awful memories of my closest high school friend's mother who took over the PTA and ran it and nearly drove my friend crazy. I could just see the same thing happening. I don't think Eric understood it at the time, but I thought it would be the worst thing in the world for him.

Chall: I see. That's interesting that you gave it that kind of thought.

Younger: Well, it didn't seem to me that this was any favor to the poor kid, to have Mama--

Chall: Yes, running his school.

Younger: [laughter] That's right. It would have happened very easily.

Chall: And he was in public school in Los Angeles?

Younger: Yes. Yes, he went to public schools all of the way through till University of Southern California. IV DEDICATED ACTIVIST IN THE UPUBLICAN PARTY, 1948-1954##

Chall: I want to talk more about the 1952 election campaign. I think that if we just start talking about it, you'll probably work back and fill in some of the other missing data.

Younger: If I'd known you were coming, I would have looked up your outline.

11 Theoutline getsalittlebitbetterthemoreresearch I do,and I find that I pick up additional material, so that it probably isn't as good as it should have been anyway.

For example, to start, how did you get on that 1952 delegation? How did you get on the Warren delegation?

Younger: I'm not sure I know that. Was I the vice-chairman of the state central committee at the time? You probably know the chronology better than I do.

Chall: No, I don't think you could have been because this delegation was picked in the beginning of January or February, and weren't the officers of the state central committee delegation picked at its meeting in August?

Younger: In the summer.

Chall: Yes. So I think you weren't an officer in early 1952.

The California Federation of Republican Women

Younger: But I'd been very active in the federation fight, remember.

Chall: That I don't know anything about. You haven't told me about the federation. This is the California Federation of Republican Women? Younger: Yes.

Chall: You've never told me that you were a member of the federation when we talked about it.

Younger : Oh, I'm sorry.

Chall : Maybe you should. See, I knew if I just asked you one question, I'd get the rest of it.

Younger : That had started when we lived in Pasadena. I don't even remember how I got involved in it. The members were for the most part qui-te a bit older than I was.

They were a very down-to-earth and I think, generally speaking, quite, if not liberal, at least reasonable group of women.

Chall : In Pasadena?

Younger: Yes. They were a very generous group of fine, hard-working women. Remember in those days that Pro America was probably the place that those who were more.concerned and interested in social standing and in, oh, the prominence of their position and that kind of thing, would have gone, as opposed to the federation. There was a good deal of Pro ,America activity in Pasadena.

Chall: Do you think these women were in Pro America because of social status rather than because they believed fundamentally in certain basic principles of Americanism?

Younger : I think it was a mixture. Many of them were good friends, and many of them had been friends on and off. Pro America was inclined to have the predominance of those who were socially prominent and wealthy. The federation was more apt to have the community leaders and the workers at that time. In different communities, that happens in organizations; they'll kind of divide off into different organizations. It just happened that Pasadena was one of the areas where there was that division, and it put a different character on the federation than it might otherwise have had.

Chall : Was there any cross-over with the Junior League in either the federation or Pro America that you can recall?

Younger: No, I don't remember that there was.

Chall: A different, group of women.

Younger : Yes . Chall: You were active in the Young Republicans, so it isn't surprising that you might become active in the federation.

Younger: Yes, there was some cross-over with the Junior League there. Gee, that was just the inception of the Young Republicans. We ran into a fellow up in Solvang a few years back. He and his wife had come to a reception for my husband, and he reminded us that they had been members of the Young Republicans when my husband became the president of the Pasadena Young Republicans. But they reminded us of something that bot,h of us had forgotten, and that is there were only five members, and he was the other candidate. So in view of the fact that the two wives and the two of them made up four of the members, whoever was the fifth member obviously cast the deciding vote. [laughter]

Chall: For goodness sakes! I knew it was small, but I didn't know it was as small as all that!

Younger: But it grew pretty rapidly.

Chall: Yes. So you were a member of Young Republicans and the California federation. In the California federation, did you ever have an off ice?

Younger: Yes, I was a member of the board of directors for either two or three terms.

Chall : In Pasadena?

Younger: No, the state. I was a member of the Pasadena board right away. There was a massive disagreement in the federation.

Chall: Are you talking about the state in '52?

Younger: Yes--and earlier.

Chall: Were you on the board in '52? Do you recall that?

Younger: Yes, I probably would have been, and that's quite possibly how I was on the Warren delegation, actually.

Chall: So you were with the board of directors of the state Federation of Republican Women. Have you any recollection in 1952 who was the state president?

Younger: I think probably Jean Wood Fuller was. It had been a bitter, bitter battle in which Gladys O'Donnell and Jean Fuller and Dorothy Goodknight--any number of women for whom I had tremendous affection and liking--were involved. Chall: These were the Southern California women?

Younger : There were also Northern California women who were very much involved in that fight, and it was basically a--it turned into, of course, a Taft versus anybody else kind of a fight. It became very much the kind of thing that still goes on in the federation. I think the federation is due for another upheaval; it's got to have one. This is true of all kinds of organizations, not just political organizations. They incline to get into a rut.

For instance, this year [1976]--if I read the papers correctly- the federation has endorsed Governor Reagan for the presidency. This is against the federation bylaws.

Chall: I thought they couldn't endorse in the primary; that's what I was told.

Younger : That's right.

Chall: The state federation has endorsed, or would it be a maverick local?

Younger: It seems to me that I read in the papers that the state federation had endorsed, and it's in complete violation of its own bylaws. We were in that position then, where the federation was simply not paying any attention to its own bylaws and was tearing itself to shreds and becoming of no importance at all because it wasn' t doing what the federation was supposed to do.

Chall: Do I understand that Jean Wood Fuller and Gladys O'Donnell and Dorothy Goodknight and you were--

Younger : And people like Edith Van de Water. She was just great. I think that Edith Van de Water had been national committeewoman at some time.* She is since deceased, and she was quite elderly when she died; I would say into her nineties. So she was quite elderly at the time I knew her, but she was a wonderful, down-to-earth kind of a woman. Though she was a wealthy woman, she was very, very much oriented towards government and towards the community. Old family, terribly hard worker. There was nothing phony or fancy about Edith in any way, and she was grateful for any good new help that she could get, and she really did a job. Fine person. She was very much a leader and very much an inspiration. She didn't ever violate her responsibilities as national committeewoman. But for

*She was Republican National Committeewoman for California, 1932- 1944. Younger: my money, she was one of the great forces in my own feeling about Republican politics because she was so dam reasonable and sensible.

Chall: Was shefromSouthernCalifornia?

Younger: She was from Long Beach, yes.

Chall: So you really had known her, then, a while.

Younger: Not intimately; I never knew Edith intimately. As I say, there was quite a gap in age. She was probably forty years older than I.

Chall: What else do you recall about her, in terms of this federation matter? Was she trying to work in the federation at a leadership level?

Younger: Yes, although that wasn' t her principal responsibility . But she certainly had helped to produce the Long Beach chapter, and those women were magnificent too. Dorothy Goodknight and Gladys O'Donnell were very much protegees of hers. There were others down there. Ethel Gilles, I remember. These were just fine, hard-working people that were very much concerned about making some sense out of what is always a difficult situation--volunteers running a political party. That was even more true in those days than it is now.

Chall: They were probably the most organized of all the Republicans at the time, when it came to getting the vote out and doing the work.

Younger: That's right--doing anything. These were marvelous groups of very sensible, experienced women, who had gotten their experience in community work. They didn't get their primary experience from politics; they were already mature by the time they joined Republican organizations. They'd gotten their feet wet in all kinds of other volunteer organizations.

Chall: So they knew the community--

Younger: That's right.

Chall : --and it was not just a matter of, "My political party, right or wrong .I' Younger: Definitely not.

Chall: They knew the community well enough to know what the community standards might be?

Younger: Yes, and they were community leaders in almost every case. For instance, Gladys O'Donnell. It's easy to forget that Gladys was a great pilot. Chall: Airline pilot?

Younger: No! She was one of the pioneers among woman aviatrices. She and her husband's business was aviation. You forget those things. She was a modest woman who very rarely talked about it. I don't know whether she ever won the Powder Puff Derby, as it was called, but she certainly participated year in and year out. She had flown a number of experimental planes and was deeply involved in the family business, which was aviation. Those things you lose sight of when you think of all of these women as political people. They were apt to have been very much in another field.

Chall: I see. What about the women who were, I would guess, either the pro-Taft--maybe this was brought out by the potential candidacy of Werdel in 1952. Would that have caused the problem?

Younger: The problem already existed.

Chall: Yes, but when it came to the forefront, were these [Thomas] Werdel people?

Younger: The cleavage had actually occurred before that. There were a few holdovers who were pretty brutal on the board, and the fight was a difficult one.

Chall: Was it over the decision to endorse.or not to endorse, or over the selection of directors? How did it shape up?

Younger: It was over the statewide conduct of the federation. The state federation was doing things it shouldn't have been doing and could not really justify doing.

Chall: One of them was endorsing?

Younger: It was doing whatever it wanted to do wherever it wanted to do it. It was not an effective organization, and it was trouble- making, and it was giving women in politics a very bad name. It was petty. It just simply was not what it should have been.

Chall: Right up from some of the locals to the state?

Younger: In many instances.

Chall: Because the state, I guess, reflects local boards, doesn't it?

Younger: To a great extent. But the accuracy of the reflection was part of the problem.

Chall: And there were a number of you, then, who were trying to clear it up. Is that it? Younger : We either felt that.it ought to function like it said it did or that it ought to be out .of business. Remember that there was bitter anti-Warren sentiment, too. But he was the Republican. governor.

Chall: What were you doing then?

Younger: We fought on every subject that there was to fight on, if I remember correctly--procedural, philosophical., everything.

Chall: At the board level, or was this going on right down to the local--

Younger : It was going on all the way down the line. The federation could not grow and shouldn't have grown until some of these things were cleared up. I think probably it came down primarily to endorsing at local levels. Just the kind of stupid thing that you do when you're not thinking very well, and you stumble into making a mistake and then try to defend it and clean it up, and it doesn't work.

Chall: Who won out at that stage?

Younger : We eventually did. I suspect that an underlying problem was oriented to party control in the upcoming presidential nomination, but we felt at the time that it was just oriented to the principle that there should a Republican-women's-organization that was doing that job that the federation bylaws said the federation was supposed to be doing and it wasn't.

Chall: How did you see the federation? What was the role of the federation in those days?

Younger : It was to get people registered, it was to get out the vote, it was to create interest, it was to assume a leadership role in communities. There were plenty of organizations like the Young Republicans and the Assembly that did different kinds of things. But there was no reason for women to be respected in the Republican party as long as they were a lodestone around its neck, and they were.

Chall: I assume you were getting feedback from the Assembly and the Young Republicans, many of you might have belonged--

Younger : Much overlapping of membership.

Chall: --that this group was out of hand.

Younger : That's right. And certainly feedback from the press. It's very easy to criticize a women's organization anyway. I felt that you couldn't very well defend yourself against criticism unless you're sure you're right. The harder you looked, the less sure you-were right. Younger : There was a marvelous woman (darnit! her name just went through my mind and I think it's gone again) who lived in Orange County. Married to a rancher. Unusual name.(Lelia Baldridge was her name after her second marriage.) I think she may have been national committeewoman in there someplace. Very strong woman. She was part of it.

Chall: Part of the reforming side?

Younger: Yes. She was also Orange County Central Committee chairman, and without her, believe me, Orange County would not have become the political force that it did as early as it did.

Chall: That's unusual for a woman, in those days, to have been chairman of the county central committee.

Younger : It certainly is. Her husband died, and I'm not sure, when we first knew her, whether he was still alive or not. She was running a sizable ranch, large orange groves,. and was respected by men because she was not only running them but doing it exceedingly well. It's such an unusual name, and I can see her in my mind.

Chall: Was her. first name unusual?

Younger : Yes, and she had an accent and I don't know what the accent was.

Chall: There's a name I've seen a couple of times and I don't know whether it's the name of the woman or the name of her husband, and that's Cecil Kenyon.

Younger: Cecil was a very fine person to work with, but she was an extreme conservative. She was a very fair person to work with. She lived in sari Marino. No, she was very different from this woman. This woman was a leader in the Chamber of Commerce and, as I say, county central committee chairman when you certainly didn't think of Orange County as producing a woman county central committee chairman. She was a great influence on all of us because she was a very strong and outs tanding woman.

Chall: When you say that some of these women were influences, they were influences because of the way they projected their leadership qualities at meetings, I presume. Did some of you go off into little rump sessions and figure out what the next move was going to be?

Younger : Oh sure! Sure!

Chall: So you saw them in some of those situations. You had to work at all levels. Younger: And we literally were not talking about candidates.

Chall: This would have been 1952.

Younger: It had to be before 1952.

Chall: You were away almost from '50 to '52.

Younger: It would have started before '50, and then I would have come back into it.

Chall: All right. Then I'll check those times; I can get the names of the chairmen.

Younger: But I remember that at the time I got polio that I was very much involved, as a volunteer, but on a full-time basis, in Ed hatt tuck's campaign for attorney general. Nineteen-fifty had to be an election year; it would be, yes, because '52 was a presidential election year, and our statewide elections are even numbered years in between the presidential elections. I came down with polio during that campaign. I had already been very much involved.

Chall: He was the state vice-chairman in 1947 to '48.

Younger: Yes. He was the one who appointed me chairman of the state central committee speakers bureau when there weren't any other members. [laughter]

Chall: Then you immediately got into the federation, almost at once?

Younger: I immediately got into everything because, you know, if you're appointed chairman of the state central committee speakers bureau, and you are the only member, you had better find out what's going on and you had better join everything in sight!

Chall: You found out rather rapidly, I take it. You had a couple of years in there of membership with the women.

Younger: Yes. Actually, I remember making a speech for Dewey, in 1948. My poor mother went with me down to Encinitas, which was a dreadfully long drive from Los Angeles in those days, to an Assembly meeting. It was the Thursday or the Friday night before the election. I told that miserable little group--it was having its annual meeting-- that there was no way they were going to elect Dewey, that he couldn't possibly be elected the following Tuesday, and what in the Younger: world were they doing there gorging themselves on mushroom burgers! It was one of those offbeat religious cult places where they held their dinners because they could get their annual dinner for a dollar a person that way. It took me years before I could ever face another mushroom. To say nothing of carrot juice! I felt so sorry for Mother, going all that distance and being met by a mushroom burger in this dank, miserable little religious kind of a cult thing, and probably seven or eight people there. [laughter] It was just awful! No more a sign of a potential winning team than anything under the sun. Just awful!

Chall: Did you think Dewey was going to be defeated, without having to look at that group?

Younger: That was the night I found myself saying it publicly, but I must have thought so before. That's the night I remember saying it, but I must have had an instinct along those lines or I wouldn't have verbalized it that fast because I was really too stunned by the whole arrangement. [laughter] So it had to have been very much in my mind.

Chall: You must have been doing quite a bit of speaking around Southern California at the time--

Younger: Yes, I was.

Chall: --so that you could maybe see what you thought was happening. There was a great deal of confidence but no--

Younger: But no organization, no job being done. It just wasn't there. You hate to say that to volunteers who are not doing their job, poor souls. Maybe they didn't like mushroom burgers either.

Chall: Maybe they didn't know how to do their job and nobody had helped them.

Younger : Well, I suspect that was a very large part of it. That, of course, is part of both the genius and the terrible failure of our system. Last night, as a matter of fact, I heard part of a conversation about the Pendergast machine. We were at the Leshers over in Orinda. Mrs. Lesher had been showing me around their house, and I came into the conversation when Mr. Lesher was talking about the Pendergast machine--why it worked and how it worked and how very effective it was. It wasn't that he was necessarily for it; it was that he found it an extremely interesting way of handling politics. He is, of course, a newspaper man. We don't handle politics that way, and I hope we never do. But the things that he was describing did indeed produce 16,000 votes out of a precinct with 6,000 registered voters. In some ways the machine did its job extremely Younger : well--much too well! If somebody needed help they didn't go down to the city hall and stand in line for three hours to get a form that didn't fit what they needed anyway. The party ward heelers, or whatever they were, were at their houses anticipating their needs, and taking care of them, and serving a function between the individual and the gas company or--I guess in the Middle West there weren't gas companies--the utility companies.

Chall: We haven't done that in California.

Younger : And I'm glad we never have. But we've got to do a better job of the kind of thing that we do do, if you don't have political leverage. I'm against that kind of leverage; I think it's wrong and I think it leads to terrible dishonesty and terrible bossism. But the only way you avoid it is by doing an awfully lot better job on a volunteer basis.

Chall: Yes. You have to stir up the volunteers because they're the ones who do it, by and large.

Younger: That's right, and they're hard to stir.

Chall: They say that professionals are now really taking over campaigns.

Younger : I would disagree with that.

Chall: You still see the volunteers, right?

Younger: Well, number one, good professionals can't afford to stay in the business because it's too seasonal. So, how in the world do you get a really good trained professional to sit it out between campaigns? Campaigns can't pay the kind of money that can support top-notch professionals. They can bring them in, perhaps, as consultants on a short-term basis, but it's a very difficult problem that keeps getting worse.

There is more professionalism in the running of the organizations than there used to be.

Chall: That's what I was thinking about. In the Republican organization, for example, isn't there a fairly good staff?

Younger: The state central comhittee now has a staff. But we didn't have a staff .

Chall: No, not in those days. You do now.

Younger: But those are not high-paying jobs, and they don't lead very far as a general rule. Excellent experience and some good contacts but not much else. Actually, a fair number of students get credits that way. Younger: The first professional director of the Republican State Central Committee was probably John Hamlin in Los Angeles. John was financially independent, had a great liking for politics, a brilliant mind, and Gerty--Gertrude--his wife, was responsible for my being asked to join the Junior League. I'd forgotten it, but Ross Barrett's wife, Rita, who was one of Gertrude's closest friends--the two of them were the ones that sponsored me in the Pasadena Junior League. They were just fine people.

Ross actually came out here at the invitation of Charlie Thomas, who was heading up the fledgling United Republican Finance, to try to put that organization together. Now Ross is president of Metro Media. He went first to one of the big men's stores--Silverwood1s, I think, as an executive. Very gentle, kind man. Ross Barrett is probably one of the gentlest kindest men you could ever meet. John Hamlin is a gentle, kind, tolerant man, a basically liberal man but with a very sound business background. These were men that we were just plain lucky to get. There was no way that the party was paying a wage that John Hamlin could have lived on.

Chall: What year was this?

Younger : That would have had to have been in 1948 or '49.

Chall: As long ago as that?

Younger: I remember there was a perfectly darling Negro girl who worked for John. Her name was Lena Washington. Lena was charming and fun and knew so much more about politics than any of the rest of us did; I never knew how she knew, whether it was just instinct or what. She was pleasant and a great peacemaker. She was his secretary, and I think that was the entire staff.

Chall: Where was the office of the executive director in those days?

Younger : In some kind of a contributed store front.

Chall: In Southern California?

Younger: Yes, because that.would have been when Ed Shattuck was chairman, and Ed would have realized that they had to have some kind of an organization and an ongoing headquarters. There just had to be something to put the party on a businesslike basis. John and Lena may have been the most unlikely team that you could have found but they couldn't have been more compatible and really more instrumental in bringing a broad minded, clear-eyed approach.

Chall: That's an interesting bit of history. Younger : They were far over extended and far under paid. No financial base at all.

Chall: You mentioned the United Republican Finance--

Younger: That too was started at just about that time. Ross Barrett did the organization work.

Chall: And that was started by maybe the national committee trying to get it out into the states. When you say he came out to do it, what do you mean?

Younger : Charlie Thomas was responsible for bringing him [Ross Barrett] out. They had met during the war years (as a matter of fact, Charlie became secretary of the navy under Eisenhower). Charlie and Julia Thomas are Californians. But I wasn't in a position really to know what Charlie was doing at that particular point or even to really know him. I remember in his remarks the other night at Ross Barrett 's birthday party, telling about this very young officer who had been sent to meet him here in San Francisco when he came in from the South Pacific during the war. They never did figure just why, but Ross was the aide that was sent to meet him. I assume that Charlie's rank was rather considerable. He took an immediate liking to Ross, but I didn't realize that that was how they got acquainted.

Although, they kind of drifted apart after the war, when it became necessary to start thinking in terms of a somewhat more practical approach to politics, it was Charlie who was instrumental in bringing Ross out from the East. Ross and John were close friends. What other relationships there were there, I don't know-- whether Charlie and John were also close friends or whether their friendship developed because of the other friendship--I don't know those things.

Chall: So the Republican central committee in the late forties had a fairly liberal stamp on it, would you say?

Younger: I would think so, yes. Bernie [Bernard] Brennan was the county chairman. Well, was he before or immediately after Evelle? He may have been elected immediately after Evelle. Evelle was county chairman when he was recalled into the service during the Korean war. But that in itself says an awful lot about the condition of the party because Evelle was a very young man.*

Chall: How old was Brennan at the time?

*Bernard Brennan, 1948-1950; Evelle Younger, 1950. Younger: He was older. He's been dead a number of years now. My guess is that probably Evelle would have been--we're talking about 1950. I think Evelle had just been elected county chairman, just a matter of a few months before the call came from the air force. Evelle would have been thirty-two years old. If you've got a thirty-two- year-old Los Angeles county chairman, that says as much about the organization as it does about the thirty-two year old. Nobody was waiting in line to take the job, that's for sure.

Chall: Bernie Brennan's name comes up continually as a leader--

Younger: He'd been in and out of politics many--

Chall: --in the Republican political circles, particularly as a Nixon man over the years.

Younger: Yes, I think they were very close. The Brennans lived in Glendale. I met Bernie and his brother Ray--I think Ray may still be living-- when I was a child in Sacramento. I think that they were both involved to some extent or another in lobbying activities. They would both have been younger than my father, but it would have been my father who was responsible for our meeting.

Chall: They go back that far?

Younger: That's part of my time-frame problem. I had known so many people when I was very young. For instance, last night at the Leshers house, there was a very attractive lawyer and a very nice, attractive wife. He's a member of the law firm that Tony DeLap was the principal partner in. Tony and I were just great buddies and I had the greatest affection for Tony. I don't know whether people like Tony DeLap remembered me as a little kid; I remembered him, just like I did Senator Knowland when he was a state senator and a very young one from Alameda County. I think it probably would have been pretty awkward if I had ever said to Senator Knowland in later years, "Don't you remember me?"

Gardiner Johnson. He was one of the assemblymen who got me deathly sick buying me candy and raisins the day I was a page in the California assembly, the first day they ever allowed girl pages. I think I was nine. My mother said, "No more of that," because I was sick as a dog by that night. There wasn't anything that the legislators didn't buy the little girl page.

Chall: You were an unusual little girl page. You were a little younger than any of the others and the only one, maybe?

Younger: I don't remember. I suspect there were probably other little girls. In those days, children did indeed do the work of the pages. They were usually legislators kids or something, and you Younger: learned a fair amount about getting the bills and other operational procedures. But, of course, in those days people pretty much had the run of the legislative chambers. Staffs were small. It was very different. But I run into these odd overlaps in generations because--

Chall: You were around the legislators.

Younger: Yes. I remember trying to sit on Governor Rolph's lap. He didn't have one.

Chall: This is good background for what happened in 1952, then, when you became, I guess, active enough so that you were then on the central committee.

[bu-zzer sounds] It's time for me to leave. This i&where we'll start next time. Do you have a plane that you have to meet at a certain time?

Younger: Yes.

Delegate to the Republican National Convention, 1952//// [Interview 4: September 19, 19761

Chall: I wanted to talk to you today about the 1952 presidential convention and campaign. You were chosen to be a member of the Warren delegation. Have you any idea how come you were picked? You were one of only twelve women, one of whom was Marjorie Benedict, the national committeewoman. There were seventy delegates in all.

Younger: Don't forget that the delegation chooses the national committeewoman.

Chall: That's right. Mrs. Benedict was national committeewoman at the time, and then she was picked again.

Younger: Then she was reelected, right.

Chall: So she would naturally have been on that delegation?

Younger: Probably, although there is always the possibility, particularly in a state like this where we try to divide up north and south, that you're going to come out without any eligible national committeewoman or national committeeman, just by reason of delegate selection.

Chall: McIntyre Faries was at that time the committeeman, and he was retained. Younger : Yes, and he was from the south.

Chall: That allows the north to be represented by the committeewoman.

Younger: Yes. I believe that both parties use that system. I don't think that it's codified anyplace.

Chall: No, I think not.

Younger: And as a matter of fact, the election laws have changed substantially since those days, so that I'm not nearly as well up on them as I was then. You mentioned I was one of only twelve women. California had the largest number of women delegates of any state. [laughter] But this was something of a breakthrough to have twelve. There were some delegations with no women. I believe we had a larger percentage of women alternates.

I don't approve of a quota system; I don't think that's the way to arrive at a balance. I didn't approve the other day--I guess it's been a couple of weeks ago--when a caucus of black Republicans, for instance, insisted that a certain percentage of national committee- men be black. See, you don't arrive at a national committeeman that way.

Chall: No, not that post.

Younger: It can't be done by quota because the national committee is not selected from the top--it's selected locally to represent the states. If you happen to have a black who has really been a full-time . participant and has really done a tremendous job for a political party, that's a different matter; there's no reason why he shouldn't be a national committeeman. But I would say that in both parties you would have exactly the same problem.

Chall: Yes, in that post. But surely there are women who'd devoted hours and hours and hours for their parties, and within the congressional districts, which is how some of them are picked, to make it almost impossible that there be no women on delegations and that there surely would be more than 17 percent--in this case. Just knowing how many women in '52 were working for the party, it would seem like a rather small number.

Younger: Yes, it does, and I don't mean to apologize in any way for this. But I think that there are some things that have to be said. One of them is, of course, that your delegates were chosen on a congressional district basis pretty strictly in those days, and you don' t always get--

Chall: An even distribution. Younger : That's right. You don't get a reflection across the board of numbers or anything of that kind. For instance, a congressional district where you've got an extremely active Republican women's organization, whether it calls itself that or not, or where there are just an awfully lot of good women workers, you're still limited to only two people from that congressional district. If it's a heavily Republican or a heavily Democratic district, there are going to be probably ten or fifteen left out who would be better delegates to a national convention than if, say, for instance, you have to also choose the same number of delegates from a district that is maybe 90 percent the. other party's registration. This leads to inequality; it can't be helped.

Chall : I guess that's why the Democrats have it worked out so that they give many of them one-half votes--I don't think it's gone down to one-quarter. That gives more of them an opportunity to go to the conventions.

Younger: Yes, it also gives other opportunities that are not very positive ones. Among other things, a national convention is a very expensive thing. It doesn't matter how many corners you cut, you still end up with a very expensive out-of-pocket kind of arrangment. The less impact you're going to have, the less appealing it is to want to be a quarter delegate, for instance, and have it cost you just as much as if you had a full vote. [laughter] You've been considerably downgraded. And it's a much more unwieldy delegation to handle or work with. I can imagine polling, for instance, delegations with half - and 'quarter-votes . It would be almost an impossibility.

Chall : I've read about what's happened in the past in California with one- half votes, and it was very difficult to poll the delegation when it became a crucial last-minute issue, that's true.

Younger: It works fine as long as you don't have that kind of problem.

Chall : But you're bound to, somewhere along the line. That's an interesting point. This is probably the reason the Republicans have never done this. As far as I can tell so far, they have a smaller delegation. It's a one-man, one-vote sort of thing, and they don't split their votes, at least not in California. Is that true all over the country?

Younger : No, I'm sure not. But again, we're into an area where I'm not as fresh on the law as I ought to be.

Chall : I think that it probably is. It's a small convention, as delegations go

Younger: Okay. Now look at another problem you've got, and that is, where do you hold the bigger one? There are not that many cities with convention halls that will take larger delegations, and huge areas for media, and that can supply that many hotel rooms. Chall: Which means that some delegations are usually so far from the convention center they hardly can get there. .

Younger: I remember some of the horror stories about the Democratic convention in Los Angeles--was it 1960 or '64?

Chall: Sixty they had one, yes.

Younger: Some of them were all the way out at'Malibu. Now, it cost them more than ten dollars each way to get to the convention center, and that's hardly a solution! What do you do when you can't house a delegation? There are very few cities that can take care of great, big conventions.

Chall: In 1952, how did you go? Did you go by yourself or did your husband go with you?

Younger: Oh no, my husband stayed here. He couldn't have taken the time off and it was too expensive. Of course, the Platform Committee work is done almost entirely the week before the convention, and there are other committees as well (though I'm not as familiar with their working)--Rules Committee, Credentials, and a few others--whose work has to be pretty well done before the convention assembles.

Chall: Were you in the Knickerbocker Hotel where the delegation was? I understand all of the California delegation was at the. Knickerbocker. Although you went early, I wondered if you can remember if that's where you stayed.

Younger: I stayed in the same hotel as the rest of the delegation.

Chall: That would be it.

Younger: But it was a bad hotel.

Chall: It was just--what?--close to the things in Chicago, which also is a problem of distances, I guess.

Younger: Everything was a problem. It's true of almost, as I say, every city in the country. If you want your delegation together, which is certainly almost a necessity, then there're going to be pretty poor hotels used.

Chall: So conventions are not the easiest way to spend a weekend. [laughter]

Younger: That's right. I'd hate to have to run a convention. I'm not positive; I think I stayed in the headquarters hotel the first week, simply for that reason (because of being accessible to meetings). So I may have stayed in whatever hotel downtown it was. I really don't remember; I'm inclined to think I did because I don't Younger: remember going out of the hotel. So I think probably the people who are there a week early, regardless of where they're from, are more apt to stay in what becomes the headquarters hotel, and then move on.

Chall: With the delegation. Have you any idea why you were chosen to be on the delegation? You must have been very active in your assembly district and well known as a speaker at that time for the Republican party.

Seconding the Nomination of Earl Warren for President

Younger: Yes, and as a matter of fact, I'd received a telegram from Earl Warren. The first authorized speeches that were made in behalf of presidential candidates were made at a national committee meeting here in San Francisco, and they were made at a national committee- women's luncheon. So there was a tendency to choose women speakers. I got a telegram from Earl Warren asking if I would make the first speech for him. So I assume that, having done that, it would have been awkward to leave me off. [laughter] I don't know.

Chall: What about the decision to have you nominate Warren? How do you think that came about?

Younger: On, that came very late. It did not come until the afternoon of the night the nominations were to be made.

Chall: Were you prepared?

Younger: Oh no, no: I wrote the speech in the margins of a newspaper. Bill Knowland had to lend me a dime to even call the governor and ask him what he wanted to talk to me about. I was inclined to put it off; I was worn out; I wasn't going to call him.

Chall: How interesting. I would have thought that that had been prepared long in advance, the nominating speeches. Younger: Oh my, no.

Chall: But he knew he was going to be nominated.

Younger : I've forgotten who the principal nominator was. Remember, mine was a seconding speech. Those are very apt to be very late decisions.

Chall: Whatever seems to be important at the time--

Younger: Well, different things have happened during the progress of the convention. You try to show different kinds of political strengths and balance .

Chall: You're free to change.

Younger : Yes.

Chall: [referring to documents] Yes, that's right--you did second the nomination and Senator William F. Knowland nominated Earl Warren for president. I think he must have been the first nominating speaker. It was a long speech. [reading from notes] State Senator Bernard Gettleman of Wisconsin seconded the nomination of Earl Warren, and Mr. Robert G. Simmons, Jr., of Nebraska seconded the nomination of Earl Warren, and Mr. Frank 0. Evans of Georgia seconded the nomination of Earl Warren, and Mrs. Mildred Younger of California seconded the nomination of Earl Warren.

Younger : It was the southerner who had a pint-size prescription bottle--

Chall: Georgia?

Younger : Yes--and of course everybody had laryngitis. Voices were in terrible shape because the Cow Palace was noisy and it was--

Chall: You were in Chicago. Is it called the Cow Palace there too?

Younger : I said it instinctively. No, I guess it's called the Stockyards. Hot as the dickens, dirty, noisy, a long trip in and out of town on buses, very little sleep, and everybody had throat problems. There was no question about it.

I remember the gentleman from Georgia, whom I'd never met, turned around and said, "Honey, are you having trouble with your

voice?" I said, "Of course I am. Aren't you?" He said, "I sure ' am! But I've got some fine cough medicine here." He took out this prescription bottle--an unusually large prescription bottle but nonetheless a prescription bottle. He said, "Here. Just take a slug of this." While I was deciding that television was perfectly capable of picking up back of the rostrum as well as the rostrum itself, and that I would not be drinking out of a pint bottle of Younger: anything, just in case, he took the top off, and of course it was straight bourbon. [laughter] I'm sure it did help voices, but I was terribly grateful I didn't take it.

Chall: [laughter] So you wrote it on the edge of a newspaper, in the margins. Do you have that newspaper around?

Younger: I don't know.

Chall: It was a good little speech. Of course, you're a good speech-maker. That was one of your abilities at the time, so I suppose it wasn't impossible for you to do this. But I would think you'd be just quite nervous.

Younger: I was, although I remember that the platform was voted on on the same day so that I had the problem of challenging Senator Millikin on that day--or being prepared to challenge him.

Chall: Yes. You didn't have to challenge him, as I understand.

Younger: That's right. But I was really dragged out by the time that was over. So when Senator Knowland came and said, "Mildred, the governor would like you to call him," I said, "Can't it wait until we get back to the hotel?" He said, "I really don't think it can." Then he fished in his pocket and got a dime and put it in my hand and said, "Go call him now. Here's the number. " I was very reluctant about it because I felt that I had had it for the day.

Chall: And then he asked you to make--

Younger: Yes, he did. I'm afraid it didn't soak in because I remember saying, "I will if you'll call Evelle and tell him." [laughter] That wasn't the proper response either. It all added up to thoroughly immature and ridiculous behavior.

Chall: That's all right. I read in one of these books that Richard Nixon, when asked if he would accept the nomination for vice-president, said, "I will if you'll call the folks at home and tell them." [laughter] So they put in a call to his relatives in Whittier, and most of them said, "We already saw the announcement on television."

Younger: Apparently my response was not quite as unusual. [laughter]

Chall: No, it wasn' t, interesting as it was.

You don't know whether Mr. Faries had anything to do with this decision in the background? Younger: My feeling is he may have been in on a telephone conversation. But of course, like the rest of us, he was on the floor of the convent ion.

Presidential Hopefuls: Earl Warren, Robert Taft, Dwight Eisenhower

Chall: When you were asked to go on the delegation for Warren, you had to sign an affidavit that you would vote for Earl Warren.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: When you signed the affidavit, what did it mean to you at the time? You were aware of the Eisenhower movement, or were you? Some people felt that it was really Eisenhower who was the candidate, not Warren, and some people I think were put on the delegation to sort of balance things out.

Younger: I don't know that that's true. Perhaps it's my own lack of either perception of what may have been going on, or the fact that I was desperately busy, or the fact that everybody knew that I meant it when I signed the affidavit. Remember we had a primary contest, and I ended up making, I would say, the vast majority of the speeches statewide for Governor Warren. This was one of the points--as a matter of fact, I think it was the principal point--that I made, was that every Warren delegate and every Werdel delegate had signed affidavits of support for that man for the presidency, and that Werdel was not a legitimate candidate for the presidency. This may have caused me not to have been aware of other candidate activity.

But my memory probably is telescoping on me--which is not unusual--but I think that the Eisenhower movement didn't really jell probably until after I was on my way to Chicago, or even in Chicago for that week ahead of time. There was a great deal of uncertainty as to whether or not he would accept the nomination.

I think that the question in California was a more general question, with Senator Taft being a legitimate candidate, and a more moderate candidate had not really been identified when the delegation fight began. So I could speak perfectly sincerely on behalf of Earl Warren because I really didn't know who was going to emerge as a more moderate candidate--quite possibly no one.

I think it's important here that you understand what my feeling about senator Taft was. I'd never met him. I thought that he had a brilliant record of accomplishment in the Senate. That doesn't mean any more than it means when I talk about any other political figure-- that I thought he was 100 percent right on 100 percent of the issues, Younger: by any means. What it does mean is that here was a man who had legitimately worked very hard. I've forgotten how many pieces of major legislation carried Senator Taft's name; he obviously had personally been the author of a good many of them.

This was where, in my mind, there was a great difference between Senator Taft and Senator [Barry] Goldwater. Senator Goldwater is probably not nearly the conservative that he was painted, though he may have been at that time; he may have somewhat reframed some of his views since he ran for the presidency. But there was only one piece of legislation, all the years he was in the Senate, that had his name on it; on that he was a co-author. That piece of legislation had to do with Arizona challenging California's water rights.

This is a very different history of a presidential candidate than Senator Taft's was, because Senator Taft had--oh, I've forgotten--I think it was up in the thirties or forties, pieces of major legislation, important legislation that indicated that this was a man of considerable stature. Whether you agreed with him or not, he had demonstrated great stature. I personally didn't think he was an electable candidate. I didn't think he was right for the country. But I certainly did not go back to Chicago with any feeling of disrespect for the man, because I thought this was a man that had demonstrated over a number of years a tremendous, and very valid interest in this nation.

Chall: One of the underlying issues, they say, at that 1952 campaign with respect to Senator Taft, was that many Republicans felt that he couldn't win, and that this is one of the reasons that they tended to back other candidates--favorite sons and all that. Just as recently, I guess, there were many people who felt that, while they may like Ronald Reagan, he couldn't win, the same was felt of Taft; that that was the background of the maneuvering for Eisenhower. No matter how good he was, as Mr. Republican, he was conservative, and the voters weren't going to vote for him.

Younger: I think I'd put it a little differently, and I don't think that I would have drawn the comparison between--

Chall: I drew that. But electability is apparently a very important factor.

Younger: It certainly is. But I don't think you could .come up with two more opposite personalities, for instance, than Governor Reagan and Senator Taft. One highly attractive, extremely vocal, very quick-- a response on any subject--and the other inclined to be very dull, very slow, very methodical. You're probably right; I probably am talking about "He couldn't win." I think my feeling went a little Younger: farther than that. I think my feeling went that he was such an isolated personality that he was doing a fine job as a United States Senator, but he didn't really represent all of the American people and could not appeal to a wide popular vote.

Chall: Or even all of the Republicans.

Younger : Taking the electorate as a whole, it was almost like taking--how can I avoid likening him to anyone else? I think he was in many respects a unique political individual. It was like taking someone out of a niche in which he fit very well and trying somehow to make him fit another kind of a niche. That didn't seem to me to be a good decision.

Chall: Many of his pieces of legislation weren't all that conservative.

Younger: That's right. Many of them, in r.etrospect, are very liberal.

Chall: Yes, that's right. Primarily, I think, on his attitude toward foreign affairs he was considered quite conservative at the time, and the country was moving in a different direction--or many people felt it should.

In other words, you did go back committed to Earl Warren and thinking that he would--if he could be nominated--would be a good president.

Younger : Yes. This was the primary basis, as far as I was concerned, of working very hard for the Warren delegation over the Werdel delegation because there was no question--Werdel was not a real candidate for the presidency, there was no way in the world that he was going to get the nomination.

Chall: He was a stand-in.

Younger : That's right, and I didn't approve of that approach.

Chall: As I understand from what you told me the last time I was here, you also didn't approve of Werdel's policies, his stand on issues. I think you said he was a little more conservative than you were.

Younger : Yes, and I may well have been wrong about that, in retrospect, if I were to go back over them. At the time, he seemed to me to be out of the mainstream of political thinking. I'm not sure I1conservative" is a valid description, however.

Chall: In terms of the Werdel material and the people who backed him, one would think that he was certainly not in the mainstream of the California or the Warren issues. It was fought as if everything Chall: that Earl Warren stood for was leading us into socialism and communism. Of course, there were other problems that had to do with oil. But that seemed to be their general push.

Younger : For instance, I remember the sensation of never having heard of Congressman Werdel, and I'd been very active in state central committee affairs, that kind' of thing. He was somebody that just hadn't surfaced as a leading person in California.

Chall: You had run across him, I guess, when you were living in Washington. But, as I recall, you said you had really nothing to do with him, even though you were close to most of the other California delegation.

Younger: That's right. He just wasn't a part of the group we knew and enjoyed .

Chall: I take it, then, that nobody ever approached either you or your husband to be on the Werdel slate?

Younger: Oh no.

Chall: What about any of your colleagues and friends? Did you know anybody on the Werdel slate?

Younger: I probably did and have probably forgotten.

Chall: I'm going to give you the Werdel slate for a minute.

Younger : I'm going to have to go get my glasses.

Chall: All right. What's hanging around your neck that intrigues me? Are those glasses?

Younger: That's a magnifying glass. It doesn't work for anything except price tags. [laughter]

Chall: I'm for the old lorgnette, frankly. I just wish I had one of those things that I could put up for a quick look. I think we lost something when that went out of style.

One of the names that I recognize here as being a liberal in the Republican circles at one time is George Milias, Jr., of Gilroy. I think he was a Rockefeller man, but I may be wrong. The rest of them I recognize as some of the conservatives over long periods.

You can get your glasses. [tape recorder off] ChalI: We're looking at the Werdel delegation. I just thought you might see if, over the years, as you've begun to know more and more Republican people, whether this has been a fairly constant group of the conservative wing of the Republican party.

Younger: You see, this wouldn't really be fair. This is one problem with the method of delegate selection. Again, because they are selected from congressional districts, there may be a person who has done an outstanding job in his congressional district and that you've never heard of. I do see some names here that I knew. Donald Cass should be an M.D.

Chall: I understand there were some doctors on that, because they were opposed to Warren's medical plan.

Younger: That's right, and bitterly so.

Chall: There were doctors and dentists--a fairly good number of them, I think.

Younger: William Keck, of course, was well known for oil interests. Adolphe Menjou, obviously. Keith McCormac sounds familiar but I don't remember why.

Chall: He was one of the backers. He was one of the major backers of the Werdel slate, and I can't remember that I know much more about him. Keith McCormac, Louis B. Mayer, Loyd Wright, John A. Smith, Adolphe Menjou were the early people behind the anti-Warren committee who were looking for a representative conservative to run against him in 1951. They came up with Werdel.

Younger : You are virtually saying, right there, exactly why I felt, in my very young, simplistic way, this was not a proper approach! They were looking for someone to run against someone. When they signed their affidavits, they were not signing affidavits of support for Werdel for president, which is what it said. I don't know what the penalty was.

Chall: I think that they are behind that person who would be nominated as president, then, and will stay with him through at least the first and maybe through the second ballot. But that doesn't mean that they are signing it to say that they expect him or would accept him as [the final nominee for] president; they are behind him as a favorite son or native son or whatever you want to call it.

Younger: I think the affidavit says--and it may have been changed, too--but it seems to me that it's intended to be a good faith declaration. [continuing to scan delegate list] Mildred Prince, from up here [San Francisco], I knew. I really thought that she had been a Younger : national committeewoman at one time. It may have been that she and Marjorie Benedict ran against one another or something. I think there may have been a vacancy between conventions, which is then filled by the state committee. Mildred Prince was very active.

Chall: She was indeed.

Younger: I considered her a very brilliant woman. We did not agree on most things, but I certainly thought that she was a very intelligent, capable person. C. Arnholt Smith--I certainly recognize that one. I think Edward Tickle was a state senator, wasn't he, from Camel? I'm not sure. Yes, I see, he represented Monterey and San Benito Counties.

Chall: He may have been; that I don't know.* I know he was from Camel and that he was the state chairman in '42.

Younger: Then he may not have been a state senator, but I somehow connect him with Sacramento in my mind.

Harold Graves--I don't know why that's familiar. Bruce Homan--that's familiar and I don't know exactly why. Was Frank Collier--no, he's a different guy. There are an awful lot that I don't know.

Loyd Wright, yes. I did know him.

Chall: He stayed in active party circles for a long time.

Younger: Not really in active party circles. He was frequently a financial supporter, but you didn't find him at the working levels. Again, that's another problem. I don't know what congressional district Loyd Wright lived in; there've been so many changes that Congressional District number 15 doesn't mean a darn thing to me now.

Chall: In 1962, Loyd Wright was one of the Republicans who ran against Kuchel in the primary with Howard Jarvis. That's the next time I came across his name.

Younger : .I think that was a relatively frivolous candidacy. Of course, there was a Loyd Wright, Jr., too, whom I went to school with. I think the father is still living. The son died of cancer more than five years ago, maybe closer to ten.

Chall: You think' this is probably Loyd Wright, Sr. , then?

*He was state senator, 1933-1943. Younger: I'm sure it is because there is no "~r." behind it. And, as I say, Loyd, Jr., and I were in school at the same time. Loyd Wright, Sr., has been very friendly to my husband in campaigns. But he's never been a working kind of a party person as far as I remember; he's been a contributor kind of person.

Chall : Is he a man with financial means?

Younger: Yes, he's a very wealthy man. He's been very active in bar activities; he's considered a very fine lawyer. I'd put him in that category of a person who is very interested in government, and with convictions about government, but is not a day-to-day kind of a worker.

Richard Gandy looks familiar, but I can't place him. Charles Chapel, of course, was an assemblyman from Inglewood, and I never really could be awfully sure where he stood on much, for very long. Wasn't a bad assemblyman, in many respects; as a matter of fact, he was a good assemblyman in some respects. But he was a very unpredictable man. Wrote an awfully lot of books on all kinds of subjects on the side, and went through a rather tumultuous marriage situation at about that time. I would say that he was unquestionably both a conservative and almost a comic; he was very quick. We always got along fine; we disagreed more often than we agreed, but there was mutual respect.

Alice Madden I knew. She was from Redondo Beach. Joseph de 10s Reyes is a doctor. I think he's still active in Republican politics. I think he was president of the state Assembly; at least he was very active in the Assembly. And my impression is that he was state chairman.

Richard Carpenter from La Canada has to be the publisher of the extremely conservative newspapers in that particular area. Jack B. Tenney--that speaks for itself. He ended up that year as the vice-presidential candidate running with General MacArthur on the Christian Nationalist Party. And we have not mentioned that MacArthur was, himself, a Repbulican presidential nomination at this point. There are others on here that are familiar. Leslie Gehres, of course, was an admiral in the navy and over the years has become a very hard working, constructive force in the Republican party. But he certainly was, at that time, a part of the extremely conservative wing of the party. As I say, there are others on here that are vaguely familiar, and an awful lot that I don' t recognize at all.

For instance, in Imperial County, it would be sheer luck if I happened to know them, because you're talking about two people from a congressional district which is a very spread- out, unusually shaped congressional district. One could be from either end of it, Younger : for instance; you could have one in Riverside and one in Calexico or something like that. The chances of knowing them, unless they were extremely active, are not great. And they could have been very active in their own districts without--

Chall: Yes. But you did know quite a few, and they were people who were .on the conservative end of the spectrum and in many cases have remained so.

Younger-: I would say, by and large, yes. Others of them, obviously, put party consideration first and have over the years.

Chall: And wouldn't have signed up for anything like this, even though they may have agreed.

Younger: Yes.

Chall : As long as we're looking at lists, before we get into some of the other aspects, I wonder if you could look over the names of these women, the other ten besides you and Marjorie Benedict. [the women on the Earl Warren delegation] Most of those women you will know because their names come up all the time. It seems to me they were all active Republican women then, and many of them have remained so.

Younger: Winifred Noyes I don't remember.

Chall : I haven't seen her name before either.

Younger: Florence Doe is extremely active in the Central Valley. She has a son now that's very active. They are wonderful people. Florence was a great inspiration and a wise businesswoman. Edith Lehman was very active'in the Los Angeles area. She dropped out of politics pretty much probably ten or twelve years ago.

Chall : Was she active in the federation?

Younger: Yes, and I'm sure she was a member of the state committee. At that time, she lived in a congressional district that was changing very rapidly and was probably predominantly Democratic by then. She managed to put together a very effective group of Republican workers, in spite of the fact that it was a heavily Democratic district.

Margaret Brock, of course, is well known. Gladys OIDonnell, Dorothy Goodknight. Margaret Malone I don't place. She could have had a nickname, I suppose.

Chall : I don't know where she comes from, actually.

Younger: Mary Woolley I knew well. Chall : Who was she?

Younger: She's unmarried. She's the daughter of a well-known lawyer in Los Angeles. A very hard worker. I would put her generally on the conservative side, but a very straightforward kind of a person.

The next name I can't even read.

Chall : Catherine G. Allen Mitchem.

Younger: I don't think I place her. Barbara Heigho I knew. Pat Connich was very active in the Bay Area, wasn't she?

Chall: I think so, yes. She was northern vice-chairman at one time, I think when you were vice-chairman in the south. [1952-19541

Younger: Irene Dunne , over the years, did a lot of appearances and that kind of thing for the Republican party .and was certainly always a well- respect ed person in the community, involved in community affairs and did a lot of volunteer work. She was beyond the point really of being an extremely active actress by that time, I think.

I do remember one funny sidelight. Clare Boothe Luce was determined to nominate a woman for the vice-presidency. Margaret Chase Smith, of course, was the obvious one. We all had the feeling-- not all, I suppose, but a number of us had the feeling that--

Chall : You all had the feeling, or some of you had the feeling--?

. Younger: The feeling was fairly prevalent, I think, on the convention floor that Mrs. Luce's principal interest was in Mrs. Luce making a speech at the convention. I remember that she made this rousing speech on the subject of a woman for the vice-presidency. She maintained that all women delegates to the convention had caucused and had made this decision and were making this demand at the convention, but not one Californian had been invited. And there were more of us (woman delegates) [laughing] than there were from any other state! It made a fine speech, but it just wasn't so.

I remember we all sat there dumbfounded.

Chall: Had you all missed that meeting?

Younger : Yes. None of us knew about it. I don' t know whether the other women delegates from other states did or not.

Chall: I understand she never did get around to nominating Margaret Chase Smith because--I think this is what I read somewhere--there had been so much controversy and difficulty in that 1952 convention that Chall: by the time it would have come around for her to do this, Margaret Chase Smith said, "Enough's enough. Leave well enough alone. I don't want to add another name to this pot."

Younger: I think that's quite probable. For some reason or another, I put Clare Boothe ~uce'sspeech in the middle of the convention business rather than at nominating time.

Chall: She may have been on the program.

Younger: I remember that she had mystified all of us tremendously. In the first place, she was very expensively groomed and gowned, and we were about as beat-up a looking group as you could possibly get.

Chall: You mean the California women?

Younger: Yes ! Terrible heat and dirt, and there was no air conditioning. It was well over a hundred and very humid. It was an ordeal just to get through a day's session, a terrible ordeal. Many of us resorted to a good many compromises as far as dress. We were wearing each other's clothes and one thing and another. Mrs. Luce, whom we couldn't identify at first, was always flitting around doing something terribly important in the most chic possible out£its with every hair in place. There was general resentment among our group, if no place else. [laughter]

Chall: When it finally came down to the convention time, were you particularly more friendly or close to any of these women on the delegation than others?

Younger: We were mostly pretty good friends. I roomed with an alternate, actually. Incidentally, this is a place where people frequently get their feet wet and where you will find--I couldn't say this for sure--I think that you may find a much higher proportion of women among the alternates than among the delegates. I know that delegates rotate on purpose; a certain percentage will automatically get up and ask their alternates to take their place. So women's representation is not really as low [on a delegation]--it's not as full as it would be if they were full delegates--but it isn't really quite as low, either, as it appears to be, because you are more apt to get more women alternates.

Chall: I think that's true. I think I have noticed that when I can get hold of an alternate list. But I notice there were many women's names, for example, on the list of people who went along on the train; there are quite a number of women there.

Younger: And I would suspect that they were alternates because I remember the woman that I roomed with was an alternate. Chall: You don't remember who she was?

Younger: Yes--Mary Topper, who was a very dear friend of mine and was every bit as active in all of the various things that seemed terribly important at the time, as any delegate was. This was true of all the caucus'es, and all the votes in the caucus, and that kind of thing. The alternates were--

Chall: They could talk and they could lobby?

Younger: You're darn right they could.

Chall: They just couldn't vote; their votes didn't count.

Younger: That's right. And I suspect that's true in a good many delegations.

Chall: In the primary, you said that you did a great deal of speaking for Warren up and down the state. That was as part of the Warren committee speakers bureau, was that it?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: Before I leave Werdel, I don't know whether you would know much about this, but it would be interesting to find out. Some people have said that Werdel, who lost his seat in Congress in 1952 although all the other Republicans were elected--in fact, a couple extra, more than had been on the California delegation before-- that this was sort of revenge on the part of the Warren people against Werdel's position. They didn't support him and therefore he lost. Do you think there's anything to that? Or do you recall the campaign?

Younger: I don' t recall it well enough, to begin with, but secondarily I'd say this, that really the principal objection that ever develops within a political party--and this is true I expect across the board--to a governor of that party is that the governor is inclined to begin to run his own operation. I really don't think that Governor Warren was very much concerned with congressional races.

Chall: I see. Somebody must have been concerned in the general election. I think Werdel won his own party's primary.*

Younger: I'm not even sure that he did. He may not have.

*He won the Republican party primary, but he was defeated by Democrat Harlan Hagen in the general election. Chall: He may not have because he was running for the presidency. I might have to check that out. Maybe that's why he didn't--

Younger: I kind of have a feeling that that may have been the reason. 1'm not sure that there's any law against it, but there may be a law against running for two offices . Remember, there've been contests in other states on the subject of whether or not a United States Senator who is up for election can run for either the presidency or the vice-presidency .

Chall: I think Goldwater decided not to run the year--

Younger: That's right.

Chall: That would be interesting to check out.

Younger: But my impression is that Warren really didn't take much part in congressional races. I couldn't speak for his supporters.

Mildred Younger's Role in the Civil Rights Platform Controversy

Chall: There just may have been other people who were strongly opposed to what Werdel was doing.

How do you think it came about that you were appointed to the Platform and Resolutions Committee?

Younger: I suppose it was rather arbitrary, I don't know. I had been extremely interested in issues. There was a group of us, a relatively small group of us in Southern California, that talked about issues a lot. We had no standing, but we did have the feeling that there had to be more consideration and study of issues. We wanted to be sure that we understood them ourselves and we wanted Republican organizations to understand issues. We certainly hoped to interest others into more objective study of issues. Too often, the media or perhaps incidental events, shape issues and decide them rather than deliberate discussion and a kind of delineation of philosophical guidelines. There are, of course, differing levels of involvement with basic political philosophy. We happened to feel that our level of political participation demanded that we try on ideas. We wanted to hear other viewpoints and kind of rub minds without the usual fear of asking questions or trying out new ideas or new applications of old ideas.

Chall: You must have got through. Younger: I don't know whether it did or not, but I was a part of that group.

Chall: You were appointed, and so was Richard Nixon. As far as I know, you were the two Californians appointed to the Platform and Resolutions Committee.

Younger : Yes. There is a man and a woman from each state, or were at that time.

Chall: Richard Nixon was the Senator.

Younger: That's right. Now, certainly Knowland was also a Senator, but he was chairman of the delegation.

Chall: That's right. He'd also been running his campaign for Senate, so I guess he was busy otherwise.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: Did you have a feeling of pride at this apppointment? Did members of your family have a feeling of pride about all or any of this-- that you were on the delegation, and appointed to the committee?

Younger: Well, I don't think you'd call it pride, really; it just seemed like something that ought to be done.

Chall : [laughter] Yes, but you were the one who was appoirited to do it! Did you have the feeling that you were making progress in politics as a result of these appointments?

Younger: I didn't have any particular interest in making progress in politics, really. [laughter] I'm sorry. I'm not coming up with the right answers.

Chall: There are no right answers; there's just an answer.

Younger: They just seemed like things that needed doing and--

Chall: You were asked to do it.

Younger: Yes.

Chall: Okay, that's fine. I don't know, I would think that some women or men--maybe mainly men--would feel that this was a move.

Younger : Okay. Now maybe you're talking about one of the reasons why you do get such a heavy preponderance of men on delegations. Recognition for work a woman may consider very routine and just part of what she owes the country she lives in and the system under which she lives. Recognition may mean a good deal more to a man than Younger: it does to a housewife. A housewife does what she does because she thinks it needs doing and not because she has any phony notions that this is going to suddenly catapult her into a position of fame and fortune. Men, I think--I don't know whether I should say they like power more, but they' re more inclined to know the value of power than women--maybe I should say "than women were" as opposed to "women are."

Chall: Yes, that's one of the facets of today's woman in politics that I think bears watching.

Younger: Probably, yes. Motives may be changing very considerably. But to me at that time it just seemed like things ought to be done. My family was agreeable, and we did them. By the same token, there would have been a good many men who, if they had not been delegates, or if they had not been able to be persuaded that they should be .delegates, would never have lifted another finger for their political party; they would have been lost forever.

Chall: So, it is important; those places are important.

Younger: Yes, that recognition is important, and it's more important to a man, I think, generally speaking--or at least in those days--was- more important than it was to a woman.

Chall: Which is probably the reason there were fewer women on the delegation.

Younger: Yes, because women didn't think in terms, really, of seeking spots on a delegation. Then you add that fumy congressional district limitation. I was not very much involved--as a matter of fact, I wasn't involved at all, I guess--in the selection of the Ford delegation, in which my husband was involved. But they certainly ran up against exactly the same problem: You get a heavily Republican congressional district and you may have fifty people who would be fine delegates. You get a heavily Democratic congressional district, and it's all you can do to scrape up two who will even be mediocre delegates. That's a factor that you can never forget when you talk about representation, whether you're talking about minority representation or whether you're talking about-- Beally, you don't have to be awfully smart if you live in East Los Angeles and you want to be part of the power structure in the community in which you live, you don't have to be awfully smart to decide you're a Democrat, because it's a highly Democratic area. That means that when you come to choosing a delegation from the opposite political party--(and I'm just using East Los Angeles as an example; I don't know--maybe there were some very outstanding people from East Los Angeles). But generally speaking, the leaders of that community are apt to be members of the majority party who are not available to the minority party. Chall: And yet, restricting. as it is, I suppose it's important that you have the congressional district rule because it does spread the leadership or the potential leadership around.

Younger: That's right, yes. But it has some distinct problems.

Chall: The delegates-at-large don't take care of all these problems?

Younger: There aren't enough of them, really, although I think the law has been changed in that direction. Of course, California's overall population is now considerably more evenly divided than it used to be. But in a state where you've got such wide variations of population and that kind of thing, you also are inclined to get things that impinge upon either minority or female versus male representation in some congressional districts because some congressional districts lend themselves much more easily to the leadership being from particular types of business, particular types of labor, particular groups of people. Our population is not homogeneous. We tend to group.

Chall: Where you can get your party workers on either side?

Younger : Yes.

Chall: You, I assume, left a week early. Can you remember whether you were in Sacramento at the final caucus before the group left on the train, or did you attend one of the earlier caucuses in Southern California with the 'southern delegates?

Younger: I think that the final caucus probably was before the group left on the train, and I was probably already gone. I know 'that Richard Nixon was there the day that the platform committee first met; I know he was in Chicago then. Then I know he left Chicago. This was true of a good many office holders. I don't know whether the Senate was still in session.

For instance, this year we had a situation where I think there was a congressional session going on. So if you had a member of a particular committee, he had to make a choice between which place he was going to be, and he couldn't be both places. This is a drawback. The longer both legislative sessions and congressional sessions in either the states or Washington, the more you do affect committee work in particular, because it's much harder to take two weeks away than it is to take the one week away.

Chall: But he [Nixon] wasn't given a committee chairmanship, and he was part of the overall committee that would make policy. Younger: Yes. He nominated me for secretary of the Platform Committee and I was unanimously elected. He didn't ask me first; I was kind of stunned. [laughter]

Chall: Well, he kept it in California, anyway. Then how did you come to be on the Civil Rights Subcommittee? How did that come about, do you know?

Younger: I really don't know. I think those decisions had been made pretty much at the national committee level ahead of time. By national committee, I don't mean by a meeting of the national committee; I mean by the office of the national committee. They had designated two particular subcommittees to be chaired by women. The Civil Rights Subcommittee--remember , this was just before civil rights began to be tremendously important as a political issue-was one that they had designated to be chaired by a woman. There were two women members of the Civil Rights Subcommittee. The other one was from one of the New England states, and she didn't come for that first week which pretty well meant that they were stuck with me. Really the absenteeism is rather appalling. I assume that's still true.

Chall: It was then?

Younger: That's right. There are a number of people who don't feel that they can take the two weeks, and I expect in some cases a number of people who feel that the position is just honorary anyway.

Chall: The platform doesn't matter that much?

Younger: I'm really talking about across the board--611 of the committees. There's apt to be more absenteeism than is really acceptable. I think there are various reasons for it in various cases.

Chall: Expense would certainly be one of them.

Younger: That's right. But I felt that it was necessary to go, just as Nixon felt that it was necessary to go and then leave. The other woman who was assigned to the Civil Rights Subcommit tee didn' t show up, which made the youngest female delegate to the convention automatically the chairman of it, and that was quite an experience.

Chall: I gather that it was, but I'd like to hear about it. I have a copy of your letter to the editor after Earl Warren had died, in which you speak about his advice to you as chairman of the committee.

Younger: Which I shall never forget.

Chdl: So I think that we might just go into that. You were the youngest woman there and maybe the youngest delegate. / . te+tG?&+A'.c 'P; I His Difficult A( . - .. .,. - ,: :, While it is still timel?., I should' pressure was put an he to.switch like to add my personal tribute to Ins position and dm the situation former Chief Justice Earl I\'arren down. . . for a moment he probably ne\.er rc- I was convinced that I was in way called and ii-hich I'1.e never forgot- oi.er my head--and that I was doing ten. Further, I would like to share it an unjustifiable &ervice to Cali- with all those who can learn from it. fornia's candidate, then ,Gov. War- .The time was the Republican Na- ren. . . , .: ~onalConvention, Chicago, 1052. By Warren arrived in Chicago on the a series of totally unplanned coin- delegation train. I had already asked cidences, I had stumbled into the for an Qppointmentwith hQn though chairmanship of the Subcommittee I did not know himwell and had re- on Civil Ri,blzts during the platform- ceived no messages or direction draftins week prior to the conven- from him. .. . tion. , '. I told him briefly what had tran- I was not only a female delegate at spired 'aid that I \\askeqnly aware a time when California probably that his political future might \veU substantially- led all other states in be jeopardized by my actions. I told proportion of ivomen delegates but, him that the other members all had -I'm told, I was the younge?t female instructions, apologized for being in- delegate to the convention. BIy ex- ept and asked him for instructions perience was a big fat zero. which would permit me to do my job For five days straight we held as a delegate pledged to him (by Cal- ifornia law). stormy sessions-four men ' with both personal convictions and care- IIe had listened quietly. Obviously, ful directions on how to vote in or- he knew a great deal about what had been going on;b-;t lzt me tell it my der to pick up suppo1.t for presiden- . .. tial candidates and/or their own way. . - states and a young, inexperienced And then' he had the courage ta housewife lacking even the political say. "Just be honest." . acumen to keep quiet. By the middle No more. of the second day we had blundered I left with a far heavier weight our way into the highly control-er- than I wanted. sial position of debating whether or But with the howledge * that not the Republican Xational Plat- someone of great stature preferred form should become the first politi- simple honesty-with all its incredi- cal platform in history to go beyond ble burdens-to political advantage. platitudes and to take a firm stand I shall always thirik of Earl IVar- against bigotry and racial Ilarernon- ren in the sudden clarity of those gering as well as for equal rights. few7 brief moments. -4nd I hope The crowd became standing-room- never to forget his very difficult in- only. Union leader IValtelmReuther structions. = was among the spectators \1:11o dailv 1MILDREDYOUSGF:R ' entered the debatcs. Intense party Younger: I think Bob Finch was the youngest delegate; Bob's a year younger than I am.

Chall: So California was represented by [laughter] its young citizens.

Younger: [laughter.] Yes. But I couldn't have been more naive if I'd been ten!

Chall: Hwmanywereon that CivilRights Subcommittee-howmmany people?

Younger.: We ended up with five showing up. Now, what the overall makeup should have been, I'm really not clear. It doesn't make sense that just the other woman was missing, because that would have meant that it would have been a committee of six; and there were five, and I suspect that it was probably a committee of seven.

Chall: At least, yes.

Younger: There were two southerners and two men who, it seems to me, were both from states like Wyoming, Montana, maybe Idaho--the same general geographical area.

Cha11: Midwest.

Younger: Well, not really what we consider Midwest. More northwest. But not states with high urban populations.

Chall: Where civil rights as such wouldn't have made much difference one way or another.

Younger : That' s right.

Chall: It did in California and it certainly did in the South.

Younger: Yes, except that, as I say, it really hadn't matured as a full-blown political issue like it did later.

Chall: But in the South it always was a full-blown political issue, wasn't it?

Younger: I'm not even sure that that's true. I think that there were so many years when the black's role was so very subservient that it wasn't an issue. You know, you heard very little about it because there really wasn't much being done. I think it came a little later, although there had been mass movements, of course, into urban areas before that.

Chall: President Truman had already, by proclamation or edict, integrated the armed services, I think, at that point. So there was something surf acing. Younger: There was a little bit, but it was the beginning really, as far as the political parties were concerned.

Chall: How did it happen, then, that you got so heavily ,involved in this whole question? Mostly in your committee it was the FEPC problem, wasn't it? The Fair Employment Practices--that's where you came head-on with the minority group. That's as far as I know. Were there other issues?

Younger: The issue that I got most involved about was the one that led me to run for public office later, and that was the issue of the amount of material which was being disseminated in the state, and I assume nationally, but certainly in a state that had an election for a delegation as opposed to a convention. That was the problem of the tremendous amount of professional bigotry. I think that in some area or another, whether we're conscious of it or not, probably everybody has prejudices. We don't mean to but we do, But this had taken on a pattern; it was anti-Semitic, it was anti-black and it was anti-Catholic. And there was always a price tag on it.

Now, I can't justify bigotry--ever. But I can understand prejudices, particularly in a time of economic crisis or something like that where jobs are hard to come by and where you're getting challenges from what seems to be a particular segment of the population, This is at least understandable, to some degree, that you start reacting and reacting frequently in ways that you shouldn't react.

But when I see that somebody's making money by selling hatred, based on anything, I'm unable to accept that. It's a kind of preying on human weakness for your own gain. Cynicism at its worst. It was going on, and it was going on blatantly and freely in the state of California, The material would appear to be in some cases partisan material. I have a feeling that maybe in the South it was sold with a different party emphasis; all you had to do was change the party name.

I think that we wrote the only platform that year, that's probably ever been written by either political party, which contained a statement against professional hate-mongering . Chall: Yes, that's the first paragraph under the civil rights.

Younger: That, you see, is where I got into trouble. Chall: Yes. This is National Party Platforms.* This is the platform of the Republicans of 1952: Civil Rights, the first paragraph:

"We condemn bigots who inject class, racial, and religious prejudice into public and political matters. Bigotry is un- Amelican and a danger to the Republic. We deplore duplicity, the duplieity and insincerity of the party in power in racial and religious matters. Although they have been in of £ice as a majority party for many years, they have not kept nor do they intend to keep their promises ."

Younger: That first part about the bigotry, I had introduced, and that was the part that was debatable. It was called improper material for a political party platform; it was considered unprecedented--which it was. It certainly had been going on since the beginning of the Republic and probably before that, for I for one had not been aware of it and apparently nobody before had felt that it was something' that was of sufficient importance that you ought to talk about it.

But you ought to be able to go home and say to your political party, 11Now wait a dam minute! You're not going to use Gerald L.K. Smith's pamphlets--that kind of thing. Maybe it hadn't been big business; maybe it was just a change in the media. I don't know. Certainly media changes as far as discovering what can be sent into homes, and how you do it, and how you disseminate it, and that kind of thing. That was a year of very, very heavy mailing of all kinds of political material, and a great deal of it was just plain based on racial and religious hatred, and it all had a price tag on it. Somebody was getting rich on it.

Chall: Did you introduce this almost right off the bat as chairman?

Younger : Yes.

Chall: [laughter] Can you describe the reaction and then the follow-up?

Younger: The reaction was, to put it nicely, violent.

Chall: Is that so? By the two southern members?

Younger: And the two men from--I wish I could remember exactly which states they were from, but they were not from urban states. They really didn't give a darn at the time. This was not an issue, they hadn't seen the material, they didn't care. 504 NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS tween government, the physician, the voluntary Federal action toward the elinlil~ationof pall hospital, and voluntary health insurance. \Ire are taxes as a prerequisite to voting. opposed to Federal compulsory health insurance Appropriate action to end segregatioil in the with its crushing cost, wasteful inefficiency, bu- District of Columbia. reaucratic dead weight, and debased standards of Enacting Federal legislation to further just medical care. \\'e shall support those health ac- and equitable treatment in the area of discrirni- tivities by government which stimulate the de- natory employment practices. Federal action velopment of adequate hospital services without should not duplicate state efforts to end such Federal interference in local administration. \Ire practices; should not set up another huge bu- favor support of scientific research. \I7e pledge reaucracy. our contiiluous encouragement of improved meth- ods of assuring health protection. CESSORSHIP We pledge not to infringe by censorship or gag- order the right of a free people to know nyhat their Government is doing. The tradition of -popular - education, tas-sup- ported and free to all, is strong with our peopie. EQUALRXCRTS The responsibility for sustaining this system of popular education has always rested upon the \Ve recommend to Congress the submission of a local con~munitiesand the States. We subscribe Constitutional Amei~dmentproviding equal rights fully to this principle. for men and women. \Ire favor legislation- assuring equal pay for equal \rork regardless of ses.

\17e condemn bigots who inject class, racial and religious prejudice into public and political mat- \\re favor immediate statehood for Ilatvaii. ters. Bigotry is un-American and a danger to the \l7e favor statehood for Alaska under an equita- Republic. ble enabling act. \Ire deplore the duplicity and insincerity of the \17e favor eventual statehood for ~uertoRico. Party in power in racial and religious matters. Al: though they have been in office as a hfajority DISTRICTOF COLLTIBL~ Party for many years, they have not kept nor do \Ve favor self-government and national suffrage they intend to keep their promises. for the residents of the Sation's Capital. The Republican Party will not mislead, exploit or attempt to confuse minority groups for political purposes. All America11 citizens are entitled to All Indians are citizens of the United States full, impartial enforcement of Federal Iaws re- and no longer should be denied full enjolment of lating to their civil rights. their rights of citizenship. We believe that it is the primary responsibility \17e shall eliminate the existing shameful waste of each State to order and control its own do- by the Bureau of Indian Affairs which has ob- mestic institutions, and this power, reserved to the structed the accomplishment of our national states, is essential to the maintenai~ceof our Fed- responsibility for improving the condition of our eral Republic. Hoxever, we believe that the Indian friends. We pledge to undertake prozrarns Federal Government should take supplemental to provide the Indians with equal opportunities action within its constitutional jurisdiction to for education, health protection and economic oppose discrimination against race, religion or development. national origin. The next Republican Administration will wel- We will prove our good faith by: come the advice and counsel of Indian !eaders in Appointing quaIified persons, without distinc- selecting the Indian Commissioner. tion of race, religion or national origin, to responsible positions in the Government. Federal action toward the elimination of \Ire condemn the flagrant violations of the Civil lynching. Service merit system by the Party in potver.

National Party Platforms, 1840-1956, compiled by Kirk H. Porter and Donald Bruce Johnson, The University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Younger: The southerners, I expect, were perfectly accustomed to it. The South hadn't yet begun to change. I think those Negroes who had moved to large cities had been much more vocal in the cities than they were in the South, for instance, so that you saw the conflict earlier in the places that they moved to than the places that they came from. That may be the reason that the southerners certainly saw no reason for it because, as far as they were concerned, this was already settled. There wasn't any vast movement to--

Chall : Yes. Why bring it up? Bigotry was a way of life in the South.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: So it turned out to be a contest between you and the two men from the South.

Younger : And the other two men, and they were both committed delegates. This was one of the big problems: All four of them were delegates who were committed.

Chall: Committed to-?

Younger : I don't remember who they were committed to, or whether they were committed to favorite sons; they might have been. But they were all in a position of being told how they were going to vote on something. I was the only one who wasn't.

Chall: They probably hadn't any instructions immediately on this one.

Younger : They got them awful fast.

Chall : They did? And the instruction was no?

Younger : Let's put it this way. We had two reports, a majority report and a minority report. There being only five of us, guess who cast the vote for the majority report.

Chall : The majority report of your subcommittee?

Younger : Yes.

Chall : It was two to two?

Younger : So I had a vote.

Chall: It wouldn't necessarily mean that you brought two of the delegates around to your point of view?

Younger : Yes, but they were awfully reluctant; they weren't involved; their states weren't involved. Chall: But they did go along?

Younger: They went along.

Chall: You cast the deciding vote when you had the chance.

Younger: Yes. Everything else was relatively dull on the platform front. Television was just cutting its teeth. I wish the political conventions and the political process could be shown as clearly today as it was then. But it can't be because television was new and exploring. In 1948, it hadn't redly known how to operate and the equipment evolution was staggering. Delegates were not aware of television and the extent of its impact in 1952. But it had a huge impact, and it had the kind of an impact that brought the whole country into the whole process, which I thought was a good th ing . The business now, if somebody is making a speech, there's very little chance that you'll hear anything more than an announcement that Senator So-and-so is speaking now. Then they '11 go to somebody in a crazy hat.

Chall: You won' t get a chance to hear the speech unless it happens to be the keynote.

Younger: That's right. But television wasn't that sophisticated then. Television was very much covering the week ahead of time as -well as the week of the convention.

Chall: And certainly credentials were important. I donft know that we watched the platform with such eagerness, but the Credentials Committee was very important, and that was not televised until-- the televising of the credentials hearing, apparently, was forced upon the convention by the media and picked up by those, I understand, who were interested in exploiting it for Eisenhower. But early on, unless they were just talking about it, I think the hearing closed.

Younger: Our hearings were most certainly televised, and openly so. Among other things, Walter Reuther discovered on the first day that there was a rather unusual circumstance in the Civil Rights Subcommittee. He came prepared to do battle himself and make the Republican party look as bad as possible. He and I tangled every day, predictably, and it was usually many times every day. We had standing room only.

Chall: In your Civil Rights Subcommittee?

Younger: That's right--from the first day on. The media moved in very rapidly. Among other things, just having a relatively young female delegate-- Chall: At the head of this explosive group!

Younger: That's right--was in itself more televisable than some of the duller proceedings. So we got a good deal more coverage than it merited.

I remember, just before the platform was to be adopted, that Senator Millikin--I don't think he invited me to his hotel suite-- ordered me to his hotel suite. He and an aide kept me in the room with the door locked for six hours attempting to get me to change my vote.

Chall: On just this paragraph? !

Younger: On that paragraph in particular, which today sounds very, very mild. But I got more and more determined I was not going to change my mind. There was something later on in there that was also qui-te controversial.

Chall: There is, and it's interesting that it was the other one that Newsweek, for example, picked up, and that the other books p4cked up.*

Younger: This one was sort of the key to the other one being controversial-- as controversial as it was--because we started out right off the bat on the wrong foot, as far as the accepted thing was concerned.

.(%all: You'd already taken up sides.

Younger: Yes. So there definitely were two reports; there wasn' t any question about it.

Chall: Let me then tell you what the other one was. You were pressing for a federal commission to end racial discrimination in employment. You wanted to have subpoena and investigative powers for this commission but no authority to prosecute; the commission would operate in states that didn't have their own FEPC commission. The minority favored local option on FEPC. According to this material here, the chairman of the Resolutions Committee, Senator Eugene Millikin of Colorado, tried to bring about a compromise and it failed. So it looked as if there'd be a floor fight on civil rights plank.

Younger: That six hours in his room was his effort to bring about a compromise.

Chall: But a compromise -was accepted by the majority.

*"The Platform, Bridging Dissension," Newsweek, July 21, 1952, p. 30. NATIONAL AFFAIRS THE PLATFORM: agreements as the North Atlantic Treaty lead Europe to think that tlie V.S. did Organization. not really believe \vnr could be pre- Bridging Disse~lsioll \Vhen, last .\Ionday, Dulles sho\ved vented and n.ould also imply tli;~tcol- Dwight D. Eisenlio\ver a draft of the lective secu~it?. had already failed. -It The platfor~~lon n.Iiich tlie Republican defense and foreign-policy planks, the his suggestion, Dullcs eliminated the nominees \vould stand or fall in Novem- general objected only to one clause call- \\fords "retaliato~y stliking" from the ber was sollle 6,000 \vords. of rhetoric. ing for "such a retaliaton striking power draft-a change \vhich tlie Taft Stassen. \\'hat was unveiled before the Repub- as to deter sudden attack or prornptly and \\';u-ren factions accepted. licon con\,ention last Thursday was nei- and decisively defeat it." Ike felt strongly The real fight ~vithinthe Resolutions ther as forthright as some desired nor as that "retaliatory striking po\verM would Committee, ho\ve\.er, was over the very an~biguousas others \vished. Strong on touchy question of civil lights. \\'hen the criticism of the Democratic Administm- subcommittee drafting the ci\il-rights tion-and full of stinging attacks on cor- Main GOP PIa~lks plank met, there \vas a clear-cut division. ruption iutd foreign-policy "blunders"-it i\ majority, headed by .\lrs. .\Iildrerl \\.as oftell vague on specifics. Foreign PoIiep: 'l\!e shall en- Younger of California, pressed for a Fed- It mas the platfonn of a party which courage and aid the development eral commission to end racial discriniina- held within its le:~dership people of of collective security forces [in tion in en~plo!.ment. This body would \vitlely divergent \ie\\.s on foreign pol- \Vestem Europe] .. . We shall end have subpoena and investigative potvers icy, national defense, a~ldcivil rights. neglect of the Far East . . . [\ire] but no autho~it!. to prosecute. It ~vould Though most Republicans could agree on will repudiate all commitments con- operate only in states tvhicl~had no fiiir- retention of an amended .Taft-Hartley tained in secret understandi~igs, employment laws of their own. Act, and offered no dissent on the gen- such as those of Yalta ..." FEPC Con~promise: A minorit)' eralities of a free-enterprise advocacy, Satiooal Defcnscr "\ire should ba4ked at this. favoring instead loc~~lop- they could meet other major issues only develop with utmost speed a force tion on FEPC. Efforts of Sen. Eugene with compromise. in being, as distinguished from pa- .\lillikin of Colorado, chairman of the Dulles lo lire Ilcucuc: On foreign per plans, of such power as to deter Resol~~tionsCommittee, to bring about a policy and national defense, the party sudden attack ... [by the] quickest compromise failed. For a while it seemed ueeded a plank tvl~ichcould bridge the possible development of appropri- as if a floor fight on the civil-rights plank gap behveen .\lidtvestem isolationism ate and completely adequate air was in the \\.arks. and Eastern internationalism, between power and the simultaneous readi- The final wording, \vhich called for "Europe First" proponents and those who ness of coordinated air, land, and anti-lynch and anti-poll-tns legislation. stressed the iniportance of the Far Enst, sea forces ..." supported state FEPC. But, it added. between air-po\i.er strategists and those Communisnn: "A Republican "we belie\-e that the Federal govern- who saw America's defense in balanced President will appoint only persons ment should take supplemental action air-sea-land forces. of unquestioned loyalty. \ire \dl within its constitutional jurisdiction to op- As the party's spokes~nanon foreign overhaul loyalty . . . programs." pose discrintination against race, religion. affairs, John Foster Di~Heshad worked Rosiness and Tamntion: "\lre or national origin." By the time 3iilliLin with the platform committee to draft a shall remove tax abuses and in- took the rostnlrn on Thursday to rend plank ~vhicli\vould meet most objections jurious price and wage controls . . . the entire platform, delegates who fa- and still be meaningful. \\'hat emerged protect our free-enterprise system vored an ironclad promise for co~npulsory seconded the principle of collective se- against monopolistic . . . practices. FEPC had come around. curity (as against Herbert Hoover's iVe will oppose Federal rent con- But one member of the Resolutions "Fortress Anlerica" concept), called for a trol except [in critical defense Committee, Sen. Richard hI. Sixon: large air force but did not suggest that it areas] . . . Our goal is a balanced found some of it "too ambiguous," qar- become America's sole means of defense, budget ... and a cut in taxes." titularly with respect to FEPC, \vliich, and backed the U.S. ant1 such regional Agricullore: 'We condemn as as a congressman, he had supported. ;I fraud . .. the Brannan plan scheme .. . iVe favor a farm pro- gram aimed at full parity prices for all farm products . . . a constructive and expanded soil- consenration program . .." Labor: "\ire favor retention of the Taft-Hartley Act. ..[with] such amendments. . .as time and esper- ience show to be desirable . .." Tideinndn: "iVe favor restora- tion to the states of their rights to ill1 .. . resources beneath na\ig:thle inland and offshore waters." Civil nights: "[\ire pledge] Federal action toward the elirni- nation of lynching .. . toward the elimination of poll taxes . . . Federal legislation to further just and equi- table treatment in the area of dis- criminatory employment practices." Corruption: "[We pledge] to put an end to corruption, to oust the crooks and grafters . . ." Younger : The compromise was nor accepted by the majority. That was not the compromis e.

Chall: I see. This one on the FEPC was not the compromise?

Younger: No, it was not a compromise. He didn't want the plank as it came out.

Chall: I see. What I understood happened is that somebody added in here, "We will prove our good faith by appointing qualified persons, without distinction of race, religion or national origin, to responsible positions in the government. There will be federal action toward the elimination of lynching, federal action toward the elimination of poll taxes as a prerequisite of voting, appropriate end to segregation in the District of Columbia, and enacting federal legislation to further just and equitable treatment in the area of discriminatory employment practice. Federal action should not duplicate state efforts to end such practices, should not set up another huge bureaucracy. " - It sounds as if it's in the wording that the compromise took place, not necessarily in what was meant to come out of it.

Younger : Senator Millikin had very little to do with compromising on the wording, and I think that we did compromise to some extent on the wording, just in an effort to keep the committee operating. But the whole concept of FEPC was one that Millikin was against and wanted nothing to do with. What that actually said, if you wanted it to say it--which I did--was that the federal government would be just as bound as any state to fill in any gaps that existed and to operate, itself, in accordance with fair employment practices.

Chall: Somebody must have been satisfied with the wording that was different from what you had come out with originally.

Younger : No, because-we ended up with the two to three split.

Chall: Then how did it happen again? At one point, I guess it was Newsweek-- I don't know where I picked this up--must have thought there was going to be a floor fight. What prevented it?

Younger: Well, I'll tell you what prevented it. The California delegation, after I told them everything that was going on, and I said that they certainly were not bound by it, voted unanimously that they were bound by it, and to go ahead. Senator Knowland, naturally, knew Senator Millikin considerably better than I did. By this time, Senator Millikin and I had had our six-hour session, which had ended up with his saying, "I intend to read the minority report rather than the majority report when I read the platform tomorrow." Senator Knowland said, "The thing to do is for you to stand in full Younger: view of Senator Millikin with a microphone--1'11 see to it that there is a floor microphone--where you are in his direct line of vision, and you are to stand there with the majority report. When he gets to civil rights, if he reads the minority report instead, you are to break in and challenge him."

I stood there during the entire reading of the platform. I don't think I could have said a word if my life depended on it-- I was scared to death. When he got to the civil rights portion--he glanced at me a number of times--he put his papers down on the lectern and he removed the pages that he had in and put other pages into it. The pages he put in were the majority report. He had fully intended to do it. But the bluff worked.

Chall: He fully intended to read the minority report. But he knew what you and Senator Knowland had planned.

Younger: That's right. Well, the fact that I was standing there in full view, in the middle of the main aisle, all during his reading of the platform, holding those pages of paper--I don't think he could see how badly my hands were shaking. Thank goodness Senator Knowland knew Senator Millikin and when he'd capitulate!

Chall: Isn't that interesting! So there were no compromises, then.

Younger: There were compromises within the committee on little bits of language and that sort of thing, out of respect to each other.

Chall: But the basic issue still was a minority--

Younger : That's right, he got challenged. He decided that he didn't want to be challenged publicly from the floor and he took the pages out. He looked straight at me when he did it.

Chall: The platform passed, after all that.

Younger: The platform passed.

Chall: My goodness, what a week you must have had!

Younger: It was exhausting.

Chall: That six hours with Senator Millikin must have been an experience.

Younger: Oh, it was an incredible experience. I didn't know such things happened.

Chall: Next time we meet, can you give me a little bit more about what it was like? How he put pressure on you? Younger: I remember I desperately needed to go to the restroom; I was hungry, I was thirsty?

Chall: Wasn' t he? J Younger: If L remember correctly, he ordered lunch--or his aide, whoever was with him, ordered it--and he ate in front of me.

Chall: He never offered you any lunch?

Younger: That's right. But he ate his.

Chall: How many were in the room--j ust three?

Younger: Three.

Chall: You must have been talking a lot that day.

Younger: I talked very little.

Chall: You just stood your ground and he talked?

Younger: That's right, he did the talking.

Chall: And what did he have to say?

Younger: Primarily how bad it was for the party and that I was a trouble- maker and that kind of thing. We went over that a number of times. It was amazing how many different ways he could say it! The committee had already met for its last session.

Chall: You already had the backing of your caucus, and Governor Warren had already told you to "just be honest," so you felt that you could just sit there and take it?

Younger: His last words were, "I intend to read the minority report," and I said, "Go ahead." They decided that was an impasse, the door was unlocked, and I left.

Chall : [laughter] A fascinating story!

Younger: It was quite an experience. That's why I didn't care about a seconding speech.

Chall: No, I can see why you wouldn't care to be making a seconding speech or anything else. And you'd had your time on television, so you really didn't need any more. [laughter] [Interview 5: September 29, 19761%/I Chall: Since we left off last time finishing discussion of the civil rights platform, I think it's interesting that I was asking you questions and making assumptions based upon this article (which is on page thirty here) and something else I had read, and you were telling me a totally different story.*

Younger: I think that the truth is someplace in between; that's the only thing that I can figure. This article I never saw before. My memory of the amount of fuss about that first approach against professional hate mongering and that kind of thing, has to have become exaggerated so that it was occupying too much attention. Now, looking back on it, it doesn't really make sense that Senator Millikin was that exercised about--

Chall: About that first paragraph.

Younger: That was probably a trigger, and probably the thing that they were really concerned about was indeed the FEPC. I had just forgotten that. The very basic philosophical differences on the subcommittee colored everything. We were in substantial disagreement from start to finish and I can't remember the emphasis.

Chall: That's understandable. The rough time you had with Senator Millikin-- that's in good memory.

Younger: Oh, it certainly is.

Chall: It was interesting that Senator Knowland would have been such a great help to you in this field. I don' t know where he stood on issues of this kind, actually, at that time; he was not always a far right conservative at all times during his career, nor in every thing, either.

Younger: That's right, If I remember correctly, when he was a state senator from Alameda County, he was considered on the moderate side, moderate to liberal Republican, I'm not positive about that, but that's my impression, that the image of conservatism came quite a bit later. Remember, both he and Senator Kuchel were appointed to the United States Senate by Governor Earl Warren. And actually as an individual, as a person, I don't think he was a dreadfully conservative person. Certainly his wife, Helen, was not. She was a tremendously attractive person. Did you ever know her or see her? She's a beautiful woman. I think she's remarried, and somebody said she was living in Nevada or somewhere out of the state. I thought she was

*Newsweek, July 21, 1952, p. 30. Younger: really one of those rare chaming, beautiful women that you meet from time to time. She seemed to kind of fight the life of being a United States Senator's wife.

For instance, she wrote at least one mystery book. There was one that was published over her own name. My memory of it is that it was not a--what was it? It was Madam something, I think, was the title of it. I think I may have it at home; for a while I collected mystery books. Was it Madame Baltimore? Something like that. I have heard rumors that she had written other things, not using her own name. As you know, there were a good many personal rumors about them in Washington.

Chall: I don't know, but I suppose eventually they broke up for various reasons.

Seeing Politicians as Just People

Younger: Yes. And this doesn't really fit with the very rigid picture that you've got of him. I think that that's always a very great danger in politics. I think people come out, as so many things that we observe do, and so many people that we observe do, as two-dimensional; you never see any other side to them because you really see them on stage. You don't see any depth, you don't see any other interests, you don't see any of how they live--any of these things.

I remember one time when Senator Kuchel was either minority leader or minority whip in the Senate. Evelle and I had gone in to call on him in his office in the Capitol. He had left instructions with the secretary that he was not to be disturbed. The phone promptly rang. He said to the secretary, "I told you I didn't want to be disturbed." Well, it was Mrs. Kuchel, and Mrs. Kuchel's garbage disposal had broken down and they were going to have guests that night for dinner! I remember the entirely different view of Senator Kuchel that we suddenly had, because in his conversation with Mrs. Kuchel, it could have been anybody. He said with some mild profanity, "Here I am trying to settle the affairs of the world and you're bothering me with a garbage disposal!" That didn't satisfy her at all, as you can imagine. [laughter] I remember that he was furious and that she hung on very tenaciously--that this was -his problem. [laughter] This is a dimension that obviously goes on in everybody's life, but you see people as bigger than life somehow and as an image rather than somebody who has trouble with garbage disposals, sewers, and all those things. Younger: My father knew a saying that he loved. [pause] Darnit, I've forgotten the first sentence. "The little fleas that us do tease/ Have other fleas to bite 'em/ And they, in turn, have other fleas and so ad infinitum." Something like that. I try to keep it in mind when I look at a particularly pompous or a particularly resistant public official , knowing perfectly well that he's got all kinds of problems going on at home and may indeed have a daughter either run away or threatening to run away, or other personal pressures that are very human and very traumatic.

Chall: At one time the press used to shield people from all of this--used to shield them so the public didn't know what was going on.

Younger: They certainly shielded John F. Kennedy. I think I told you, didn't I, that there's a very interesting book written by a British reporter?

Chall: Yes, I think you did.

Younger: And the .fact that they automatically didn't ever photograph him when the effects of cortisone showed. I don't think that today .that would happen.

Chall: It would seem not, but you never really know how much is still being kept, or how much should be kept from us.

Younger: Of course, that's a huge problem. The press does in fact practice censorship itself.

Chall: Makes its own decisions. Ithinkthepeccadilloes of themenin Congress have been known to the press for years--those who were alcoholic and those who were playing around with women secretaries and all of this--and now it comes out one way or another.

Mrs. Knowland, however--we aren't in the 1958 campaign, and I don't know whether at that stage you were active, because you may have had your accident by then--when Senator Knowland ran for governor (and it was a very bitter campaign), she is supposed to have come out with some bitter and vitriolic attacks against Governor Knight and also to have been, I think, distributing some Kamp material that was far to the right--Joseph Kamp.

Younger: I didn't know that. My voice problem was triggered by an accident in early July of 1958.

Chall: I've never known very much about Mrs. Knowland, and what I did know was just what I have told you. So it's good to get some other side. Younger: I remember her as a beautiful, charming person who resisted the all-invasive Washington scene with somewhat more vigor than some of the more tranquil wives did. [laughter]

The Fair Play Amendment, the Nominations, and Other Issues Facing the California Delegation

Chall: An individualist.

I can tell by putting these dates and days together, that in that convention you didn't have much time to think about the so-called Fair Play ~mendment. But if you did, what do you remember? The Fair Play Amendment had to do with really the final selection of the candidates--the seating of the southern delegates. "Fair play" is a great euphemism for what really happened.

Younger: Well, again, we lived with the unit rule. California actually managed to out-wit itself. It could have been a swing state, obviously; you could see that it had an opportunity to be the swing state. But we didn't change our vote when we could have and when we probably should have.

Chall: That's when you were voting for president.

Younger: And on the other key votes that led up to--such things as seating delegations. We frequently didn't take a leadership role, which our size and our position in the alphabet gave us an opportunity to take.

Chall: Didn't the California delegation vote for the so-called Fair Play Amendment? It would first have been the Langley Amendment. Weren't you in favor of the amendment which would have changed the rules so that those contested delegates could not vote on their own seatine-which is really what it was all about? I would have assumed, from what I've got here--

Younger: You see, that's my trouble: You've done much more recent research than I have. I know that we certainly discussed all of these things .

Chall: Well, if you don't remember, it really doesn't matter, because I think what we really want is your recollections. I can tell you what I have here is that Warren, being governor, had been at a conference in Houston. He had signed his name to a letter which requested the officials to the convention not to allow the contested delegates to vote on their own seating. So he had early on taken a stand as one of the governors. Younger : And the delegation undoubtedly followed that.

Chall: And the delegation followed that. Nixon, it seems, made eloquently a great point in the caucuses on this issue, claiming that it was a moral issue. However, since in the background all of this maneuvering really was favorable to Eisenhower (and it's always been suspected that Nixon was really working for Eisenhower in the background) one doesn't know whether Nixon was doing this because he felt it was a very important issue in and of itself, or whether it was working in the background for the Eisenhower candidacy.

Knowland at one time apparently had suggested that the California delegation split its vote; that half of them vote for the Fair Play Amendment--this is the way I understand it--and half would vote on the Taft side. He had something to lose too, to a certain extent, because I guess it was rumored that he might be the vice-presidential nominee if Taft were nominated. So he was also in a rather difficult position.

Younger: The whole thing was complicated. If you're pledged to a man for the presidency, anything that you do which will further your own best interests if somebody else gets the nomination is--

Chall: Puts you in a tough spot.

Younger: Yes, it's a complicated kind of spot to be in.

Chall: Yes. That's all I can tell you about this issue-I just have notes here, and they may not all be accurate either, because first hand accounts often differ from the press accounts.

Younger: To get back to this FEPC thing, I'm interested in the quote from Richard Nixon, and also in the fact that this article talks about me leading the fight for FEPC, and that -was true. My memory is just simply hung up on the bitterness of the other issue. But I don't believe at any point that Nixon openly or even in any interview took a position other than the position the California delegation had taken.

Chall: You're talking about the FEPC plank.

Younger: That's right. But I didn't want to skip mentioning that because I think that's an interesting thing here.

Chall : Always he stayed with the ~iliforniadelegation in terms of--

Younger: In terms of things like that. Now, I never knew how sincere Nixon was in regards to things like minority employment. I think that he was completely sincere in theory, but I'm not positive that he was completely sincere in practice. Chall: This is his entire career you're talking about?

Younger: Yes. I think that he was a man who was--and he's a brilliant man, there's no question about that; a very brilliant man. But I always felt that there was a good deal of indecision within himself when he came to actually sitting down and facing up to minority problems and that kind of thing. Intellectually, he could and he did face things; I'm not positive he ever did personally. I think this was a troublesome point for him, and I think, in all fairness--we're talking about 1952 at this point--I think that continued to plague him to one degree or another for a number of years.

I think that the time I was most of fended by President Nixon in a personal sense was one night, following his gubernatorial campaign, when we were at a party for a member of his staff who was going to Europe. It was to be her first trip to Europe, and there were probably thirty or forty people there. Mrs. Nixon had obviously worked very hard; she had no help. Tempers were pretty short; this was a very traumatic period for them.

Chall: This was during the campaign, did you say?

Younger: This was following the gubernatorial campaign. They had a good many decisions to make. As I understand it, both girls had been very unhappy in California.

For instance, I remember that our son was asked one time to go up to deliver some papers at their home, He did. The girls had both locked themselves in their rooms, following a dispute with their mother over their homework. When the mother, Mrs. Nixon, spotted Eric, whom she hadn't seen since he was a little boy, she thought, "My gosh, here's a potential solution to some of the girls' unhappiness!" I think they were going to a girls' school at the time, They weren't meeting boys, and they were at an age when boys were of a great deal of interest to girls, and they felt very isolated, They'd been through this traumatic campaign, Things must have been very rough on them.

I remember her telling me that she had done everything she could to get the girls to come out of their rooms and meet Eric. She didn't want to tell them, "There is a boy here who may help cheer things up for you." [laughter] And who would undoubtedly have suitable friends. And both girls stuck it out! [laughter] They continued with the homework; they didn't do as their mother begged them to do, which was to come out.

But I do remember that particular party. President Nixon was never comfortable with humor. This was probably the greatest problem that he had. I think that's frequently true of brilliant Younger: people--they get terribly, terribly wound up in things and they forget how to laugh. He had forgotten how to laugh. Laughter came hard to him; it came slow to him. When you don't have a sense of humor, I think it means you don't have much of a sense of perspective; I think those two things go together.

He was trying very hard that night to be the gracious host, and everybody was uncomfortable, knowing that things were as difficult as they were. There were so many decisions that had to be made. Their lives had been torn to pieces. But he told that night a number of racially-oriented jokes. They were particularly oriented in the direction of blacks. We didn't find any of them funny; we found them in bad taste. That is not to say that we don't frequently find funny a joke that may or may not be racially-oriented. I really think it's a shame that American humor has so left this out-- has been forced to leave the ethnic joke out of its repertoire, because we've lost some richness in our national cultural life, and we can't laugh at ourselves and laugh with each other.

But the jokes just weren't funny, and there wasn't any reason-- there were three or four of them--why there had to be any ethnic reference in them. I think they all had to do with blacks. But every single one of them he preceded with the remark, "Millie isn't going to like this .I'

Chall: And Millie was a black, and she was there?

Younger: Millie was me--was I.

Chall: Is that right! He knew where you stood, all right.

Younger: I had been a member of his so-called brain trust; I was the only Californian on it when he ran for governor which was a good part of his problem. He brought people out from the East who didn't know a darn thing about the state of California. As a consequence, they couldn't write speeches, they couldn't do anything else without a terrible amount of effort because they didn't know anything about the state!

It was a strange experience to be picked out consistently. "Millie isn't going to like this ." Then he would tell the joke. And he would always look straight at me when he did it. That sort of was a message.

Chall: What was it telling you?

Younger: Well, it was telling both of us--my husband was also there--he was telling both of us, in a sense, that he was now in a position that it didn't matter whom he offended, he was a private citizen, he could Younger: tell any joke he wanted to tell. It was also telling us that he could be just as defiant as he wished to; it was sort of the same thing. It also told us more about him, either he was embarrassed at telling the stories and was apologizing very awkwardly or that he has the capacity to be unkind; because it really wasn't kind to pick somebody out of a group of thirty to forty people to preface each joke.

Chall: And then tell .a kind of joke that might embarrass even other people.

Younger: Everyone there had to have been embarrassed by the jokes because they were not funny jokes. You know, our humor changes ; maybe they would be funny today, maybe they would have been funny two years before that or something. But at that particular time and place, they weren't funny! Everybody laughed, in the sense of, "The host has just told a joke and it's polite to laugh a little." But they were very unfunny jokes. I've always thought that that was a significant comment about Nixon. He had both the incapacity to pick real humor, or to discriminate in humor, and the apparent personal need to aim it at someone, which he was doing.

Chall: And did you find over the years--I presume you worked for him in 1968, that--

Younger: But not as closely. I had been an alternate in 1960. Evelle was a delegate in 1968.

Chall: I see. I meant to talk to you about this another time, but I might as well just ask you now. In 1960 you weren't able to talk.

Younger: That 's right.

Chall: So I had assumed--incorrectly, apparently--that you just dropped out of a lot of political action or any kind of action. But you hadn' t.

Younger: No, I was on his so-called brain trust, which was supposed to be secret.

Chall: How did you communicate?

Younger: I could talk like a person who's had a laryngectomy, and I could write. As a matter of fact, one of my jobs was to write the replies to letters that the candidate shouldn't sign--which I did. In every campaign a certain amount of rather professional heckling goes on. For instance, in his issues mail, most of which came to me for answers, you'd get maybe fifty letters a day on the subject of--what was the one that the very conservative Republicans were Younger: so upset about? I think it was the United World Federalists or, perhaps, genocide. What was the name of the amendment that had been proposed--and there was a congressional measure.

Chall: There was a Francis Amendment. I think that had to do with communism.

Younger: There was another one, and it still shows up occasionally. My husband will get an occasional letter asking how he stands on that particular amendment, which is no longer much of an issue; it's been superseded by so many other actions and by other bodies. The name may come to me. But that is one that year after year after year you get letter-writing campaigns on.

During the Republican primaries this year, in the newspapers there was what appeared to me to be quite obviously a well-organized letter-writing campaign in behalf of Governor Reagan. That's one of the things that you can do inexpensively, and that volunteers can do, on their own, is to keep up a barrage of letters of support or criticism of the opposition. And it's done in political campaigns. Sometimes newspapers recognize it, and sometimes, having recognized it, they still print the letters. Other times, having recognized it, they throw them all out. Other times, they get rather selective and will print those with more merit than others. But it's a common technique.

Chall: So you were answering some of that kind of mail; that was one of the positions.

Younger: Yes., We were trying to develop position papers that would stand up, with just a small, courteous'note attached to them, and that we could turn out in mimeograph form and send back. That way, we hadn't ignored anybody. Actually, it's something of a luxury, and I think it's probably too expensive to indulge in now with the very strict spending limits and postage and other costs so high, but you pick up some support that way, really. You neutralize some organized opposition--at least you throw it back in their court. That is some advantage, particularly when you have a contested primary. It's important not to make enemies unnecessarily and, later, to heal wounds. Reasonable people respond.

Chall: Well, Iwant to get back to 1952 now. (Of course, this givesme a new lead that I didn't have about the 1962 gubernatorial campaign.) You said before that you don't recall how it was that California may have missed the ball occasionally in this 1952 convention. In what way do you remember that we might have?

Younger: We held out on votes. We passed. We could have been the swing vote. Chall: Why would you have held out on some of the voting?

Younger : That struck me as odd at the time, that we didn't caucus and get a vote in quickly on something, or that we didn't make the decision to go ahead and cast a vote that we were in agreement with. But our tendency was to pass.

I think part of that was that '52 was probably the first convention when California realized the extent of the power of their delegation. After all, that's the principal reason that you've got the kind of law that we have in this state--or that's the practical reason that you've got the kind of law where all of your delegates are pledged to one candidate, is because you want leverage. You want leverage both at the convention and you want leverage in the years following the convention. I think that we tended to lean over backwards and probably lost leverage in our effort to preserve it.

Chall: That's interesting because it seems that frequently California does that. I know that at some of the Democratic conventions that I've looked into, it was the same thing: They really didn't use it properly. It's a maneuvering skill that sometimes you miss and you out-maneuver yourself.

Younger: Yes. We did that.

Chall : I see, ehough I didn't really know much about what California delegation was doing because that information is hard to get hold of.

Younger: We really did out-maneuver ourselves because when you're at the first of the alphabet--

Chall: You have to know what you're doing, don't you?

Younger: Yes.

Chall : That may be one of the problems. By the time you get down to Texas, you've made your choice.

Younger: That's right. But now, if you remember the last convention, for . instance, that whopping number of votes for Reagan coming as early as it did. It was psychologically a very big influence on other ,delegations. In 1952 if we had not abstained or passed when it came to the key issues, and particularly to the nomination of the presidency, we really would have had tremendous power and tremendous leverage. But instead, we passed. And we did it several times. Chall: But you don't recall why? Well, ft's good to put it on the record because then somebody else can look into that.

Younger : It.was a troublesome thing, and it was troublesome to most of us at the time, and we just--

Chall : Didn't understand it?

Younger : That's right. Our inclination was to go ahead and vote, admitting that we were too large to caucus easily and rapidly.

Chall: In the Fair Play Amendment, things came up rather rapidly, and I guess you would have had to caucus a couple of times.

Younger: Yes, and the sheer size of the delegation dso, you see, would be a difficult thing to work with.

Chall : When it came tTme for balloting, then, for the president, by this time you were all committed on the first ballot for Governor Warren.

Younger: Yes. And I believe that the law then read you were committed until released. I'm not sure that it still reads that way.

Chall: Of course, California never did get a chance to cast a vote for Eisenhower because Knowland, I guess, couldn't get hold of Governor Warren by phone. That's according to one of the accounts.

Chall: There have been some accounts that there was an attempt to split the delegation, even at the last, I guess, trying to do away with the unit rule. Do you recall any of that?

Younger: Oh yes, there's always that kind of an effort. There are always people who, once they get to the convention, and people from other states start talking to them, and they're seeing things from a different perspective than they did before they left home--there1 s always the temptation.

Chall: Do you recall much of that push? I guess Katcher, in his book, estimates that some fifty-six out of seventy would have voted for Eisenhower immediately if the delegation had been allowed to, if they'd been freed right away before the first ballot.*

*Leo Katcher, Earl Warren, A Political Biography (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1967). Younger: I'm inclined to think that that's probably a pretty good estimate, but I couldn't be at all positive that it's the actual number.

One thing happened at the convention that seems to me, in my imperfect memory of it, which is not nearly as precise as this article is--

Chall: That article was written at the time.

Younger: That's right.

Senator Taft held a series of receptions for delegations. I remember the reception that was held for the California delegation very, very well indeed. While there may have been on that train-- which I wasn't on--a good deal of maneuvering, vote counting, and one thing and another--I always thought it was a great compliment that nobody ever approached me.

Chall : I see. Even after they got off the train.

Younger: That's right. Nobody ever approached me. At the time I was a little bewildered because I was quite sure that other people were being approached one way or another about different things, and I was not approached and I felt that this was a compliment--that they felt that I would not respond to an approach.

Chall: Did you know that it was Nixon who was making the approaches, or that it was Eisenhower-backed activity?

Younger: Oh, there was every bit as much in behalf of Taft. But when we went to the Taft reception, 1'11 never, never forget my impression of Senator and Mrs. Taft--and Mrs. Taft certainly proved herself to be a tremendously outstanding woman in her own right--but the impression was incredibly bad. Even people who would probably have been leaning towards Taft knew from that reception that this was an unelectable man.

Chall : What was happening?

Younger: He was a surprisingly unattractive person. His smile was very forced. Not that you can blame him. What an awful spot to be in! Under that kind of pressure and with as much going on as was going on, I suspect everybody in the world would have a forced smile. He would have been much. better off if we had never met him! We all came away with the feeling that we had probably just met one of the coldest men in history, and that this was in no way an electable individual.

Chall: . That was a very key consideration. Younger: Yes, it was. I don't think that very many of us had ever even seen President Eisenhower, except in pictures. His image, of course, was one of great personal warmth and strong world leadership. But Senator Taft's personal image was, if anything, worse than his public image was, as far as being a person that you wanted to know better or that you felt was somebody that the country would follow. I don't think you can overlook that personal impression that he made. Even those of us who admired him tremendously came away with the feeling that there is -no way that that man is going to be president.

Chall: Even if he were to be nominated?

Younger: That's right. And there'd been all kinds of efforts to liven up the image. I remember there were awful loud Taft neckties given away that couldn' t have been less consistent with the kind of person that he emanated. Remember "I'm looking over a four leaf clover that I overlooked before?" Great song, great packaging and the product just wouldn't sell! We didn't see that in the Eisenhower camp; there may have been a great deal of it--I don't know-but we didn't see it from them. We did see this very cold--and perhaps he was a very shy person; I don' t know why he gave the impression that he did. He was probably miserably aware of his shortcomings. But the people who were pretty neutral came away absolutely sure that that man was not going to be elected president of the United States. It was purely academic what was done to try to make him more attractive or appealing; he just simply was not going to be president.

Chall: So that when you had your caucuses with respect to doing in, as it might be considered, the Taf t nomination, all these other maneuvers with respect to the so-called Fair Play Amendment--

Younger: They were colored by this impression we'd gotten, very heavily.

Chall: So you knew what you were voting for at that time; I mean, you were more sure of--

Younger: I don't remember at exactly at what point the reception came, but I do know that we came away a pretty disillusioned group of people, and it was very general. And people who were honestly undecided [before that evening] were pretty disappointed. .

Chall: When Eisenhower was finally nominated, how did you feel about it? You saw him in action soon after. The Convention Speakers

Younger: Well, you know, a convention is a funny thing because you see a lot of people in action.. For instance, I remember General MacArthur coming down the aisle.

I was seated next to a marvelous lawyer from Los Angeles named Mendel Silberberg. He was a dear friend and his daughter--I don't know what she's doing now, but she's been very successful herself professionally. She volunteered throughout my campaign full time; she was there more hours than anyone that was on the paid staff. And his wife was equally marvelous about everything. Mendel was just a great person and a generous, kind person.

Mendel was right on the aisle and I was next. Everybody stood up, of course, when General MacArthur came in. Mendel was a slight man physically, I would say probably five foot eight inches, which would have been about average at that time, but he seemed somehow more slight physically. All of our impressions, as we saw General MacArthur come marching down the center was, "What a dreadful mistake that entrance was!" Mendel looked larger than General MacArthur did, and he passed very close--within two or three feet! If you had the impression of slightness about Mendel, you had the impression of a physically very small man about General MacArthur.

Chall: Maybe he was, as they say, withering or fading away already.

Younger: Either that, or he had always managed--remember the great photographs of him were always taken up at an angle and he always had the army hat on that had an unusually high crown to it? The great photographs made you think he was a giant physically. I even believe he had on heel lifts that day; I'm not sure. But we were all shocked at his slight physical stature. Somehow we thought of him as a giant--and the contrast with reality made hYm seem even smaller.

I really don't know how old he was at the time. Perhaps he had been a larger man.

Chall: He was probably not all that old, actually. I don't remember. It was '52, and he had been dismissed by Truman in about '50 or '51; I think he was maybe just past retirement age or about that.*

*At the time of the convention, General MacArthur was seventy-two years old. Chall: Did any of you pay any attention to what he said? Not that you have to remember what he said, but whether you were--

Younger: Yes, and it was, if I remember correctly, a rather typical convention stirring speech. A good speech. And he delivered it well. But the popular comment was that he walked across Lake Michigan to get there. It was self-serving; there was a great deal of ego in that speech. But I think that the first and the worst shock was seeing him walk down the middle aisle. I think it was the kind of thing that he generally managed to avoid, and he really could have avoided it then. He could have come up the back, onto the podiutw-

Ch all: As Hoover did. Didn't he come in that way?

Younger: I don1t remember very many candidates ever going through an aisle to get to a podium. It's pretty risky.

Chall: I think it was this Newsweek article, or perhaps it was another one I read, mentioned his grand entrance. It think it was a stage type of grand entrance so that everybody could see the general. But it fell flat.

Younger: It was a mistake, yes.

Chall: Then he was followed by Herbert Hoover. And then, at another time, by Joseph McCarthy. How were these speeches taken by you all? Do you recall being impressed one way or another by the?

Younger: Who was the first one?

Chall: Herbert Hoover.

Younger: I think that the general feeling was that here was a dedicated, fine man who was considerably more brilliant than he had appeared to be when he was in the White House, had accomplished a great deal more than he was credited with; that he was probably the prototype of the man who understands the economic system and how to make it work, personally; and also the kind of man who is willing and anxious to donate his time and his energies endlessly to world problems, but that he was very colorless. I think you had a feeling of tremendous respect.

Did Rudolph Valentino ever make talking pictures?

Chall: No, I don1t think so.

Younger: Well, it was kind of that kind of a feeling. You had a great deal of respect for him and a sadness. But you knew that-- Chall: He wasn't talking to Republicans anymore.

Younger: He may have been, but not--

Chall: Not out there.

Younger: That's right. He was not really able to project.

Chall: How about Joseph McCarthy? What did he project?

Younger: My opinion of McCarthy was colored very much by the fact that I had met him before he became famous. For some reason or another, my husband and a male friend of ours and I were delegated to meet him at the Los Angeles International Airport to take him to Pasadena to make a speech. This was before he became well known. He had someone traveling with him--or did he? No, he brought a couple of airline stewardesses, or one airline stewardess with him to the speech, which we found intensely embarrassing. He had been drinking fairly heavily and did all of the way in the car, which of course is illegal in California. My husband was then city prosecutor in Pasadena, and this came as something of a blow: Here's a man drinking out of a flask and wiping it off with his coat sleeve and offering to pass it around at regular intervals. This is not what we had in mind from a United States Senator. It just was not the image that we would anticipate. He was a brawling, outspoken, roughneck. I don't even know if he was Catholic or not, but somehow the term Irish Catholic comes to mind. His face was inclined to flush. He was a brawny. man physically; as I said, a heavy drinker; obviously liked women. I don't think he was married at the time.

But I remember that we were quite embarrassed before we ever even got him to this particular staid little group in Pasadena and were quite concerned that the group would know more or perceive more about the United States Senator who had come out at their expense to make a speech than--

Chall: You were willing to tell them.

Younger: That's right, or than was appropriate. He made an acceptable speech. But his heart certainly was not in it. We took him back to the airport afterwards and--he must have had an overcoat on or something-- where he got as much liquor as he had, I don' t know. By this time he had a bottle. I don't know where he got it. I remember we had a wait of maybe forty-five minutes or an hour for his plane, and he drank all of the time. It really didn't matter who the woman was who was closest to him, he had his am around her. It was almost impossible to keep out of his reach. He reeked of bourbon. This was the kind of man who is a mixture of very colorful and obviously, later on, very convinced of something. Younger: But I could never get that image out of my mind, as he ascended to great heights of notoriety and popularity. Even when he was proved to be right about something, I still had the image of almost street fighting--and I keep coming up with this Irish Catholic description, and I don't know why I throw the word Catholic in. Maybe it's because of what's happened in Lreland since then. But this red faced, outgoing to the point of embarrassment kind of person. And he certainly was capable of a very fiery speech, because this was his temperament. He was a man of very strong and very demonstrable emotions.

Chall: I think most of the people in the United States, when he was at the height of his popularity, didn't really realize that he was an alcoholic. If they had, they might have had a different perspective on what he said and the way he said it, and he might have been toned down almost at once. But by popular demand, Eisenhower apparently had said, "Just leave him alone. He'll hang himself." It took an awfully long time, it seems; the country went through what would appear to be a rather hellish period because of Joseph McCarthy, whereas he really wasn' t altogether there.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: And that's rather a pity. You knew it right away, so you wouldn't consider too much--

Younger: Yes, that issue. But his emergence had not started or was just at its very beginning and wasn't recognized. As a matter of fact, there was grousing that that was the best we could do--an obscure Senator from Wisconsin that nobody had ever heard about. When we saw him, we were very glad he was obscure! He belonged in a barroom brawl somehow, and this does produce a fiery speaker; there's no question about it.

Chall: So when you saw him on the platform--

Younger: There were no surprises. And he -was colorful. More colorful than accurate. [laughter]

Chall: Did you receive one of the letters from Nixon before the convention, asking whom your choice might be for president in case Warren couldn't make it? Richard Nixon is supposed to have--well, it isn't Itsupposed to have"; I guess he -did send out some twenty thousand to twenty- three thousand questionnaires to persons in California.

Younger: I assume that I probably did. It didn't make any--

Chall: What about his nomination for vice-president, then? Younger: I have a funny story about that or at least I think it's a funny story. He had left Chicago. I told you before that he had nominated me to be the permanent secretary of the Platform Committee and I'd won. Nobody else was nominated. He then left. He was back before the delegation was back, though I think he'd been on the train part of the way.

Chall: Yes, he picked up the train in Denver, I think.

Younger: And then I think he must have flown in probably from someplace else. Omaha, perhaps. I know that he was there before the delegation as a whole was there. That was the reason I was quite sure that I moved from one hotel to another, because he phoned me when he got in and asked me to have breakfast with him the next morning to bring him up to date on what had been happening in the Platform Committee. I know that he was there and very active when the Platform Committee put the platform in final form.

When I went down to breakfast--it was in the hotel dining room-- he was reading the sports page of the newspaper. We ordered, and there I was reading the back side of the sports page. He'd been polite enough, except that it kept going through my mind, "I'm glad he's paying for it because I could do this on my own time." I wasn 't very flattered by the whole experience. [laughter]

Chall: You weren't his wife.

Younger : That's right, and that was exactly the way I felt. My husband does this all the time and--

Chall : It's the way you have breakfast. That's acceptable.

Younger: I guess that's how women get into investment things--the stock market page is directly on the back side of the sports page. [laughter]

Chall: I think I know more about the theater. That's what I get first.

Younger: But this went on all during breakfast.

Chall: You mean -all during breakfast?!

Younger : Yes! Then I finally decided, "Well, this is one heck of a waste o.f time, and breakfast is just about over." I said--and I called him by his first name then; I realize that now I have trouble calling a United States Senator by his first name, except for a very few like Hugh Scott or somebody I've known for an extremely long time--I said, "Dick, I've been badgered all week by reporters who have been asking me if it's true that you're going to run for Younger: the vice-presidency." He dropped the paper and in the process knocked over a glass of water on the table. I still was totally ignorant of anything going on, except my terrible concern with the platform.

He said, "What have you said? !" He obviously hadn't thought in terms of -The Californian who was sitthg back there in a conspicuous spot [laughter] being the one who was being questioned, and ,that particular person didn't have the vaguest idea anything was going on. I said, "Well, what I've been telling them is that I think that would be a mistake. I think that you can one day be president of the United States. But you need one more term in the Senate at least. You certainly have emerged as a leader during the short time that you have been in the Senate, but that you could blow it very easily by running for the vice-presidency because vice-presidents don' t very often go very far.''

Of course, in retrospect, it was a terribly funny, naive kind of an incident. [laughter]

Chall: [laughter] What did he do? He must have been really shocked.

Younger: He was totally without any rejoinder of any kind. Obviously, in the back of his mind, he was thinking, 'What an idiot! I'd forgotten. I'd gone off and left [laughter] somebody speaking for me.

Chall: Yes, the most prominent delegate in California, probably, outside of Warren and Knowland.

Younger: Who weren' t available. [laughter] Here was -the available California delegate.

Chall: Ready to express herself,

Younger: Any subject, [laughter] Being all of thirty-one and female, I was an expert on everything . Chall: That's really very funny.

Younger: I don't know how many news people I'd told that. It certainly came as a shock to him. Of course, I didn' t know why it came as a shock. [laughter] All I knew was I'd given him a terrible jolt of some kind.

Chall: Did he give you any advice like, "Next time they ask you, don't say anything?"

Younger: No, he seemed to be perfectly content to just let the subject drop right there. Chall: Because if he said anything, he would have let the cat out of the bag?

Younger: There wasn' t anything he could say! [laughter] And obviously the questioning was going to stop because he was there in person and the others were there. This was just a base he hadn't covered.

Chall: Were you surprised when he was nominated? Or by this time were you knowing it was coming?

Younger: By the time it was clear that Eisenhower had the votes, I think that Californians in general were pretty well convinced that Nixon would be the vice-presidential candidate. I think that there were some of us who thought it was a toss-up between Nixon and Knowland, but that we had the feeling that, given all things, there weren't any more outstanding people available than our two Senators. That may have been just total ignorance on our part. But we were very proud of both of them.

Chall: So Nixon, then--was he the only one nominated?

Younger: There could have been a couple of favorite sons or something, but I don't remember that there was any serious nomination. But I do know that--and it probably started before this and I just simply had not been aware of it--I do know that there was intense bitterness between Nixon and Warren at this point.

Chall: You could feel it? You were aware of that?

Younger: Oh, there was no question about it. Of course, this had to have been true, really, because I don' t think there's any question that Warren was a good-faith candidate for the presidency. I suppose if you're a good-faith candidate for the presidency, maybe you aren't as brutally realistic with yourself as you might be. Looking back on it, he didn't have a chance. But I don't think that the majority of us were absolutely convinced he didn't have a chance. We thought there was a possibility of a deadlocked convention. I think he thought so too.

But on the subject of the bitterness-- We happen to have gone to Acapulco shortly after the election. It was at the time that the president of Mexico was inaugurated. (I've forgotten which president it would have been. ) I had been on the train between--I would assume the colorful things are of more interest to you than the things that can be looked up.

Chall: Yes, I' d like them. Younger: I don' t know whether you want the train experience before the Acapulco experience or not.

The Dwight Eisenhower-Richard Nixon Campaign, 1952

Recollections of the $18,000 Expense-Fund Scandal

Chall: This is the train coming back?

Younger: No, the vice-presidential campaign train.

Chall: Oh. Whatever you experienced.

Younger: That would have come first, of course. I got on the train in Pomona.

Chall: This was on your way to the convention?

Younger: No, this was after the nomination. In those days, that was when they used the campaign trains. You stopped in little towns and everybody--

Chall: Oh--this is during the campaign. Okay. I was still with my mind in the convention. This was after the convention. During the campaign. Yes, I'd like to know about that.

Younger: This must have been true every place, that different people were invited ahead of time to join the train.

Chall: Yes, that's the practice.

Younger: Yes, knowing that they would be on for just a certain length of time. I think that most of the Californians were expected to go on all the way up to the Oregon border; I'm not sure. But I knew that I had to be back--I had a speaking engagement, actually--the day after Nixon spoke in Reno. When I got on the train in Pomona--there were probably ten or twelve of us that joined the train there--there was obviously something going on.

I remember that the then-Senator Nixon greeted me quite warmly, but again with this odd kind of reserve that is so much a part of his personality. I remember vividly that he remarked about my dress. It was a pleasant remark and a nice remark, but it was sufficiently awkward for him, I felt, that it stuck in my mind. And I was embarrassed for him. This was always true; he would try to say the right thing and he would say the right thing, but there was an awkward- ness about it. He was working at it--which I think is an interesting kind of an observation about him--you always had the feeling that this came very hard to him. It was kind of like the sense of humor. Younger: Be was much, much more relaxed when a small group of us would sit around and talk about issues and ideas. He was very open to different ideas and very much the debater. That was my background and I think probably was the background of two or three others involved, and we'd take the other side and test each other on the issues. He was very much at ease under those circumstances, but he was not at ease when it came to something like making a casual, personal comment about a dress or something of the kind--this was awkward. That's why I remembered the times that he did it; it seemed to come hard to him.

Chall: Was President Eisenhower on the train then?

Younger: No.

Chall: It was just the Nixon--

Younger: That's right. President Eisenhower was someplace in the East. There was a feeling on the train--and, of course, we stopped in every little tawn in the Central Valley--that there was something wrong. But none of us could put our fingers on it. We didn't know what it was that was wrong. Part of your job when you're on a train like that is to try to get some of the press off the candidate's back, divert them, give them different kinds of stories and perspectives if you possibly can, which the press resists effectively, and another part of your job, really, is to get off the train at every stop and make a wild dash for the back of the train where the candidate and his wife are going to show up so that the crowd is bigger and is assuredly friendly. [laughter] So you get your exercise that way. You stop every few miles, race around to the back of the train, applaud and cheer, and make a crowd. The crowd estimates always have to be adjusted according to the number of people traveling on the train.

Well, it became more and more evident that there was something very much amiss during that day. We spent one night on the train, too. Then on into Sacramento. By that time, I think that we all knew that there was a major issue, but we didn't really know much about it. Questions were beginning to be asked at the whistle stops. We really weren't being coy. The vast majority of us knew nothing about what was going on. It turned out to be the day that the so-called Nixon scandal broke.

Chall: His fund--the $18,000 fund.

Younger: That's right, which in retrospect is not an unusual kind of thing. I don't remember why it seemed so catastrophic at the time, whether it was because it was secret or what. It was not illegal; it would be today. Chall: I'm not sure whether it was then or not. 1 think the fact that he had been using it as part of his personal financing rather than as a political--

Younger: But if I remember correctly, the thing that the most talk was about was Christmas cards, and I think it would be quite unusual to find any public official who could afford to send Christmas cards to the number of people he needs to send them to on a public salary. I think it would be considered a rather normal political expenditure. I think that you make an effort to divide what your personal list would be, and that the rest of it has to be subsidized. You wouldn't send that number of Christmas cards; there's no way that you could possibly do it as a private citizen, unless you were exceedingly wealthy with terribly extensive connections.

So in retrospect, I really don't remember why it was such a devastating issue. But it was, and there must have been something about it that I'm not remembering because the things I remember about it don't seem nearly as overwhelming as the effect was.

I remember we got off the train. I happened to get off at the same time that Bill [William] Rogers did. (He was later U.S. attorney general under Eisenhower and secretary of state under Nixon.) I don't remember if I had met him on the train; I suppose I had. You see, the vice-presidential candidate had not been available for conversations with anybody on that train, and those who were very close to hb+-which Bill certainly was--had been pretty much closeted with him. It was an informal kind of atmosphere, but there was very much a feeling of--

Chall: Tens ion.

Younger: He was in isolation; once having greeted us getting on the train, that was the end of our contact with him except for listening to the speeches. I think it probably was thesacramento Bee that ran the first story. I remember getting off the train at thesame time Bill Rogers did and Bill buying the Sacramento Bee, and the story was absolutely devastating! The speech was to be made--we were to spend the night in Sacramento; those who were going on were to fly to Reno and back to Sacramento. I knew I wasn't going on, so I hadn't planned to fly to Reno anyway. That was the time that Mrs. Nixon got a terribly funny introduction: "The next wife of the vice-president of the United States." [laughter] That was the night that happened in Reno. [laughter] The way it came out!

But that was about all that was funny that day or night. Bill bought this paper and we walked to the park where the vice-presidential candidate was to speak. There's a park quite near the railroad station in Sacramento. We all sat down on the ground around various places Younger: and a crowd had gathered and a great deal of press. It was unfriendly press, very unfriendly at that point. Bill and I sat there and read the Sacramento Bee together and were stunned by it. Of course the Bee was a strongly Democratic paper. As I say, I can' t remember what it was that was so particularly devastating about what Nixon had done-whether it was the secrecy of it or what it was. But there was something that was extremely devastating about it.

Chall: And.= felt devastated.

Younger: Everybody did. It was obvious that Senator Nixon himself did. The question of whether or not Eisenhower would ask Nixon to drop out as the vice-presidential candidate was paramount. We didn't really hear the speech because we were reading that newspaper article, going over and over it.

Bill Rogers and I went to dinner together, and we talked about the implications of the article and the things that he knew--which were much more extensive, certainly, than I knew. I knew very little about it; I knew some of the personalities that were mentioned but I didn' t know most of them well.

I remember that as being one of the first really stimulating prolonged conversations with anyone who later ascended to high public of fice, aside from people like Nixon with whom we held extensive sessions on issues and knew fairly well in some ways. But I was very impressed that night. Rogers was a brilliant man. I don't think that his great intelligence ever really showed in the many government positions that he held. I think that he was considered pretty much the Dewey representative among the close group, but he and Nixon were about the same age. They seemed to enjoy one another personally; they were very close friends.

He was convinced that night that Nixon's vicepresidential candidacy was over. My feeling was that if he was convinced that it was probably through. I remember that he ruminated about various things, trying to put himself in the same position, which of course you can never do, but trying to think it through. My impression is, in retrospect, that Bill would not have had to accept money for anything marginally personal and that the difference in their personal circumstances showed quite clearly in his remarks.

But the conversation was a fascinating exposure to a side of politics that I didn't know anything about.

Chall: Top-levelplanning. Younger: On basic strategy. So I remember that evening very vividly. We talked for, I suppose, three or four hours, and it was primarily about this particular issue. But I think I was more fascinated with the working of his mind and him as a person. I could appreciate what the immediate political problems were and could discuss the options, but I don't really remember the reason that it was such a huge and almost unforgivable mistake. It was tragedy.

Chall: That really doesn't matter that you don't remember it because the impressions, the fact that you were there on that day, that's really quite important first-hand background.

Younger: It was very interesting and it was very devastating, very depressing. I believe that was the night that Nixon sent the wire to Eisenhower offering to resign from the ticket--or putting his fate in Eisenhower's hands. I was back in Los Angeles at the time the Eisenhower reply came. Well, I watched the Checkers Speech in Los Angeles with my husband; I remember that.

Chall: Were you satisfied then? Did you have a feeling of satisfaction?

Younger: I thought it was--I think "maudlin" is too strong a word. I thought it was effective, I thought he meant it, but I thought that there were some gimmicks in it that went down in history that were not necessary: the cloth coat, the dog--

The speech embarrassed me for the Nixons. I am surprised that it was seldom recalled during the Watergate scandal and Nixon's resignation.

Insights into the Warren-Nixon Hostility: The Effect and Meaning of Personality Clashes in Politics [Interview 6: November 8, 1976]##

Chall: We were talking the last time, and you wanted to tell me about a trip to Acapulco that you took right after the 1952 convention.

Younger: Yes, and I'm ambivalent about it. The only thing that seems important about it is that I'm curious, and I think that in the kind of project you're doing that people would be curious, about the relationship between knowing candidates--knowing people in public life, and seeing different aspects of their personality at work-- and either continuing to be motivated or being turned off. It was just an odd, coincidental kind of an experience that was an insight into the behavior patterns, if not more than that, of two men that became extremely important. Chall: In California politics or nationally?

Younger: National politics--Chief Justice Earl Warren and President Richard Nixon. Looking back on it, I have to ask myself why at different times didn't I find myself diverted from an interest in politics by seeing personalities.

Chall: Seeing what's known as the darker side?

Younger: Not even necessarily . the darker side, but certainly not the inspiring, gung ho side of people in public life.

We just happened to be in Acapulco with a member of Congress and his wife, Shirley and Don Jackson, who were good personal friends, and the then police chief of Santa Monica and his wife, and a bachelor friend of the four of theirs, when the president of Mexico was being inaugurated. We'd been there for a couple of weeks. Acapulco in 1952 was still pretty primitive; it wasn't anything like the big, showy, expensive, developed kind of resort that it is now. The water supply to the city had been cut off . We happened to be staying in a little hotel called Posa del Rey, which meant that our swimming pool was being filled all of the time from one of the few springs out on the peninsula. It became a very popular place because there wasn't any water coming through the pipes; so that swimming pool became inordinately important. [laughter] Most of the laundry that was done, and water for all purposes, came out of our swimming pool.

We were a pretty crummy looking group by the time celebrities began arriving. We couldn't have been more surprised when they did. We'd been down there having a fine time and looked like absolute tramps. The heat and humidity were oppressive andthe fresh water supply limited. We were a very relaxed little group.

Earl Warren and his oldest daughter were the first'to arrive. There was a sudden panic among local people as to who would be the appropriate guests to invite with them. I think it was within twenty-four hours or so that vice-president-elect Nixon arrived. Then there was the problem of who would be the appropriate guests with him and his party. Obviously, Don made all of the lists and the rest of us were invited to some lovely parties. We did some very quick--I can't say quick changing because we didn't have any clothes left, and it was before the days of wash and wear, and everything had been through that swimming pool a dozen times. [laughter] We couldn't have been a less presentable group, and we thought it was pretty funny.

But it was kind of an insight into the two men. We were at more events for Governor Warren than we were for the vice-president-elect. Younger: I remember that I had not been personally aware--in spite of all that had been said and all that had gone on in Chicago--of the deep enmity that had developed between the two. Some wealthy Mexican had arranged for a day on his yacht for then-Governor Warren and his party. As I say, we were full-time somebody's party because there wasn't anyb.ody else around. [laughter] It must have been a little appalling.

Chall: He didn' t come with a party, then; he just came with his daughter.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: And anticipated. the entourage being around?

Younger: Probably. But to everybody's great surprise we turned out to be the entourage a good part of the time, which was pretty funny but thoroughly enjoyable because we saw things we wouldn't have seen and did things we wouldn't have done.

I remember the yacht took us down to Puerto Marques, which is now very much built up but then was considered quite a boat trip. Governor Warren and I were standing up on the bridge alone, talking about issues and the future of the country. A speedboat came into the little bay and started circling the yacht. Of course, the captain of the yacht immediately went dead in the water so we wouldn't run the risk of hitting the speedboat. It turned out that the vice-president-elect and a member of Congress, Joe Holt , were in the speedboat; the member of Congress was driving it. There was much waving and yelling.

Governor Warren was furious and was expressing himself as being very much put out by the performance. All of a sudden, he turned to me and said, "Was this intentional? Did someone intend to embarrass me." He was looking at me very intently when he said it, I suppose for some indication of whether or not it was planned. It really was not a pleasant thought and the implications that any of us were involved came as a jolt. I thought it was an insulting remark, and said so. He thought about it for a minute, and he apologized.

It wasn't until that incident that I realized the depth of the antagonism between the two men. It was a clear demonstration of it. Looking back on it, I don't know why that didn't turn all of us off.

Chall: Of Nixon, or of Warren?

Younger: Of participation in general, because it seemed like the kind of thing where you were no longer talking about what's good for the country; you were talking about conflicting personalities and very petty things rather than the loftier things that you liked to think you were interested in. Chall: Did he say something personal about Nixon, or did he just say he felt that Nixon was doing this to embarrass him?

Younger: That was what came through. He didn't say anything personal, but his anger showed. His face became quite red--he was angry. Though I didn't know him well, I had not seen a demonstration of very intense displeasure before. I'd heard all the stories, but I just hadn't realized what it meant to him as anindividual, to be embarrassed. And he was embarrassed; he was definitely aware of being publicly embarrassed.

It's strange, considering our ages at the time, that that wouldn't have been the kind of experience that would have made us think, "This is kind oT petty business that we don't really want to get involved in."

Chall: It may not have seemed that. It might have seemed petty, but it may not have seemed all that important as a political problem. Just something that you passed over lightly, just as you did the stories of the enmity. It didn't mean that much to you because you were considering other things.

Younger: I think it must have meant that much or I wouldn't remember it so clearly.

Chall: Have you always remembered it? You've carried the memory through many, many years or just now looked back on it?

Younger: Yes. I could tell you exactly what positions we were standing in, just exactly what everybody looked like, everything else about it. It is a very vivid memory, and my memory isn't all that great. For some reason, the incident left a very vivid, intense kind of an impression. Remember, Warren was a physically imposing man. A big man whose presence commanded respect. Perhaps it would have been less stunning to witness the embarrassment of a less imposing man.

Chall: The other members of your little group--they were all part of this yacht party?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: The congressman and his wife, and you and your husband?

Younger: Yes, but they were not on the bridge.

Chall: Only you.

Younger: Yes. But I don't think the governor would have behaved any differently if there had been all of them there. Chall: Were they aware of this little speedboat going around?

Younger: Oh yes. There were no other boats around and there was the large powerful yacht immobilized by the speedboat.

Chall: They all knew that Richard Nixon was on it?

Younger: Oh yes. The yacht had stopped. The repeated circling of the yacht was childish. It probably looked entirely different from the speedboat than it did from the yacht.

Chall: You never did find out.

Younger : But for some reason or another, that has not only stuck in my memory-- as did a lot of other things about that particular trip--but the thing that puzzles me really is why that kind of a personal encounter at that high a level didn't have a different effect. But it didn't; it didn't have any deterrent effect at all as far as an interest in politics--which sort of says to me that an interest in politics is not always based on personalities or on some of the superficial things that you read about. But, of course, we hadn't entered politics because we were followers of a particular person. Many people do. And candidates and officeholders do find themselves centers of a personality cult. Some foster this kind of support-- particularly minority-party candidates--because their parties literally can't elect them. We were pretty much idealists and not wedded to particular personalities. If we had been to either Nixon or Warren we would have instantly felt--

Chall: "I don't want any part of this, if that's the way the people at the top behave or feel."

Younger : That's right. They were members of the same party, from the same state, and this intensive--

Chall: I guess that's gone on for years.

Younger: That's right. Perhaps the incident's so clear because I didn't want to have to acknowledge it and could no longer avoid it.

Chall: You can either ride above it or--

Younger: Or "it isn't really as big a factor as it's reported in the media." But we were in the middle of this one. We had to face it.

We were talking last night with the Haerles and others at dinner about Paul Haerle's participation in the Ford campaign. There were obviously some strong personal motivations in that case. There were wide differences around the table whether he should have said what he said. So that had to be a case where there were Younger: considerations--or I would conclude from the discussion last night that there were strong personal motivations for taking a particular stand, based on personalities involved. [Haerle was Republican State Central Committee chairman in 1976 when President Ford was challenged by Governor Reagan.]

Chall: You mean Haerle taking a stand for President Ford when he had been a Reagan supporter in the past?

Younger: Yes, and speaking out as strongly as he did. There was certainly a good deal of logic, as far as I was concerned. Any party official who, faced with the situation where you had an incumbent president of the same party, decided to support somebody else I think really would have behaved questionably in relation to their party responsibility. But that didn' t deter very many people, so there had to be personality considerations, I think.

Chall: Perhaps something between Haerle and Reagan that you don't know about, then?

Younger : From what I've read, probably not so much between Haerle and Reagan as between Haerle and later members of the Reagan staff.

Chall : When he was still governor?

Younger : Yes. I think it all started from Haerle's reasoning, "If you've got an incumbent president, a member of your party, support him." But I think that the strength of some of his remarks probably was motivated by personal feelings.

Chall: As I understand it, Haerle started out as-a conservative, and he really was a Reagan supporter from an ideological position. Do you think that his position might have changed over the years, rather than that it was a personality conflict?

Younger.: I don't know Paul's political philosophywell enough to know that. But I have the feeling that maybe that's an example of a situation being altered by personalities.

Chall: I'm sure that there are many cases like this,

Younger: You read about them, where somebody--well, maybe twenty years ago, their father was insulted by somebody or another, and they've made a vendetta out of it all their lives. The relatively few personal experiences that we've had with extremely important individuals, I can't help but be interested in how little they've colored our own feeling about politics, because they really haven't very much. Chall: Those of you who are in it for the ideological reasons may not pay that much attention, feeling that the concept, the position is more important than the man. There are people who feel that way, they say women more than men.

Younger : I think that may be true, and it may be because the women don't know the candidates as well, don't know the officeholders as well. Maybe a woman sees more clearly that the position is more important than whoever holds it temporarily.

Chall: You pointed that out to me once before, which I think is an interesting point.

Younger : That's the reason I thought that that trip was important, because it was a time that I came in contact with a bitter personality clash.

Chall: Haven't you since?

Younger : [pause] In less direct ways, I would say. That was extremely direct.

Chall: You can always surmise on some of the others, having seen this one.

Younger: That's right, yes.

Chall : You didn't see much of Richard Nixon beyond that in a different light on that same trip?

Younger: We saw some. I don't remember how old he would have been at that time. He certainly wasn't a very old man.

Chall: Nixon? I think he was young--maybe in his thirties, forties. I've forgotten how old he is.

Younger: He had to be, I suspect, around thirty-eight or thirty-nine. That may have been a partial explanation for what happened. Certainly the young congressman who was driving the speedboat made a lot of the decisions that day. His behavior was often pretty bad.

Chall : In any other way, this could have been considered just a youthful prank. It just happened to be important because of the two people who were in the two boats.

Younger: That's exactly right. That's what was interesting about it, really, they were such profoundly influential men on the course of American history, as it turned out, and here was this fumy little vignette which we happened to see. But it always sticks in my mind that it's possible to be that bitter. Chall: You can see that that 1952 campaign was a bitter one.

Younger: Indeed it was.

Chall: You came back, then, I don' t know when you were in Acapulco, but somewhere along the line--

Younger: The president of Mexico I think is always inaugurated on the first of December. We'd been there a couple of weeks. So the presidential election was barely over when we went to Mexico.

I'm quite sure that the reason that some of these superficial personal incidents impressed me so deeply is because I was trying to adjust my idealized visions of the abstract offices to the sudden realization or demonstration that they are filled by very human beings. They were shocks to my perspective-if it's possible to shock a perspective.

3 State Central Committee. 1952-1954

The Role of Women in the Republican State Central Committee

Chall: I wanted to ask you a little bit about the organization of the Republican party and the state central committee, because you were elected as the vicechairman South, which meant the woman's division.

Younger: Which, incidentally, I resent very much, Please stop me if I're expressed this before, That always seemed to me to be a very mixed approach, because when they divided the vice-chairmanship into three parts to accommodate women, they then maintained the overall vice- chairmanship for a man, who was the heir-apparent. I think Elizabeth Snyder was the first to--

Chall: In the Democratic party. She did, and she's still the only woman who's ever been state chairman, that's right. They set up the women's division, I think, just about the time, in that way. On the Republican side, you have three women called vice-chairmen, but it's obvious they're a part of a woman's section, and you still have the two chairmen, north and south.

Younger: That's right. If I remember correctly, the law did not provide for those three women vice-chairmen; it provided for a chairman and a vice-chairman.

Chall: I think that's correct, as far as the law is concerned. Younger: Which meant the women vice-chairmen had no standing. So this was really a way of keeping the women from having a good deal of influence. At that time, the nominee of the party for a particular office appointed two persons of the opposite sex and one of his own and served himself as a member of the state central committee, so that you actually had equal representation on the state committees. But you certainly didn't get equal opportunity, as far as advancing within the party machinery was concerned.

Chall: You could only advance to the chairmanship of the woman's section.

Younger: No, it was still possible for a woman to be chairman but less probable.

Chall: And it was separate. The fact that you accepted this--from the newspaper clipping, it seemed that a woman named Edith Lehman was also being considered for the vice-chainnariship south, and she withdrew in favor of you, and that made the vote unanimous. I recall that last time you told me you were with Edith Lehman or close to her at the national convention.

Younger: She lived in a district at that time that was heavily Democratic. With the delegates chosen on a congressional district basis, she would have certainly been a very logical choice to be a delegate.

Chall: Is there any reason that you can recall why you were picked or why there was even any contention between the two of you?

Younger: No, and until I got the copy of the clipping from you, I didn't even remember that it had happened.

Chall: You accepted this position, so you must have felt that it was of some value at the time for you to do so.

Younger: Yes, very much in the same spirit as I think women are still accepting it. I can't honestly say that it's totally unfair, either, because when you think in terms of some of the things that must be done by a national committee person or by a person that has a heavy responsibility, and when you consider how financially poor the political parties are, as far as their organization is concerned-- certainly in those days--certainly a man who has a secretary and an office is able to operate more efficiently than a housewife who's trying to keep things going at the same time.

Some women overcome this .very well. Margaret Brock is a good example. She has been, I would say, over the years the single most effective fund raiser, in Southern California at least, for the Republican party. But Margaret's a very wealthy woman, and that makes a tremendous difference. She's able to have both a physical location in which to do her work, and secretarial help, and-- Chall: Household help.

Younger: That's right-and things like that are just plain realities. It's too bad they matter, but they do.

Chall: What was the role of the woman's chairmen, then? Do you recall what you did, or what other women in that position had done?

Younger: Different things. I think I did more in the way of speaking than some of them had, because that happened to be my particular area, and I was quite involved in things like the platform because I was interested in issues. You get a certain percentage of people who are interested in issues. But by and large, women have not really been encouraged to be interested in issues, and they haven't really thought of themselves in that light.

Chall: Women in the federation--Republican women--do concern themselves with issues, don't they?

Younger: It seemed to me, as a general rule, that the issues would be kind of pre-packaged. While they might stoutly maintain a position, they weren't always sure how they arrived at it. It was not apt to be a particularly thoughtful or creative process by which they arrived at it. Of course, that's a weak position to be in, because it's certainly much harder to defend your position or to alter your position or anything else; you'd look silly if you were proved dead wrong about something and you don't know how you made the decision to begin with.

Chall: How would you approach it, then? You would be taking the position on issues that your party had either already taken or was considering? Would you have gone to the women's organizations before whom you were speaking--or was that really the group you spoke to, women?

Younger: I would say that I spoke to as many men's organizations as women's.

Chall: In a sense, then, in your position with the women's division, you didn't focus your attention on women.

Younger: Not particularly, no.

Chall: The chairman can make of the position, then, what she wants?

Younger: Could in those days. I can't speak for today.

Chall: Was it only in the matter of getting out the vote and helping with the campaign that the division meant anything at all? Younger: I didn't think so, no. I don't remember a year when I was very active at the state central committee when I wasn't on the platform committee, for instance. I was chairman of the state platform committee one year, which I think was the first time a women ever had been. I seemed to be included in groups discussing issues and policy. I was certainly not a fund raiser.

I know that there was a little group in Pasadena--I may have mentioned this before--that was where I first knew President Nixon, in this little group that was interested in issues. There were only four or five of us, and I was the only female in that group. We would purposely play the role of devil's advocate and try to find out what was the matter with a particular approach to a particular problem.

Chall: These were all Republicans, these four or five?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: I guess I was thinking in my question that as chairman of the woman's division as such, you could make of your role there whatever you wanted to make of it--

Younger: Yes, because it's not defined, really.

Chall: --and that one would expect-at least I would--that maybe the women's division was used primarily during elections when you could find ways for the women to help with the campaign. That didn't necessarily mean that you as an individual were kept in one place in the party, if you were capable, or if they wanted your work and interest to be in other fields.

Younger : But you could be kept in one place.

Chall: But you could be. This would depend, then, on the woman.

Younger: It would depend primarily on the chairman. In other words, if the chairman wanted to limit a woman's activities, he sure did.

I was very fortunate in one regard--well, in lots of regards, but one in particular that I can think of--and that is that McIntyre Faries was the national committeeman most of the time that I was the most active. Mac was very much inclined to respect women and to include them, so that when the state chairman would show a resistance to including women, the national committeeman would go right ahead and include them! [laughter] It was interesting.

There's an interesting little story. Again, it's a sidelight, but it's always stuck in my mind. The meetings would be held at the California Club. Chall: The meetings of the--?

Younger: Well, I guess you would call it more or less the party steering committee. There were probably ten or twelve of us involved in Southern California.

Chall: There was the executive committee of the Republican State Central Committee. You have that list of the people from Los Angeles County who were on it.

Younger: Who were they?

Chall: Laughlin Waters [state chairman] named thirty-eight persons from Los Angeles County.

Younger : I remember reading that, and I don't have the vaguest idea who the

thirty-eight were. '

Chall: I don't either; I suppose one could find that out. But the note that I have says that among them were Jean Fuller, Bernard Brennan, Ed Shattuck, McIntyre Faries, Richard Nixon, and Mildred Younger, all of whom were movers and. shakers of the Republican party at that time, certainly, Would this have been the committee that met in the California Club, or was it even a smaller committee?

Younger: No, it would have been a little larger than that.

Chall : Larger than thirty-eight?

Younger: No, but larger than the few names.

Chall: These few names are only a few o-f the thirty-eight.

Younger: I know. I can't recall who the others were, so that clipping came as a surprise to me. Certainly they were not all from Southern California.

Chall: Well, tell me about the meeting at the California Club.

Younger : We met quite regularly. It was primarily because it was the most convenient place for the men with offices downtown to meet. Private rooms were available so conversation is possible over lunch. We had just barely at that time opened any kind of a state central committee off ice. John Hamlin was probably the first executive director of the state central committee, and we never thought of John as an employee in any sense. Certainly Ross Barrett would have been included in those luncheons, because Ross had come out at the behest of Charlie Thomas to try to put together United Republican Finance. Ross and John both lived in Pasadena, were both brilliant, both very good personal friends and have remained so over their Younger: years, as have their wives. Those luncheons--I'm sure that John and Ross were always there, and they may not even have been part of Loc' s thirty-eight people.

The thing that I remember most clearly about those luncheons was kind of a comment on what continues in the way of discrimination. There is a ladies' entrance at the side of the California Club, and there's also a ladies' elevator.

Chall: Is that right?! Still?

Younger: I haven't been in the California Club for quite a while. I remember it used to make me mad. But Margaret Brock and I always went along with it and would go in that entrance. This was another reason that the meetings were held there. It was one of the few places where you could have a quiet, private room for discussion, but women are only permitted on certain floors.

There was this marvelous black woman whom I think had some, if not mental problems, at least emotional problems, and actually was hospitalized for a while. She was very much a member of the group that was always invited.

Chall: Part of the Republican inner circle?

Younger: Oh yes. I don't have any idea how much influence she really had in her community; I've never known that. But she had a talent for wearing some of the most incredible outfits--lavish hats, rather overused fox furs, and that kind of thing, of which we didn't see an awfully lot on the streets in Los Angeles.

She would go to the front door of the California Club every time and march up the steps--there's a very imposing stone stairway in front--and when she would arrive at the top, the doorman would say, "The ladies' entrance is around the side there." She would always come back with, "You mean this club discriminates against blacks?" Of course, she always got away with it! [laughter] We white females, we couldn't have gotten in that front door for love or money, and she always did. It was a standing joke; I don't remember that she had the kind of sense of humor that she enjoyed it as much as we did. But she got away with it! [laughter]

Chall: That was an early integrator.

Younger: It certainly was. But it was perfectly clear that on the basis of black, they weren't going to argue, but on the basis of female, you were in trouble.

Chall: Which elevator did she ride up in, do you recall? Younger: In the men's elevator! She didn't have any trouble at all. She made a scene very time, and it always worked. I thought it was a remarkable performance.

Chall: I'm sure they don't take.black menin at all, or any other--

Younger: I'm sure not too, but this worked.

Chall: They weren't going to fight with her.

Younger: I suppose it was her way of saying, "I fully intend to make trouble." And she would have; she would have seen it through. [laughter]

An Interest in Issues and Organizations Which Study Issues

Chall: I interrupted you a few minutes ago, but you were talking about studying the issues. Your group of four or five studied the issues, and you went around speaking on issues. What issues? Can you recall?

Younger: They're not all that different from the issues today. Obviously the issues have developed to a different extent, and also obviously our recent financial setbacks means that some of them will undevelop. At least I think that's been the general pattern; that you make much more progress on social and economic issues when people have money to be able to afford them than you do when resources are limited. So I suspect that much that's been done and much that's been gained-some of it positive, some of it negative-- will be lost because of economic conditions. I think that's kind of the pattern that this country's always followed with a free economy.

Chall: And you were interested in these kinds of social issues?

Younger: Yes. And economic issues. And foreign policy. I doubt that we ever knew much of what we were talking about; we tried to.

Chall: Who were in this group?

Younger: John Hamlin. Actually, he went back and was part of the Eisenhower administration and then dropped out of politics. They're now back living in Montecito. They lived in Washington all during the Eisenhower administration.

Chall: His wife--did she come to these meetings? Younger: No. Gerty wasn't particularly interested in that kind of thing. Richard Nixon when he was in town. It seems to me that Pat [Patrick] Hillings (member of Congress) was a member of that group. There are other people that I'm not remembering; there are one or two others.

Chall: Was your husband?

Younger: No. He was not inclined to be issue oriented. Interestingly enough, in the last two or three months--and he's tremendously effective and tremendously knowledgeable in the particular fields that he chooses--but in the last two or three months, he's been broadening his fields of interests into the more inexact ones. He's much mo;e inclined to look at the rather exact ones.

Chall: Legal?

Younger: Yes. He's now getting very concerned about the social ones, which I'm very happy about.

Chall: Certainly they have a bearing on legal problems.

Younger: He's always been aware of that. Ever since he was first elected district attorney, he's been keenly aware of the relationship between levels of education and prison population, for instance. Other problems--the patterns of family life and criminal behavior. But it's been in pretty specific kinds of ways. Again, perhaps it's because of the change in circumstances in which everybody finds themselves, he's now feeling more inclined to try to think in depth about the impact of property tax bills, that kind of thing.

Chall: Is that because he's thinking of running for governor? That he has to, or is it just coming that way?

Younger: It seems to me--and I don't think he would agree with me--that he's thinking of running for governor because he's becoming very concerned about things that he can't do anything about as attorney general. Until he was attorney general under the present circumstances, being the only statewide Republican, these things were not so singly of his concern, or of concern to him. But he's kind of ganged up on at this point ,and this makes a difference in the way he has to look at problems.

Chall: Who gangs up on him when you said ganged up on?

Younger: For instance, during the last campaign [1976], if you noticed, the Democrats did something--which had to be intentional; there's no way that it could have been coincidental--they used Democratic office holders at all levels to be the spokesmen on initiative Younger: measures. That's a double-edged sword, obviously, but it certainly gives them exposure which is tremendously valuable. And there just aren't any other statewide Republican spokesmen at this time.

Chall: I don' t know whether I ever asked you this before, but since you're so interested in issues and want to study both sides of the issues, and do, whether you ever did join the League of Women Voters or were ever interested in joining?

Younger: I've thought about it very seriously. I know that the League of Women Voters has a policy--or attempts to maintain a policy--of nonpartisan- ship. But it seemed to me that every time I came close to joining the League of Women Voters, that there would be something that was very heavily partisan that would come up. As a consequence, I would just stay out.

I never joined Pro America for the same reason, because it was, I felt, very conservative and heavily Republican. It was certainly not an organization that had an open mind, Not that Pro America ever did the same kind of thorough job or made an effort to do the same kind of thorough job as the League of Women Voters did.

A very good friend of mine, Marlen Newman, was president of the Los Angeles League of Women Voters for a number of years, I think that the training the League of Women Voters has given an awfully lot of women has been tremendously important. But I do think, over the years, that there has been a tendency in the League of Women Voters to be somewhat biased on the Democratic side. That makes it a little hard for Republicans to join because you feel that you'll be constantly defending yourself, and not growing, if that's what you're doing in an organization.

Chall: I guess it depends really on who's in the organization, or that is, what the population is like-

Younger: That's right, in a particular area.

Chall: --because there are some that are heavily Democratic, some that are heavily Republican. I guess on a national level, it balances out.

Younger: I suppose so, yes. I remember when Evelle started running for public office. Well, it wasn't when he started running for public office, because he ran for superior court. But I think in his first race for district attorney--which is, after all, a nonpartisan position--there was a very partisan effort to embarrass him at a League of Women Voters meeting that had to have the cooperation of the chairman of the meeting. He found out about it ahead of time and didn't go, But it was well programed. Chall: Was somebody going to ask him a question that would embarrass him?

Younger: I've forgotten exactly what it was. It seems to me that it had to do with the make-up of the audience, or that they had already taken a position on something, so that he was going to be in the position of opposing something this particular group already had its mind made up on. He felt that it was just a situation where there wasn't anything to be gained at all from going. It was sort of one of those, "Don't confuse me with the facts. I' ve already made up my mind" situations. So he didn't go.

I think that, quite generally among Republicans, whether you're talking about partisan or nonpartisan offices, you'll find a tendency to think of the League of Women Voters as having made up its mind. I don't know how fair that is. I know I've sometimes argued on both sides of the league question but I'm not an expert.

Chall: Is Pro America much different in its way of looking at issues than the Federation of Republican Women? You were talking about their way of dealing with issues.

Younger: As a matter of fact, I'm not even sure Pro America still exists. Does it?

Chall: Yes. Mrs. [Lucile] Hosmer is--I'm not sure whether it's a state or a national officer at the moment in Pro America. So I know it still . exists . Younger: For heaven's sake! There's no impact; at least in the Los Angeles area, you never see anything about any meetings. I just assumed that they kind of phased out.

Chall: Not exactly. They may be somewhat phased out, but they're still in existence someplace, as far as I know; I don't know enough about it yet.

Younger: That's interesting. I think it always did incline to be rather exclusive in its membership.

Chall : Exclusive how?

Younger: In the sense of choosing its members rather than an open membership. I had the feeling that if you were asked to join, it was because they'd already made up their minds that you would be acceptable, or that there was some reason for asking you to join. But I didn't ever have the feeling that you could just go to a meeting and sign up. That may be altogether wrong, but that was my impression.

Chall: Did you ever speak before Pro America groups? Younger: Yes, yes. Not often, and I don't remember that they were very large groups. I would say probably about equally--as long as we're talking about the two organizations--before League of Women Voters and Pro America groups. But that was in a day when Pro America was perceptibly more active in Southern California than it is now. It may be very active and just not being written about or not being covered some way. I don't remember when I've last seen the name in print.

I had a good many friends that were members. But on most of the issues in which they were interested, Pro America had already taken a position and I wasn't in particular agreement, as a general rule; or if I was in agreement with the conclusion, it wasn't for the same reasons.

Chall: Has Pro America always been on the conservative side of the spectrum, whereas the federation is split conservative-moderate from time to time, depending I guess on its leadership?

Younger: My feeling is that the difference probably is that the federation at least has made an honest effort, I think, probably the majority of the time, to support the Republican party. This was how we actually got into this discussion, because I was thinking in terms of women's organizations that purported to be interested in public affairs but which do not actually have any working relationship with an organized political party. I would put Pro America in that category. In the federation, I think you find a good deal more overlap with county central committee members and the state committee.

Financing the Political Party

Chall: I think that was done purposely to find a way to get women in in some way.

Can you remember anything about these meetings that you held in the California Club? What were they about?

Younger: A lot of them had to do with fund raising and with United Republican Finance. This was a new concept, and I must say that the state central committee concept has changed a great deal since I was active, and has changed in a direction that I don't approve of altogether.

Chall: What 's the difference?

Younger: There seems to me to be a price tag always attached to the state central committee now. Chall: Membership?

Younger : This actually started I think about the time that I pretty much dropped out of politics. You were expected to pay a hundred dollars a year if you were appointed to the state central committee. And remember, of course, that a hundred dollars was a lot more money then. This, in a way, was a logical thing to do because the time was coming when the population situation was such that you had to run an office and have telephones and other overhead, and those things cost money. It was probably better to have members putting in a hundred dollars than having single individuals putting in ten thousand dollars.

But I have always felt that controlling organizations in a political party shouldn't have a price tag on them. I hope that there's nothing mandatory about financial contributions. I can sympathize with why there would be. But at the same time, I don't want to think in terms of people being excluded for financial reasons.

For instance, when I was at my most active, there was never a banquet at a state committee meeting with a keynote speaker for which you had to buy a ticket, or where there was any fund raising involved. If there was a luncheon or a dinner or anything, you tried to have it as inexpensive as was possible.

Chall : To get more people?

Younger : That's right--the effort was to include everybody, not to make money. Again, it's very much a mixed bag; you've got to have the money, particularly in a huge urban state. You've got to have an organization, yet it does tend to eliminate some people.

Chall: A thousand dollar a plate--

Younger : Of course, very few people take part in those.

Chall: They raise quite a bit.

Younger : That's right. But the number of people remains pretty limited. Really it's a practical matter. People talk about, "If a thousand of your friends gave a dollar apiece,'' I can assure you that it costs more to raise a dollar apiece from a thousand friends than . it does to get one contribution of a thousand dollars. You end up spending all of your energy and resources, and probably much more than the dollar apiece that you get. Now, if people would feel it a citizenship responsibility to automatically support parties and candidates, that would be one thing. But if you have to go out looking for very small contributions, you're wasting your time and your energy. Chall: It takes a lot of volunteer effort. I think the Democrats had their Dollars for Democrats. It was a way to get people out into their precincts and into their communities to know who the Democrats were.

Younger : But did it work financially?

Chall: I'm not sure. I think that for a short time it did, for the first few. times. That's a good point, though; I'm not sure.

Younger : There have been times when different Republican organizations and candidates at different levels have made that kind of an effort. But I don't remember a single one that has ever really worked beyond the point--and it's a very important point--of relieving the general feeling of not being interested. But actually raising money, no, I don't think it does.

Chall: That's one of the chief concerns, then, of the central committee-- fund raising for the campaigns?

Younger : Yes, yes. I guess both my husband and I kind of wish that the whole need for fund raising would go away, and yet there doesn't seem to be any kind of a solution.

Incidentally, I don't know whether you've seen it or not, but I think the Political Science Department at UCLA, sent out a questionnaire of which I got a copy, on which they asked you to spend a few minutes of your time. I think I've had them a couple of times before, filling out this questionnaire about your friends and about all kinds of party things and issue things and the like. I ended up as always either canceling my own questionnaire by changing their questions or by writing that their questions were totally unrealistic! There seem to be, on the part of political scientists, or at least some of them teaching political science, some very unreal attitudes about people who are interested in politics. The thing that brought this to mind were the questions about financing.

Chall: Can you tell me about them? I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Younger: Terribly, terribly oversimplified and in no way taking into account the special circumstances that you always have to face in an election.

For instance, I think there was one of the questions that implied that across-the-board--regardless of what race, what district you were talking about--should you try to raise money one dollar from x-number of people, a thousand dollars from x-number of people, or ten thousand dollars--that kind of thing. None of those answers are true across-the-board or standing alone. Chall: You're supposed to check off one--which is the best way?

Younger: Yes, you're supposed to take your choice. And none of them work!

Chall: Or all would, or all could.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: Ornone.

Younger: That's right. In some races, you'd be a heck of a lot better off if you didn't spend any money; in other races, it takes a lot of money.

Chall: As you understand it, this pertains to raising money for political campaigns--whether it's for city council or governor?

Younger: It seemed to, yes, This was true on issues and everything else: Everything was so oversimplified that no way was I prepared to say that I strongly favored it or was neutral or strongly disagreed. The questions were too simplistic; things aren't that easy. Politics are complex and I am suspicious of black and white answers.

Chall: Did you save it and not send it in?

Younger: I sent"it in, with all my comments. It'll get thrown out because it won't fit--another computer reject. [laughter]

Chall : I'd love to see one of them.

Younger: It's a second or third time that I've gotten them,

Chall: From one of the departments of UCLA?

Younger: I think it says the Political Science Department, in which case it's a very sweeping kind of a mailing.

Chall: Did you receive one recently?

Younger: Yes. As a matter of fact, I mailed it yesterday. It just is totally unrealis tic!

Chall: Maybe you should be teaching political science in your next career coming up.

Younger: But I do know that things aren't that black and white,

Chall: Ifyou'reintheprocess,youseeitmoreclearly, Ithink,than if you're not. Younger: There was a question about the Rhodesian situation. There's no way in the world that I wouldn't want to know an awful lot more than I know and I wouldn't want to know it for sure before I would feel qualified to even offer a guess, leave alone a positive statement, that I feel strongly. That could even have been a reflection of the university's investment policy.

Republican Party Leaders and Workers

Chall: When he was interviewed a few years ago, McIntyre Faries said that legislators and congressmen really control the state central committee, that the county committees are made up of nice people who are well known but don't do the work. The work was done by-- what was then called-- the Council of Republican Women. *

Younger: I'd probably agree with that. The reason that the first is true, of course, is because of the way the law is written.

Chall: Yes, they do have control, haven't they?

Younger: Yes--party nominees appoint the state central committee members. That of course is one reason why the Republican party is currently as weak as it is. It's probably a better state central committee this time around than it was last time around. But last time around, the vast majority--and really an overwhelming majority--of the state central committee was appointed by people who 10st! They weren't very good candidates to begin with because the incentives to run weren't good. It was a very bad time for anybody to run for a Republican office. When you've got one party heavily dominant, that means you're going to have party organizations on the other side that don't have much talent in them. You can't help it, because the people who appoint the members are losers. You' re not going to get the kind of leadership you need to have an effective party. So it's self-defeating, in a sense. I don't know what the answer is, but I know that that's the result of heavy one party domination--it keeps getting heavier frequently because of that phenomenon.

Chall: I guess there are some people in the party, or some leaders, who could be party leaders and maybe aren't. There may be some who are more dynamic but don't have much to say in te- of organization.

*See interview with McIntyre Faries , California Republicans, 1934-19 53, Regional Oral History Off ice, The Bancrof t Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1973, p. 14. Younger: That's right. They can't really get into a position of any prominence because they didn't support the people who got the nominations and who were ultimately defeated.

Chall: Now, when you have such a split in this state as there is, then you really have more trouble.

Younger : Yes, that compounds the problem. But the problem really goes back to the whole Watergate thing. It meant that there was one election in which a Republican virtually didn' t have any chance. The state central committee that took over the reins after that was appointed by losers and dominated by losers, and that's an awful tough way to organize a party. Of course, that's when you're most vulnerable to personality splits within the party and that kind of thing, so you compound it.

Chall: In 1952, there was probably some of that, but nothing like what there is today. There was a Citizens for Eisenhower in 1952, and I'm not sure whether this was because that's the way the campaign was organized or whether it indicates a split in the party. I've got a list here of those who were Citizens for Eisenhower.

Younger: Maybe seeing the list would help.

Chall: Were these people active members of the Republican party? Were they in, or were they appointed in order to give Eisenhower less of a Republican tinge than he really had because they wanted ~emocratic support?

Younger: I think what you're really asking me is, was this the forerunner of the Nixon Committee to Reelect?

Chall: Well, yes. But it may be that it's just common to set up a campaign Citizens for So-and-so, when it really is a Republican party, or even a Democratic party campaign in the state. But I don't know who those people were.

Younger : [Referring to list] These are all Southern Californians, and there are only four or five on here whom I don't know, which indicates to me that they were all individuals who were very active. For instance, here is Mrs. [Valley] Knudson who certainly was a distinguished community leader in her own right. I remember that Valley used to take the position that she didn't want to be involved in a partisan campaign. Yet she shows up here as a co-chairman. Her husband, and later she, did contribute quite consistently to certain Republicans that they were very fond of. But as far as being part of the Republican organization, they really didn't want to be, and weren't. So maybe that's what you're asking. For the most part, these are not organizational Republicans. Chall: They're citizens who happened to--

[telephone ringing]

Younger: But I would say that the vast majority are Republicans on there.

[recorder off for a moment]

Younger: For instance, I see on there [referring to list] a number of names of people who are still very active. But I doubt that they hold positions. Jack Drown has certainly been active over the years. Jack has been at times a member of the county committee and at times a member of the state committee, other times no particular position. Jack is now probably a member of one of the Lincoln clubs. He remains a very substantial contributor to Republican candidates. Bob Rowan--I think he has pretty well dropped out of political activity, but he was very much interested at that time. He would be what I would consider a very liberal Republican. At this time, as you may know, he collects art, very modern art. He was one of the original instigators of the building of the Pasadena Art Museum that's gone through so much turmoil lately and that Norton Simon has taken over. Bob and his wife loaned a very substantial collection of their personal art to the museum.

Mrs. [Henrietta] Cowgill was interested and was active in Pro America. She was not a fanatic, by any means. I don't know what Henrietta's doing or where she's living at this point.

Rod Rood--I still see him at every kind of convention or anything of the kind, but I don't think he holds any position. He is with Atlantic Richfield. That's generally true right down the line on this list.

Chall: These were in fact Citizens for Eisenhower, then, one could say.

Younger: Yes. But I don't see any of them that I know to have been Democrats. They just were not Republican organizational types. As I say, there may be four or five that I don't know at all. One of them now is a federal judge, for instance. That takes him out of it.

Chall: Who is that?

Younger: William P. Gray. I think two or three of them are no longer living. Most of them I've lost track of, but there are others who show up at different things and show varying amounts of activity. Chall: Mrs. MarjorieBenedict is given credit for organizing the state Republican women under a "Get Out the Vote." [I9521 "The state was blanketed by a telephone chain organized by three hundred CRW Clubs under the guidance of indefatigable national committeewoman Majorie Benedict ."*

Younger: I read that as a somewhat self-serving statement, but it may not have been made by her.

Chall: No, it wasn't. It came out of a little book called The Lady and the -Vote which was written by a woman from the East Coast in the early fifties, and it was about women and politics and women in politics.

Younger: Was it? I never saw it.

Chall: It's one of those things that you find when you're looking for this kind of material. She gives Marjorie Benedict , a couple of times, credit for strong organization.

Younger: I think that Marjorie was a very strong team player, and I think that she worked extremely hard. If you asked me who the woman was who was really just incredibly effective and really capable of getting people to work together, and not create more than the inevitable enmities and jealousies, I would say it would be Jean Wood Fuller, and not Marjorie. But Jean also would not have taken credit. I think that Jean was not only the leading force but the unifying force. At least from my viewpoint, Marjorie probably benefited some from ~ean'swork.

Chall: It's hard to say. Sometimes people get credit because they're listed in the top job.

Younger: That's right. And maybe that makes them entitled to it; at least they didn't block any efforts,

Chall: But you think that Mrs. Fuller was quite responsible for getting out the vote in '52?

Younger: I thought she was by far the most effective woman in the state. By far. And she was able to gather other effective people around her. There are always--men say it doesn't happen in men's organizations, but I think it does, to the same extent--there are always detractors. But ~ean'sability to put together and help motivate and coalesce effective people was really incredible, I just happened to see it more from that perspective.

*Marion K. Sanders, The Lady and the Vote (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1956) , pp. 117-118. V CANDIDATE FOR THE STATE SENATE, 1954 [Interview 7: March 8, 1977]##

Chall: Let's see. In 1954, you ran for state senator, which means you must have started planning your campaign in 1953 or even in 1952. What got that campaign started?

Younger: I was determined that I was not going to be active in a political party that tolerated individuals or an individual who was a professional hate-monger. When I became aware that Senator [Jack] Tenney 's way of augmenting his income--and of course that was before there was full-time legislature--was not just in the practice of the law but was tied to Gerald L.K. Smith and was paid to speak for Smith, it seemed to me that the only way that I could honestly remain active in politics was to be able to say, "No, we don't put up with that kind of thing." I spent almost a year looking for a man to run against Tenney. Of course, it was a stupid waste of time.

Chall: Why wouldn't they run against him? He wasn't a bona fide Republican in the sense that he--

Younger: Don't forget he was a Democrat when he was first elected to the senate. He was a bona fide whatever was most convenient--and profitable.

Chall: Hewas aRepublicanatthetimeyou'retalkingabout,butIthinkhe squeaked in on a cross-file.

Younger: Yes. And as I say, he had changed while holding office, which I think is somewhat more questionable. Remember, there was both cross- filing and no party designation required on the ballot at that time.

Chall: I just wonder why he was considered such a strong candidate that no man wanted to oppose him.

Younger: That's simple. He'd held the position for eighteen years. That was during the days of one senator from Los Angeles County, and Los Angeles County then had a little over five million people in it. If Younger: you wanted to influence a state senator, you most certainly did not contribute your three hundred or five hundred bucks in Los Angeles County. If you contributed it in, say, Inyo-Mono County, it was a great big contribution and very influential; in Los Angeles County, it was not. So it wasn't that he was considered so incredibly strong; it was that the chances of defeating him were considered very poor. It was a huge constituency (about five million) that produced no more votes in the state senate than some very small constituencies did. This was, of course, before the successful campaign to reapportion state senate seats.

Chall: So the problem was to have enough money to have a great campaign or to have enough time to wage it?

Younger: Both.

Chall: And no man wanted to take it on.

Younger: It wasn't very promising. From the standpoint of a wage earner, it was a lousy investment.

Chall: It might not have even been a good investment to have been state senator. If you could win, was it worth the winning?

Younger: I think it was if you were a lawyer or in some other occupation where you could build your primary source of income by reason of being a member of the state legislature. Many state senators built large and successful legal practices through senate contacts.

Chall: The fact that they wouldn't run, though, doesn't mean that the Republican party, or a goodly portion of it, really backed Tenney and what he was doing those days?

Younger: The Republican party proved it really wasn't for him but tolerated him for very practical reasons. You just simply couldn't find anybody who could afford to make the sacrifices necessary to take him on.

Chall: How did you arrive, then, at your decision to do it?

Younger: Nobody else would. It was sort of a process of elimination.

Chall: And you felt that much committed to--

Younger: I certainly did.

Chall: --toppling him or at least exposing him? Fortnight VOLUME~~,NO.~CALIFORNIA'S OWN NEWSMAGAZINE March 17, 1954

Beauty and the Beast

Jack Tenney, LA'S changeling Senator, who changed from Repub- lican to Christian Nationalist to fight Eisenhower and Nixon has changed back to run for re-election to the State Senate. This time he meets GOP stalwart Mildred Younger who hopes to change him one more time -to private citizen. THEFEDERAL SYSTEM of representa- one aspect of the fairy story to a de- tion is base& upon area in the Senate gree: you never know what he is going and population in the House. to turn into next. California followed that pattern, but This election year Tenney will face booming LA created a situation unprece- GOParty stalwart, Mrs. Mildred Young- dented in the US. For the State Senator er, who is so attractive it could be a po- from the one Senatorial district defined litical disadvantage. The comely matron, by the boundaries of LA county repre- 33, is married to a LA municipal judge, sents 42% of the state's population at and has been busy as the proverbial Sacramento, though there are 39 other bee in GOP politics for many years. MILDREDYOUNGER: California State Senators. She was Chairman of the State Repub- From doorbeff ringing to candidate for However, this weird allocation of lican Committee's Speaker's Bureau from the Senate. The pretty GOP aspirant is Senate representation is not nearly so 1947 to 1950 (during which time, inci- up from the ranks. weird as the representative himself - dentally, she never heard of a pro- bumptious, erratic Jack B. Tenney. For Republican speech being made by her On the level of year around party ac- the news-making legislator who, for opponent) and then resigned for a poig- tivity the attractive senatorial aspirant want of a better word, might be de- nant and painful reason. One of her has a long list of accomplishments fol- scribed as one of the most "colorful" children died of polio and she herself lowing her name. characters in state politics, has been in was seriously stricken with this dread Among these was her dramatic speech the saddle a long, long time. A beast of crippler. Mrs. Younger was bedridden at the Chicago convention when she frightening proportions in the eyes of for nine months, was two more years seconded the presidential nomination of some, a Prince Charming ready to save making a complete recovery. She is to- the then Governor Warren. And it fias the innocents from a fate worse than day County Chairman of the Women's probably the only time in US history death to others, he is a fellow who fits Division of the March of Dimes. when wolf whistles were interspersed

BOX SCORE ON IMPORTANT ISSUES TENNEY YOUNGER .. On the Eisenhower Administration: Tenney once said: "The only diffeience between Eisen- Has consistently backed it, thinks it has been a good hower and Stevenson is that one wears nylon socks and administration. the other silk socks." On the United Nations: Feels that the US should withdraw from it entirely, lend Advocates participation and support. Favors the UN as a no support. presently imperfect instrument, but the best hope for peace. On Subversive Organizations: (as listed by the US Attorney General) Has fought Communism but has repeatedly accepted sup- Has fought Communism but disavows all support from any port from subversive organizations of the right wing. subversive organizations of any kind. On the Warren Administration: Was ardently anti-Warren. WliS ardently pro-Warren. On the War in Korea: Was against US participation under any circumstances. Feels that under the circumstances US participation was necessary. On the GOP Platform: Ran against the GOP as Vice-Presidential nominee of the Endorses it all the way, especially as it stresses state and Christian Nationalist Party. local(as opposed to federal) responsibility.

Page R FORTNIGHT,March 17, 1954 188b BEAUTY &THE BEAST

with applause at a political convention. of innocent persons-that he accom- But, aside from a pulchritude 'rare plished about the only solid work in on the political horizon, Mrs. Younger's his political career. While the legisla- accomplishments in the Republican tion resulting from the work of the ranks are solid and varied. She is a Tenney Committee -which concerned member of the State Central Commit- itself with subversion-was not origi- tee (appointed by Thomas Kuchel in nated by him, he did have some part in 1948), has been a member of the State its passage. Board of Young Republicans, Secretary Tenney registered and ran as a Re- of the 1952 Republican National Plat- publican in 1942 and it was not until form Committee, Chairnian of the Sub- 1952 that he abandoned the GOP and committee on Civil Rights in the 1952 became a Christian Nationalist.* In the National Republican Convention -to current campaign he is back again run- name a few of her positions of respon- ning as a Republican, though last fort- sibility. night the LA County Central Committee Tenney Tactics. Mr. Tenney, of late. voted against endorsing him (as an in- has generally ignored the Republican cumbent) by 90 votes to 12. Party as a political vehicle and has de- As a Gerald L.K. Smith stalwart Ten- voted himself to activities allied to Ger- ney has authored a number of books ald L. K. Smith's platform. Taking such REPUBLICANJACKTENNEY: being peddled by the Smith organization. a step would, in effect, spell political His enemies suy he's still a Gerald L. K. One is the Zionist Network, which re- doom for the less adventurous. But Ten- Smith stooge. hashes all tlie old chestnuts which have ney seems to have completely forgotten been dragged out by the hate merchants mentor Gerald L. K.'s theme, that an for decades. Another is Mind Washing honest, white Aryan doesn't stand a of some bills of which this amendment in America. chance in a country controlled by the might be considered typical : This latter tome under the imprint of Jews - Capitalists - Communists. He hap- "Teachers in all state colleges shall the Christian Nationalist Crusade con- pily ran for vice president on the Chris- wear at all times a scabbard, side arms cerns itself chiefly with the subversive tian Nationalist ticket along with presi- and metal hats, spurs and shoes nature of the County Conference on dential nominee Douglas MacArthur equipped with iron heels. They shall Community Relations and the Southern (who immediately disavowed such sup- salute and click said iron heels upon California Society for Mental Hygiene. port) and has roundly denounced the approaching and passing any and all The sincerity of Senator Tenney's Republican Administration time and persons whether upon the campus or conclusions are somewhat marred by the time again for its leftwing doings. All of elsewhere. They shall likewise sing mil- center spread of the booklet which is which has kept him pretty busy ignor- itary airs and wave flags regularly three devoted to a high pressure advertise- ing tbe problems of Los Angeles Coun- times each day, the time to be set by ment of the rankest, most often exposed ty, a fact upon which Mrs. Younger will popular vote of the entire student atid most idiotic of all the anti-Jewish probably base her campaign. body." propaganda pitches, The Protocols of Tenney first went to Sacramento as The Turn. From this position-of the Zion. an extreme left-wing member of the playful leftist, Tenney became a bitter This fantastic forgery was actually Assembly. He was elected as a Demo- right-winger and it was during this pe- nailed as fake before Tenney was born crat. He abandoned this position sud- riod of his career-despite the charges (in 1898). Tn the ad it says "The Chris- denly in 1939 after his introduction that he trampled on the civil liberties tian Nationalists Crusade. directed by Gerald L. K. Smith, is the only organizi- tion in America now publishing and circulating this deadly document." This statement provides a refreshing switch. Tt is probably true. "Intuition." Io another sentence in the book Tenney unconsciously reveals. his method of analysis. Discussing a pamphlet Tenney writes: "While we haven't had an opportunity to read this work we do not hesitate to place it in that section of our library classified as 'brain washing in the United States'." But the political, ideological, and in- tellectual gyrations of the LA.Senator are really too complicated to catalogue. Most GOP political experts hope that he will be mercifully nominated for politi- . - ..-..- .Ir#)nically the Amerlcan Christian Nallonalist Party was narncd Ily the Attorney General's ofllrr as I~piniz an 11r~nnianllr1n"which has adoptcd 11 Imlic.y 01 atlvoralinu 01' ap~~rovlnnIhe cnrnmlsslon Mildred Younger wirlr Ike nt the 1952 GOP convcwriotr. Mrs. Yoringer secotrrlc~d 111 arls (11 lorrc and r,iolcncc to deny othrrs 11lc>i1.riaills unflrr the t'onslitulion ol thc t'nitrcl Wnrren's t~orninnrio~rnt~d lrrnded ~itiderrlrc trrrriotrrrl sporlighr. Slalrs." In rllhcr \vf~rds.sul,v~rsivc. FORTNIGHT,March 17, 1954 Page 9 188c BEAUTY & THE BEAST

cal oblivion in the June primary.** "In 1948," says Tenney, "Artie was The Other Side. And the regular Re- quite the thing and some legislators publicans who (if the County Commit- really would listen to him. I just tee's vote on Tenney's endorsement is wouldn't knuckle down to him." any criterion) oppose him about ten to However, Tenney apparently didn't one feel that Mrs. Younger's more for- think that Artie was such a blackguard midable opponent is Richard Richards, after all, for he sent him one of his young LA attorney, chairman of the reports with the following inscription: Democratic Central Committee and en- "To Artie Samish, A Great American." dorsed candidate of the LA County It was signed "Jack Tenney." Democratic organization. But, despite the Tenney capers in con-. Mr. Richards has a career which is tradiction and his embracing of Gerald strangely parallel to that of Mrs. Young- L. K. Smith, many an imponderable er. He, too, is a graduate of the Uni- enters into the LA senatorial race and versity of Southern California; was, as the experts are all over the lot picking a matter of fact, a schoolmate of Mrs. the winner. Younger's, even on the USC debating Past Doings. Traditionally incum- team with Mrs. Younger. bency has been a powerful asset in any Richards served in the Navy during California political contest and Tenney the War, and in 1948 was elected vice- is an incumbent. However, this asset has chairman of the LA County Democratic DEMOCRATRICHARDRICHARDS: been most effective when a political des- Central Committee. In 1950 he was Hot COP contest might win him ignation has not been appended to the elected chairman of that body and was the race. name of the candidate. And in the last re-elected in 1952, presently holding election an amendment was passed that office. organizations most people feel are above which made the party designation of a Tenney Attack. Tenney's campaign, reproach. They are the Metropolitan candidate a part of the ballot even aimed at the one million registered Re- Water District of LA and the Atfiliated though he does crossfile." * publicans and the 1,200,00 registered Teachers' Organization of LA. The for- If the power of the incumbent is still Democrats who make up LA County's mer's efforts for more and cheaper wa- strong the Tenney - Younger - Richards approximate voting population, will be ter are well known. The teachers' or- fight might develop into a real hassle. slanted chiefly at Mrs. Younger and ganization concerns itself chiefly with But most people think it will diminish based on two premises. The Senator the need for more and better teachers, with the party designation on the ballot. will accuse his opponent of a lack of more and better schools, teachers' re- They also point to the fact that Tenney, legislative experience and of having a tirement problems, salaries, etc. running against an unknown-Joe Holt father who is a lobbyist. "Mrs. Younger is the hatchet girl of in the 22nd Congressional race in 1952 Mrs. Younger's father, Ray C. Eber- the Warren inner circle," says Tenney. -took a bad beating, worse than two to hard, is a lobbyist. But his chief clients "Her support comes chiefly from the one. remnants of the Warren Republican I in Sacramento happen to be a couple of This would seem to indicate that Ten- Party in the state, and they are rapidly ney would take a licking at the polls "The end of Tenney's political career might well swll the beginnln~of his personal fortune. There coming apart." from Mrs. Younger in the COP pri- arc orlly estlmates of Gerald L. K. Smith's in- Tenney blames his troubles and loss mary. But Tenney adherents point to conic but the 1953 flling in Washington of contri- butions of 5100 or more show Smith tcmk in $340.- of support chiefly on the Warren ele- the success of his kick-off speech (in the (0 from this source alonc. Most of his income is from smaller. unrecorded. <.~rnlributions.As a ments of- the party and, strangely, to 19th Congressional District) and say lulltime worker in the Christial Nationslist vine- convicted (of income tax evasion) Lob- he'll again have plenty of money from yard. Tenney would undoubtedly turn ,a pretty penny, too. byist Artie Samish. his chief angel in the past, an indepen- dent oil operator, to buy billboards and generally acquire publicity even though no metropolitan paper-with the pos- sible exception of the Herald-Express- is likely to support him. The Daily News will be for Richards, the Times and Mirror for Mrs. Young- er. The Examiner will probably remain neutral but give Tenney better news breaks than the Times. The FORTNIGHTprognosis is that Mrs, Younger will win the COP nomination handily, but not the Democratic nod in the primaries (June 8). It will be a Younger and Richards contest in the November election with the national situation playing such a vital part in that race as to make it now unpredictable. .- ff'Crossfllina elimlnation was also on the same When Mrs. Younger spokc before this gathering in brhulf of Enrl Warren the wolf ballot but failcd of passage by a close vote. Dcm- ocratic cnndidatc Richard Richards managed the w!?li.iles were lreard at a poliricul gatlierirrg for the first time. anti-crossflling campaign.

Page 10 FORTNIGHT,March 17, 1954 Younger: It seemed to me that it was a serious issue, that it was one that had to be faced, and that no way was it proper or tolerable to be using public office to promote the kind of ideas that he was at least temporarily dedicated to. What the depth of his conviction was, I don't have any idea. I think it is quite possible that he was one of those sad accidents of necessity; he wasn't a really very good lawyer, and "Mexicali Rose" didn't pay that many royalties, and he just sort of stumbled in to the need to make more money. I don't know! He may not even have been an intentionally wicked man. But the effect was wicked.

Chall: He aligned himself with somebody who was generally, as you would put it, a wicked man?

Younger: Yes. It was a terrible misuse of a public trust. A lot of people make rather wicked decisions just to stay alive. Maybe that was how he got into it, hbw he stumbled into it. He may have been terribly vulnerable when he met Smith. But if you've stumbled into that position, and you don't have the brains enough to say "no"' to begin with, you ought to get out of it as fast as possible, and he didn't make the decision to get out of it.

Chall: Your husband was by that time a municipal judge?

Younger: Yes. He ran for the superior court in 1958.

Chall: How was he in the municipal court? Was that an appointment?

Younger: He was appointed by Earl Warren, yes.

Chall: The fact that he was a municipal judge and that you were going to run a campaign that was bound to get a great deal of prominence, was that a problem that you had to consider?

Younger: I don't think it was a problem that either one of us did consider.

Chall: It was all right with him?

Younger: Yes. Looking at it from today's perspective, we think in terms of the women's movement, but very honestly I really didn't appreciate how unique it was. And I doubt that Evelle did. Organizing the Successful Primary Campaign

Chall : Were you able to get any help from any arm of the Republican party that could help you during the primary, like the CRA or the Young Republicans?

Younger: Interestingly enough, the county central committee broke all precedent, and it either endorsed me outright or refused to endorse the incumbent; I've forgotten whichway it was.

Chall: I know that they refused to endorse the incumbent ninety to twelve. I did find that record.

Younger: I remember being at the meeting. I didn't remember the vote, but I definitely appeared at the meeting and made the charges that I thought were relevant.

Chall: So they just refused to endorse him as an incumbent, which I suppose would have been perfectly all right for them to do.

Younger: That's right. As a matter of fact, to not endorse an incumbent of your own political party is a very rare thing for a county central committee to do.

Chall: So that was a significant vote in your favor.

Younger: Yes, it certainly was. And I think he was there too, but I'm not positive. I believe that we both spoke; I know I spoke. It just seemed important. Didn't make any effort ahead of time to--

Chall: To lobby?

Younger: To influence votes, or anything like that.

Chall: It wouldn't have mattered one way or another? But you did have friends , I think, on that county committee.

Younger: I'm sure I did. My impression is that it was predominantly male, and that it was, I would say, middle age and above, for the most . part. I remember that I was pleasantly surprised at the outcome. I would not have been surprised had they refused to take any action.

Chall: I see. Mr. [Ray] Arbuthnot was the vice-chairman.

Younger: Yes, and he is a friend.

Chall: So you did get help. At least the county committee didn't endorse Tenney, so that was in your favor. Younger: That's right, and it was an overwhelming vote.

Chall: Ninety to twelve. Just before the primary election, the Business and Professional Women endorsed you. Did you consider that important?

Younger: Yes. The Business and Professional Women were stronger then, a good deal stronger as an organization, than they are now. They were workers. You can have an organization that has many more members whose endorsement doesn't mean a darn thing if they 're not going to back it up in any way, with either actual work or with financial support. I think that the Business and Professional Women probably contributed, but their resources would have been pretty limited in money. But they were hard workers. And very enthusiastic.

Chall: Yes. And I understand that at that time they really were interested in getting women into the assembly. They had backed Pauline Davis and they had backed Dorothy Donahoe and another woman, Evelyn Whitlow, who didn't make it. So this was just one of their efforts early in getting women into government.

Younger: That's right, and they worked at it.

Chall: Could you tell me something about the way you set up your committee. Did you have a few people whom you would consider your general management or brain trust?

Younger: No, it wasn't really practical in those days. Actually, I knew nothing about running a campaign. Obviously key advisors emerged but aside from key campaign positions-such as co-chairmen, Mrs. Leland Atherton Irish and Leonard Firestone, I sought and received advice from a broad spectrum.

Chall: How did you go about it?

Younger: The way that I made the final decision to run was I went to see everybody that I thought was of great importance. It never dawned on me to go and see state senators outside of Los Angeles County, though they proved to be of tremendous importance. I went to see people like Frank Doherty, Joe Scott, and Asa Call and, gosh, I don' t even remember who all.

Chall: Were you asking them for advice on how to set up a campaign?

Younger: I was asking them for support, and, of course, I got advice wherever I got support.

Chall: So you went around asking for support, and you did get the support. Younger: Yes. As a matter of fact, a young author called me some time afterwards. I've never known whether he actually wrote his book or not. He was a professor of political science at one of the state colleges, I believe-this has been a number of years ago now. He had come to the 1954 campaign in his research and this bothered him very much: whether or not the people who were considered to be essential to success in a Republican campaign were willing to support me in the primaries, when the issue was clearly anti- Semitism and professional bigotry, or whether they waited until after I had won the primary on my own. Every single name-and he'd done his research--of the people he asked me about, I could say with honesty had supported me in the primary. Every last one.

Chall: Did they send you money--that kind of support?

Younger: , I assume some of them did, although campaign financing has changed drastically since then. For instance, you certainly never thought about borrowing money; you spent what you. had, and that was the end of it. And you didn't have huge quantities of it. That was one of the very few areas of the campaign that I was able to find somebody else to handle. Bob Bell was the volunteer campaign treasurer.

Chall: Raise the money for you?

Younger: There wasn' t even a really organized fund-raising campaign, because even that wasn't done then.

Chall: There was the United Republican Finance. I wondered if they gave you any support.

Younger: It seems to me that it was token support. But it wasn't token support because of any antagonism or anything; they simply were not able to raise their budget unless they cut back across the board on their commitments to everybody.

Chall: In those days, I think people who could do it gave postage, or people said, "1'11 donate my secretary to you." So you may have had that kind of help that you didn't have to pay for. It wasn't an in and out matter; it was knowing the right people.

Younger: That's right. In many respects, that was a more straightforward way, really, than the terribly complicated system that we have now, where there are dreadful implications of wrong doing. I think that probably a great deal of wrong doing went on, but it was pretty much a matter of the individual's conscience; it was not a campaign issue as such, unless it was coming from an obviously quest ionable source. Chall: You weren't aware, then, or can't remember whether you needed money for radio or television or whether you sent out a mailer? Did you have people knocking on doors? How did you get your message across?

Younger: For the most part, we set up local committees throughout the county; they pretty well took care of their own areas. For instance, and this is true in Los Angeles County--there are a tremendous number of local newspapers. If they had a local newspaper, the local committee bought as many ads as they could possibly buy. I think even the billboards were pretty much purchased though not from a big central budget. There was probably an effort to keep some kind of overall budget in mind, but many, many of the decisions were made by a purely community group that thought it knew what would be most effective in its particular community and went ahead and did it. We certainly did tailor our advertising campaign to what we could afford to buy.

Chall: You did have billboards?

Younger: Oh yes.

Chall: That's expensive, so you must have raised some money.

Younger: Yes. And some were contributed. That was perfectly legal then.

Chall: I notice that the Los Angeles Times did endorse you. I wondered if any of the other papers had. Do you recall?

Younger: If I remember correctly, they all did.

Chall: They all did. Even the Herald Express?

Younger: Yes--at least I think it did. I'd have to go back to be positive about that, but I think they did. Again, I did something that seemed to me to be the logical thing to do. I simply went and called on all the publishers.

Chall: Yes, that is the logical thing to do.

Younger: My husband does it, to this day, and he does it year-round. There really isn't any other way that a newspaper has of forming an opinion of you, if you don't make yourself available.

Chall : Yes. I have even known of a candidate who didn't realize that and hadn't gone to one of the local papers. His opponent was endorsed. He found out that probably that wouldn't have happened if he'd gone there. The publisher said, "Why didn't you come and talk to us? We were waiting. We weren't going to call you." So that apparently is what they expect. Younger : Today, there's more of a tendency for papers to rise above their political role. For instance, the Los Angeles Times decision-- which I'd guess goes back about four years--no t to endorse candidates. So far, it's been not to endorse candidates for the presidency, the governorship, and the United States Senate. I find that totally inconsistent with continual editorial and news columns of criticism of political fund raising. It seems to me the more you are against fund raising and the more you consider dollars evil, the more responsibility you've got, if you are a means of communication, of--

Chall: Helping the candidate.

Younger: That's right. And certainly of printing the political news.

Chall: That is a form of financing.

Younger: What you're really saying to a candidate, if you're not going to endorse or do an objective job of reporting, is, ItYou can buy space in my paper." That space in a paper today--well, the larger the circulation, the more it costs. I think the latest figure I heard in the Los Angeles Times was ten thousand dollars for a full-page ad. You know, that's brutal! They would be the first to say that that ten thousand dollars was--th&,..d be the first to look fir something evil about where that ten thousand dollars came from. But if they don't endorse, they are forcing the candidate to raise more money.

Chall: If they do endorse you, they 've given you a big plum.

Younger: That's right. But it seems to me that to the extent that newspapers and other media consider themselves as the ultimate in sources of knowledge that the electorate needs, and papers have more and more cons idered themselves the public conscience as well--I shouldn' t say just papers because it applies to all the media--but they more and more feel that they are free to make the decision about what they should publish and shouldn't publish. They will not publish a political handout, for instance. Some of the smaller local papers will, but a metropolitan paper wouldn' t think of printing somebody's speech if the person mailed it to them. So they 've made that decision, and they consider themselves those who know what's news and what isn' t news. If they then turn around and say, "But you're wicked if you can get contributions. We're not going to endorse." You know, I find any number of inconsistencies.

For instance, the young man I mentioned before, the political scientist. He was terribly puzzled about how a woman got the necessary support to survive the Republican primary. There are definitely community leaders in any community that are very important; the bigger the communities get, the more important they are. Younger: For instance, he put Kyle Palmer's name on that list. I remember the interview with Palmer. I had never seen him before in my life, before I went into the Times off ice.

Chall: You spoke to him?

Younger: I sure did. He was the political editor, and I spoke to him just as I spoke to every other political editor in the county. Kyle Palmer had a somewhat varied reputation. At this point, he's been gone long enough that I don't suppose anybody knows whether the things were going on that were supposed to be going on.

Chall: Are you talking about his personal or his political life? He was supposed to be rather far to the right at one point, as I understand. I don't know whether that's exactly right.

Younger: Well, they ran the paper differently. For instance, now an editorial board meets to talk with major candidates. In those days, Kyle Palmer pretty much made the political decisions. I suppose that if you got to a very high level race, that there probably were meetings at a higher level. But Kyle Palmer was perfectly free to say, during the course of my interview with him and just the two of us present, "You're right, and we're going to support you." He had that power to say that. I've heard all kinds of things over the years--I hadn't heard them at that time, fortunately--that it was possible to buy his endorsement. I don't know whether that was true or not; I haven't the slightest idea whether it's true. But if there was any * implication of that kind, either I was too naive to get it, or it wasn't there. I prefer to think it wasn't there.

Chall: Somebody may have felt that way if he had lost the endorsement. It may have been true and also it may not have been.

Younger: At this point, probably nobody would know. 1t's a potential when you've got that much power vested in one individual--always a potential. But what I'd do, I'd make an appointment with the publisher, and in the case of the Times, my impression was that Norman Chandler, the publisher, couldn't have cared less. Generally the publisher would ask me to go and see his political editor, or if he didn't have a political editor, his editor. We'd have a brief conversation first, and then he'd call Joe Blow and say, "I have Mrs. Younger here and I'm sending her down," or something of the kind, and that would be the next step. The papers were very good to me.

Chall: Actually, Tenney was not a supportable person, I guess, among many of the Republicans. Nobody wanted to run against him because of the cost and the uncertainty. But when you were willing to take it on, they were willing to help you. Younger: Yes, but I don't think your first statement is necessarily accurate. I think that having been in the legislature for eighteen years, in spite of the fact that he was originally elected as a Democrat, that nobody really thought about him; that it was academic. It wasn't a question that he wasn't supportable; it was a safe incumbency. And he had seniority.

Chall: Why did they support you--the newspapers, for example?

Younger: Because I made it unsafe.

Chall: I see. They actually thought you were going to win?

Younger: Yes. Or at least they thought there was a good chance and that it would be newsworthy.

Chall: What do youmeanyoumade it unsafe?

Younger: I made it a question of their integrity whether or not they would support a man who was busy at these other activities, which they may or may not have even been aware of. They may not even have associated it with him. They were certainly aware that he and General MacArthur were the presidential and vice-presidential candidates of--what was the name of the party that Gerald L .K. Smith used? [Christian Nationalist Party] Tenney was the vice-presidential candidate in 1952. They were aware of that, but they were inclined to overlook it; he'd been there eighteen years, and why bother?

Chall: And you laid it on the line as a moral issue?

Younger: That's right--they -had to face it. They hadn't had to face Senator Tenney before. When they had to face it, the vast majority of them made the decision that once they were burdened with the knowledge of what was going on, they didn't want to support him.

Chall: Particularly since that was the basis of your campaign, that you were making it very public.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: What about Tenney? What kind of an opponent was he?

Younger: A very nasty one. I never knew him personally to know what kind of a human being he was. I don' t know whether he separated in his mind his political decisions and personal decisions; in some ways I'm inclined to think that he did, and in other ways I'm inclined to think that he didn't. Younger: For instance, when George Oviatt, some years later, became strongly anti-Semitic and was sued by one of the Jewish organizations--I've forgotten who sued him and for what--he hired Tenney as his lawyer. That indicates to me that there was an ongoing interest. On the other hand--and I don't even know her name--I understand that Senator Tenney's daughter has done a fine job in a political office in one of the smaller cities in Southern California. Everything I've ever heard about her indicates to me that she is an intelligent, well motivated woman. So that presents two different personalities to me, and I honestly can't say this was a thoroughly evil man.

Chall: But he was a tough opponent.

Younger: He was a nasty opponent.

Chall: Did he accuse you of pro-Jewish-what would we call it? Influence?

Younger: I suppose that he did. "Zionism," et cetera. Remember they were also anti-black, anti-Catholic--anything where there was a chance to make a few dollars preying on prejudice or fear.

Chall: Anything on communism? That would be pretty hard to accuse you of, but he might have tLied,

Younger: Well, remembering back, the technique of organizations like Gerald L .K. Smith's organization, any place where there's a possibility of making a buck with a scandal of any kind, this was fair game, as far as they were concerned. I don' t remember the specific things. But no holds were barred. They were careful, however, about personal attacks which might backfire. Perhaps this is one thing that makes them especially contemptible-they live on other peoples' ignorance and fear.

A Very Dirty Political Trick

Younger: The dirtiest trick that Tenney played colored the whole campaign. His campaign chairman and manager was a medical doctor, Dr. Samuel D. Burgeson.

Chall: Is that the one who brought in Hazel Younger?

Younger: Yes. He himself had committed that poor woman to Camarillo state mental hospital. It seemed to me that he should have lost his license to practice medicine over his political use of a mental patient. I read the state constitution, andIstuck with it after I lost, until Younger: there was a change made in the election code so that this could not happen again. But there's also been another recent very confusing change about the ability of people confined to state mental institutions to vote.

Chall: Yes, that's right. They're now permitted to vote.

Younger: If I remember the definition in the state constitution of who could run for public off ice, it- included the words "qualified elector. " But at that time, an individual committed to a state mental hospital lost the right to vote.

Chall: Yes, she couldn' t vote.

Younger: That's right. Nor could she have taken an oath of office. As a consequence, obviously there was no way that this could be considered a good faith candidacy, even if she had been capable in any way of carrying on a campaign. I never saw her in person; various newspaper reporters told me about the one time they saw her and what a pitiful, pitiful thing she was.

Chall: I read the article in the newspaper the day she had reappeared after two months' absence, just before the election. She and her husband and the children had apparently gone camping or gone somewhere.

Younger: The photograph was in front of the miserable little house they lived in in East Los Angeles.

Chall: Her husband gave the reporters an old picture of her because she refused to be photographed. In fact, according to the article, she sat in the car with a book in front of her, and she never looked anywhere. He did all the talking.

Younger: It was a Bible tract of some kind that she had in front of her.

Chall: Poor woman.

Younger: It was incredibly cruel.

Chall: Burgeson admitted that he did it to confuse the campaign.

Younger: That's right, and he was proud of it. He thought that was a real smart move.

Chall: But he refused to admit, even though it was on record, that he had committed her, that he had signed the commitment papers many months before. She'd only been in the hospital three months [July to October, 19531 and that had been some time ago. [He filed her nomination papers in April, 1954.]*

jrLos Angeles Times, June 6, 1954. Younger: I didn't realize it had been only three months, but I knew that he was the one who committed her, just as he was the one who filed state senate nominating papers for her. I'm sure she never even knew what was going on. There may have been some money to the husband. Yes, I know that the Herald Examiner supported me, because they were the ones that ran the front page pictures of the house. They ran them many times. Mail piled up, milk on the porch, a pitiful little tiny, bad repair, run-down kind of a house, obviously no one living there.

Chall: Yes. I think that happened at the time that you filed suit, and the subpoena was, I think, nailed to the door.

Younger: That's right. That was the reason for that picture.

Chall: That got all messy, and apparently the ink just disappeared. By the time they got back, you could hardly read whatever it was that had been pinned to the door--I've forgotten the legal term. So they left town when you filed the suit.

Younger: They may have left before that.

Chall : Yes, maybe so. Well, she couldn't be interviewed; obviously she had to get away.

Younger: She was in the institution at that time.

Chall: Was she?

Younger: Yes, she was. That picture of her reading the tract was the day she got out of the institution; I think it was the same day or the day afterwards. She was actually in Camarillo.

Chall: When Dr. Burgeson filed her own petition?

Younger: Yes, she was committed at that time--which is unbelievable!

Chall : What happened in your campaign when this hit? What did you all do? How did you feel that you could handle it?

Younger : The press pretty much handled it for us, actually, because it was a news story and it was a heck of a news story. We decided to sue the secretary of state and the registrars of voting to enjoin them from printing her name on the ballot. A bunch of young lawyers who were supporting me anyway decided that this was a clear violation of the state constitution, although the supreme court did not find it a violation.

Chall: Did it go to the supreme court? Younger: It sure did.

Chall: I know that one of the courts--I guess on the first round--said that her name could stay on the ballot because she hadn't been given proper notice.

Younger: Are you sure it didn't go directly to the supreme court? I think it did. I think because of the time factor.

Chall: It would seem that it should. [consulting file]

Younger: That's my memory of it, was that it went directly to the supreme court.

I remember the group of us, young beavers, were at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher on a Sunday night, collating the pages of the brief. William French Smith was among the young lawyers.

Chall: I don't seem to have that truly defined. All I have is a note that says that you brought suit, and the court reluctantly--

Younger: Not for damages, but to get her name off the ballot.

Chall: Because she was a mental hospital patient. [reading] But "the court reluctantly left her name on the ballot because she had not been legally served notice of hearings on the suit." I honestly don't know what court that was.*

Younger: I think it had to go directly to the supreme court because of the time factor. I would not at the time have used the word I1reluctantly." I've always felt that this was a technicality that was very convenient to the court; that they didn't have to face whether or not this was a qualified elector. In other words, they acted on the time factor, which wasn't really the issue. The real issue was--

Chall: Had this candidate a right to be on 'the ballot at all?

Younger: Yes. Could you file for a person who was mentally incapable of even signing the petition papers? She couldn't sign them! But it was a sad thing. And of course the thing that has to go through your mind, and it makes it even sadder, really--is the strong possibility that her husband just plain needed money, and that that was the basis upon which he was approached and the basis upon which the family disappeared.

*It was the state supreme court on a 5-2 decision. Chall: Yes. It certainly doesn't make any sense, the whole thing, except from Tenney's standpoint. It's a really dirty trick. But I'm sure it backfired; it must have.

Younger: No, not necessarily. I remember the day after the election. After the primary, I was exhausted beyond belief, and I have a good many comments on what happens to a woman candidate. At least I don't think it happens to the same extent to a man or maybe they handle it better.

Chall: I have a whole lot of questions to ask you about that, but we'll go into that next time, I think.

Younger: But my reaction was a somewhat typical female reaction, I guess. Being June and being the day that bathing suits go on sale--and the headquarters was very near the May Company on Wilshire--I went to the headquarters. But I very rapidly got fed up and decided I'd better get out of there and went rather aimlessly down to the May Company to the bathing suit sale. I picked out a bathing suit, gave the lady my charge plate-which of course had my husband's name on it, not mine. The women who took the charge plate said, I1You're not any relation to the Mrs. Younger that's been involved?" I don't think she gave me a chance to answer, which was fortunate, because she went on to say that they had held a store-wide meeting the previous morning to be sure that none of the employees made a mistake and voted for that crazy Mildred Younger. [laughter]

Chall: So they did confuse things! [laughter]

Younger: That was what they were after, and they did it. In the general election, it hurt very badly because the memory, by the time the general election came around, was only one of insanity someplace. The interval between June and November is very long. So while in many cases it was a tremendous break because it put a state senate race on the front page day after day, and many people became ardent supporters who wouldn't have had any particular interest, because it was such an incredibly unsavory kind of thing, there's no question in my mind but what a very large number of voters were thoroughly confused by it.

Chall: Hedidget200,536votesintheprimary.*

Younger: hat's right. And you hold over that memory to the general election. I don't think there's any question but what that came awfully close to being the difference. And, of course, [Richard] Richards accepted Tenney 's covert help.

*Mildred Younger's total vote was 382,098. Experiences as a Woman Candidateilll

Chall: Tell me about your experiences as a woman candidate. As a candidate, you really have to be on your own, articulate, aggressive, out front, and people are really behind supporting you: your husband needs to help you, your family, your friends. They're all supporting you. If you do a really good job, you've got to project intelligence, ambition, to articulate policies, and all the rest of it.

. Younger: And you've got to, I think, if you have children-- From that standpoint, one child is ideal. He was at an ideal age. How old would he have been? Ten, or eleven, something like that. The way that I really got into lecturing and speaking to begin with was that I felt very keenly that I was not going to cheat him; nor was I going to dominate him. I thought that it was very good for him to be exposed to as many different kinds of circumstances as we could possibly offer him.

Chall: As you had been, to a certain extent.

Younger: Yes. As a consequence, I took him with me. He was frequently with me during the time I was campaigning. If there was a parade or an appropriate meeting, he was with me. He learned an awful lot that I don't think he realizes that he learned that way. He learned about organizations, people, the political process in general. But he had to behave himself; he could not act like a wild Indian. On the other hand, I had to pace my schedule in such a way that he had time so he could let off steam too. This was not altogether bad; I could use that time to other advantages.

I won't pretend that I was a full-time mama while I was running, because I wasn't. But I do think that I made a greater effort than some women do to include him in. I think that the most outs tanding women I know who have been active in politics have made the same decision; if they have children, the child has to be not neglected in any way during the process. That's a primary obligation.

Chall: It can be done, if you plan to do it that way?

Younger: That's right.

Chall: Did people criticize you at any time, as they often do women, "Why are you running? Your husband has a good job; aren't you neglecting your family?"

Younger: Yes, particularly men. Some women, the same kind of women who oppose ERA now. I think they did it for a reason that they weren't aware of; I think it was because the image I was creating was a threat to them, Younger: just as I think that the image of any woman who accomplishes anything is a threat to a woman who doesn't. It's the same thing as we've seen historically in this country with racial groups. When you have difficult times, when a racial group is a threat, then you band together in a protective kind of a way to be sure that that racial group does not somehow or another get out of the box you placed them in.

Chall: Even if they're rising on their own merits.

Younger: That's right, But they're a threat at that point. If they move into your community, they're a threat. To some extent, they are a threat when you realize that the average family, at least up until now, probably has its biggest single investment in its home. Any change in the neighborhood status that in any way is perceived as going--

Chall: , Yes, it's a psychological perception.

Younger: That's right. " This is a threat .I' You worry about it, and even. when you feel guilty about worrying about it, you do worry about it because maybe everything you own may be tied up in that home.

Chall : So the perceptions have to be changed on a braad community scale, and the same is happening, you would say, with women today, making them understand women moving into the larger, broader society is not a threat to the women who prefer another lifestyle?

Younger: Or to the men. I suspect that it's still true--it was up until the time that we started having rather severe. economic problems-- that the most desirable employee in any major law firm, coming out of any law school, may have been a black girl. She proved a number of things. Whether or not she'll ever end up a partner, that's a different matter; but hiring her to begin with, well, she had a better opportunity to be hired. To some extent, that's still true. But as jobs disappear and get higher paid, and there's more competition for jobs, you forget about those breakthroughs that you may have made. I remember at one time being told very frankly that I didn't get a particular local appointment because I wasn't a black woman. The mayor could get double credit by appointing a woman if she was also black.

But we've done this repeatedly in this country with many different groups who have eventually been pretty well assimilated-- taken a step forward and-- [dog barking] Well! The candidate's dog speaks up. [laughter]

Chall: Gotta keep the dogs in their places too.

Younger: Which is not easy in her case. Younger: The woman in public office is a threat to a great deal of conventional thinking, no question about it.

Chall: Were you considered a threat when you were just about to get into the state senate?

Younger : I sure was by other senators.

Chall: Did they do anything to harm your campaign?

Younger : Yes.

Chall: Did they actually go out and work for Richard Richards even if they weren't Democrats?

Younger: Oh yes.

Chall: I guess there actually were more Republicans in the senate than Democrats at that time.

Younger: That's right,. It was a club. A closed corporation.

Chall: They really didn't want you there?

Younger : Not for one minute. I don't know if I've told you this story or not. I was appointed to a commission on legislative reform, or else it was the American Assembly--is that the Columbia?--on State and Local Government, not too long after my campaign.

Chall: That's the one out of Columbia University?

Younger: Yes. They hold regional conferences, and then they hold the national ones at, is it Harriman House?

Chall: Yes.

Younger: I went to a couple of those, and then I went to two or three regional ones. I remember one that was held up in the Stanford area. One evening, there was a dinner and there was music. One of the state senators asked me to dance. He was a brilliant man, no longer living, from the northern part of the state; also a ruthless man. Af ter we had danced, he said, "If I had known what a good dancer you were, I wouldn't have worked so hard to defeat you." Now, if that doesn't sum up the attitude of the male toward the female candidate! That to me stands out as the--

Chall: Thefinalstatement. Therewereandtherestillare, I think, political people and people in general who feel that there's only one reason why a woman is active in politics, and that there's only one reason why she should be in politics. Younger: Or anyplace! Yes--she has exactly one role--in bed!

Chall: They have felt for years that if a woman is active, if she's moving around even in the state central committee--anywhere where she might be prominent--that there couldn't possibly be another good reason.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: You found this attitude to be true? Did you find it to be true elsewhere in other circles that you were moving into? Did you hear that kind of comment about yourself?

Younger: Oh yes. There were any number.

Chall: The nuances and innuendoes, of course, are not spoken.

Younger: Yes, and to that extent, the women who banded together, as we generally did at various state meetings and that kind of thing, did so in a kind of effort to project a different image.

I remember being on the Nixon train, going north, when he was running for vice-president. I got on the train I guess out in Fullerton. I knew ahead of time I was going to have to come back early the morning that the train went on north from Sacramento, and had made reservations accordingly. Most of the group from the train £lew to Reno that night, but there was uncertainty, because it was a chartered plane arrangement, about getting back. So I said, "I'm just not going to go because I can't miss the early flight I've got tomorrow morning." My father had made reservations for me at the Senator Hotel, where he usually kept a room, and I was to room with a very dear friend of mine and an outstanding woman who was also on the train but who went on to Reno. I left the light on for her, and all night long I woke up at regular intervals wondering where in the world she was, and had they actually gotten stuck some place, or had there been trouble of some kind?

The next morning, when I went down to check out, which was early, the hotel manager said, "We were so concerned about you last night, Mrs. Younger, that we watched your room all night because we were afraid you were sick. You had the light on all night." I said, "I kept it on for Mrs. So-and-so because I was expecting her to come in." He said, "That's funny. She went up to the room" (she knew the room number though she hadn't had a chance to check in) "and she saw the light." (This is a very good friend of mine!) She came back down and asked if we had another room available, because she assumed someone was with you." Now, you see, if a very good friend can make that assumption--and I'm considered about as square as they come.

Chall: It's hard to express what that means. Younger: Yes. There is this overtone when a woman breaks out of the mold.

Chall: What about your husband? It takes a pretty sturdy man to be willing to ride that out.

Younger: In the first place, I don't think he's ever been aware really of how prevalent that thinking is, because he's not that kind of person himself. In the second place, certainly at least in later years, he's been gone more than I've been gone [laughter], and so it works both ways. If he was ever concerned about my behavior, he never said so. He certainly knew that I was frequently in groups at dinners and luncheons where I might very well have been the only woman. Either he was too mature or automatically figured nobody in the world would be interested in me--I'm not sure which. [laughter]

Chall: I don't think he thought the latter. He's probably just not the jealous man type.

Younger: Well, he i.snlt .

Chall: That's an unusual sort of person, but he probably just is not.

Younger: If it ever occurred to him, he never said a word about it, and I doubt that that's true of the average husband.

Chall: Yes, I think it would be hard on the average husband. I was really interested in the newspaper material that came out after you had won the primary, because there was a picture of you in the New York Times washing dishes, and the caption said, "Primary Victor Tackles Real Job." [June 11, 1954, p. 17, col. 21

Younger: [laughter] Well, that's the same kind of thing. A stereotype.

Chall: "Mildred Younger, California's glamorous politician, who defeated State Senator Jack Tenney in Tuesday's primary," et cetera. "She is shown as she returned to her household chores the next day."

Younger: It's a little like the senator about the dancing, isn't it?

Chall: Then there was another one in Time Magazine, a picture of Mildred Younger smiling and working over pots and pans as if preparing to bake. [June 21, 1954, p. 231

Younger: I'm delighted I didn't see any of these. # Chall: Those are just examples that I picked out of the newspapers. There was a very good picture of you in -Life Magazine, a full page, with your son. But I thought that these two were quite interesting-- the New York Times and Time Magazine. "Glamor girl of the 1952 GOP Chall: National Convention was nominated to the state senate, where no woman has ever served.. .a ten-year-old son," et cetera. "She believes she won the primary on a moral issue." Which is true, but it's the housewife image that they then projected.

Younger: And I'm willing to bet that it never mentions Phi Beta Kappa or anything like that.

Chall: I think that's right. In the New York Times it was simply the picture and this little caption underneath it about "tackles real job." Then, in Time Magazine a fairly short article talks about your ten-year-old son, your husband who's a municipal judge, your second son died of polio in '47--

Younger: It was a daughter. They were wrong.

Chall: --a nine month siege of polio in '51, and that's it. It doesn't give any of your other background.

Younger: And all they were looking for was a picture of a woman, wasn't it?

Chall: That's right. In one case you were washing the dishes and in another one you were working over pots and pans. I'm sure that in both cases they probably came to your home and asked you to pose.

Younger: Or they may have been earlier pictures. I remember that the old Los Angeles Mirror did quite a story at one point on how a young woman could be as involved in community affairs as I was, and those pictures were all taken in the kitchen. But that, you see, was a different emphasis; that was not the political emphasis. That was the emphasis on how to raise a family, and how to perform in your community, and remain in the classic concept of a housewife, which was a very different story.

Chall: That's right, So they probably just found them in their files.

Younger: I suspect that that's the source of those pictures, because I remember that they used quite a few pictures, and they were all taken in the kitchen, and they certainly took more than they used. But it's interesting that there were no references to anything else.

In Harper's Magazine--I don't know whether you found that one or not. You seem to have found all kinds of things I didn't know exist ed.

Chall: I find them if they're close at hand. The.Readerls Guide [to Periodic Literature] helps, and the New York Times has an index, and that helps. I think that's about the only source where you can find it. No, I didn' t see anything in Harper's. Younger: Well, in ~arper'sthere was apparently a woman--at least I assume from the comments that it was a woman-who was acting more or less as a political reporter on the California scene. It was not bylined, and there was no photograph. This was the old ~arper's, the pretty much news-oriented or feature-oriented one. I guess it was a wrap-up of the elections in general nationwide, and this was following my defeat in November. But the comments were all about my appearance and about how the average woman could not identify with me because I was too expensively dressed. I remember the particular reference that I always wore Mr. John hats.*

The truth of the matter is that at that point I made most of my own clothes. I was a little flattered that whoever had volunteered the information translated them into "expensively dressed." Mr. John hats, which I think probably were retailing at around six dollars, were so far beyond anything that I could've afforded to buy that I not only didn't "always wear Mr. John hats ,I1 I didn't own a Mr. John hat and I never would have had the nerve to try one on!

Chall: Were you wearing a hat?

Youngers: Hats were much more expected in those days than they are now, much more. But my hats were the $1.95 variety.

Chall: And this was you they were talking about?

Younger: Yes. This was the explanation for why I hadn't won--that women could not identify with me. Which wasn't true; I had very generous support from women.

Coping with Defeat in the General Election

Chall: You must have had phenomenal support because you almost won. It was so close.**

*(Mrs. ) Marion K. Sanders, "Women in Politics ," Harper's Magazine, August, 1955, p. 58. "Bipartisan cheers rang in Los Angeles last summer when brilliant, soign6e Mildred Younger beat backward-looking State ~enat0.rTemey in the primary. Rather listlessly and with minimal hopes, the Democrats put up a young lawyer named Dick Richards to oppose her. He won. A candid Republican lady explained the outcome this way: 'Mildred made wonderful speeches, but she didn't really campaign. I don't think you can really campaign in a Mr. John hat.'"

**Richard Richards (Dem.) 775,154, Mildred Younger (Rep.) 758,669, Prohibition party 46,361. Younger: Yes. I think I mentioned this before.* There were thirteen congressional districts in the county at that time, and I carried twelve of them.

Chall: It was a phenomenally close race. I wanted to ask you how you felt with your defeat. You must have been extremely tired, and how you handled that type of' fatigue.

Younger: Not very well. There was the problem of whether or not we should go for a recount. A recount is extremely expensive. If you're right, the--

Chall: The loser pays.

Younger: That's right. So we decided to sample some precincts, and there were irregularities; there wasn't any question about it. But on balance we didn't find enough irregularities to really be able to justify going out and trying to raise the money necessary to recount as much as we needed to recount. Some of the districts that I carried, if I had carried more heavily, for instance--if some votes just weren't counted--it could have made a difference in the outcome. But we couldn't afford to go into those districts; we had to go into the districts where we had some reason to question the outcome, where either a poll watcher or somebody else had reported irregularities of some kind. So that that was the immediate concern.

I think most people don't realize that a candidate, particularly in a very close election, does have decisions to make that have to be made right then and there, that really don't have anything to do with, "Would you like to go home?"

Chall: Yes, and rest a while.

Younger: Yes, and do the dishes, as the Times put it. [laughter] Then there's an awfully lot of clean-up work. I never did do an adequate job of thank you letters or anything like that. I had to send out very much of a mass kind of letter. This was in the days when you didn't spend any money you didn't have.

Chall: Yes, I was going to ask you about a debt. You didn't end up, then, with a debt?

Younger: No, never had a debt. You just simply didn't approach a campaign that way in those days. If you didn't have the money, you didn't spend the money. This makes quite a difference.

*See pages 243-245. Chall: Yes. That was at least an easier way to lose a campaign.

Younger: Yes, except that it does make it impossible really to do the follow- up things that you'd like to be able to do, because everybody disappears. You can't afford to hire anybody; you've spent everything you've got. You don't even have stamp money to send out those letters, or even a means of reproducing letters, or anything.

There was one follow-up thing that had to be done, or that I felt had to be done, and was scheduled almost immediately afterwards, and that was the change in the state election code. Remember we'd been to the supreme court over the subject of Hazel Younger being on the ballot, and the state constitution says very clearly that only a qualified elector can run for public office. After all, if a person has lost his civil rights, if only temporarily, because he is committed to a state institution for the legally insane, he can't vote. If you can't cast a vote, you're not a qualified elector, as far as I can figure out, and you can't take an oath of office.

Here we had a candidate who couldn't vote for herself. I don't think she ever knew that she was on the ballot. She was purely a victim; I don't think there was much question but what the husband took money for using her name, that that was the incentive. Either that, or the doctor who put her name on the ballot and who had had her committed to Camarilla, forgave his bills, or something of the kind. But I'm sure that there was an economic thing. They lived in very poor circumstances, just pitiful circumstances, so that they were extremely vulnerable. I think he was unemployed, and there were children involved.

But in a very political decision, I thought, the supreme court decided to leave her name on the ballot. It seemed to me that my job was not done without attempting to get the election code changed in such a way that it was pretty certain that it couldn't happen again. That came up very shortly after the final election.

Chall: What did you do?

Younger: I proposed legislation. Then I went off to Sacramento and appeared in front of the committee. It was successful; the election code was changed.

Chall: So that a person couldn't be a candidate if these other--

Younger: I've forgotten exactly what the change was that we wanted. I remember that I drafted the original language, and that there were enough legislators who understood that they might possibly be the victims next time. Chall: Yes, it certainly could have been done any other time if it went through once.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: How did you take your defeat? Was it a great emotional problem? Women are supposed to be so much more emotional about their defeats, but I've noticed that now on television, when a man is defeated, you often see him a little watery-eyed, which means that men are just as subject to strong emotions about defeat as women.

Younger: Remembering the headquarters the night of the election, I had so much trouble with the male members of the staff, all of whom went to pieces, each in his own special way, that I didn't have a chance to go to pieces. They were all in puddles of tears, some in various states of drunkenness. I -remember that my feet hurt. But I was working and I was doing an awful lot of jobs that men had been hired to do. Volunteers and staff alike were swamped.

Chall: As the votes were being tallied?

Younger: That's right. I think that happens on election nights. Unless you're a very heavily financed candidate, you end up doing anything that needs to be done. I'm amused by the Harper's article on not really campaigning--with the possible exception of walking precincts I did everything there was to do.

Chall: What were you doing--manning the telephone? That's a terrible job.

Younger: Oh, anything that had to be done, and as I say, trying to mop up some of the male members of the staff.

Chall: I think I read that it really was not known--

Younger: It wasn't.

Chall: --till quite late that you had lost, because the votes were coming in slowly, as they were in those days, and also it was so close that you couldn't really tell until absolutely the end.

Younger: That's right. I think it was probably the next day or so before we--so that the media had to be handled and all kinds of things had to be done.

Getting back to the sex angle, all of the ones who--maybe I shouldn't make it a hundred percent, but I would say that ninety percent of the relatively small professional staff envisioned itself as being desperately and for all eternity in love with me. That night was the night that they all chose to break the news to me that Younger: they couldn't live without me. If there was anything I didn't need, it was another proclamation of undying love, and I got it from all of them, all sizes and shapes. I am not given to violence, but on that particular occasion, if I'd had something handy with which to line them all up against the wall, I would've done it! I was so disgusted with them. They were all weeping and carrying on and trying to get me into corners to assure me of their undying devotion and love. [laughter]

Chall: There's an unusual angle!

Younger: I suspect that a good many women candidates put up with it. You hire men for certain jobs because there are certain jobs for which they are better experienced, and it gives your campaign a more balanced look. But, boy, any idea that they hold up, come election night, is just pure imagination--they don't. I've never seen a female staff go to pieces anything like that bunch did. I would've gladly taken any aggression I was feeling out on them.

Chall: Hindsight of course, as you were saying a few minutes ago, is all dear and sweet, but at that moment you didn't need it [that behavior].

Younger: Yes, it was just a great big bore.

[This portion was added by Mrs. Younger] Political campaigns seem to attract some individuals who are unusually emotional. The candidate tends to become idolized and jealousies and competition for attention are not uncommon. We had had more than our share of problems; my guess is that relationship with a woman candidate rather naturally takes on a more personal form of expression. Men are not used to working for a woman candidate. I suspect that if I had been older I would have been seen as a mother figure but I was about the same age as most of the men. And, of course, we're talking about a time frame that goes back a number of years. Big campaigns with women candidates were almost unheard of. For many years Helen Gahagan Douglas was the only woman in American history who had gotten more votes than I did. The point is that we were pioneering. And staff problems were severe.

The first manager came to me with his resignation for a pretty tragic reason which I didn't understand until a scandal broke a few weeks later. He had managed about half of the primary, during which time he had married. Or perhaps he had married just before the campaign. At any rate, he resigned and I didn't understand the depth of his feelings because the problem was not "acceptable" or public in those days. He didn't try to explain it. But a short time later he was among those in Republican organizational politics who were 'Iexposed'' in the media as members of a homosexual circle. I have heard that his marriage survived although he moved to the Bay Area and was unemployed for a very long time. Younger: The second manager was a very artful unmarried alcoholic. He claimed to have stopped drinking permanently but as the pressure mounted, he drank. Some of the other staff members claimed--in retrospect-- that he was literally immobilized by drink for the last two or three weeks of the campaign. He made no decisions and I was out working so hard that my only reaction was one of complete bewilderment. Why wasn't the campaign functioning? From time to time during the 'intervening years he has shown up and demanded that I blame him for the loss. Perhaps he could have wde the difference--I don't know.

But women candidates, in particular, have to be prepared for some bizarre emotional problems. [end of added portion]

Chall: Was the press checking .to see how you were going to hold up?

Younger: Oh sure, sure. But as far as anybody making statements or writing any kind of a handout or anything, if it was done, I did it. This had been true throughout. I could get press releases written, but I wrote all my own speeches. I did my own research. I had to. Now, I don't know of very many male candidates who have to write all their own speeches. And I had to speak on a very wide range of subjects. I had to establish credibility.

Chall: I don't know whether they were doing it in those days, but probably some did and some didn't.

Younger: I think when you got to as big a campaign as that, that there had to be help !

Chall: That's right. It was the senate, whichwasa very large district in those days. It was all of Southern California, just about.

Younger: That's right. In those days, it was a huge district. I could never get any help on writing speeches. I had a feeling that that too was a manifestation of the fact that I was a female candidate. My speeches had to be thoughtful, complete and pretty much above criticism. And when you're campaigning twenty hours a day it's hard to write that much material.

Chall: Well, it's also a manifestation of the fact that you were so able and capable in that area that this might have been the place to let you do it. You could have found other people to take on the other chores, which I hope you did, as many as possible.

Younger: Not very well. I don't think that men are expected to solve the personal problems that are going on in a campaign the way a woman is. A woman can come in absolutely dead tired, having made an enormous number of appearances during the day, and if there's been some petty little difference between members of the staff during the day, they will have saved it for the woman to take of. I don't really think that happens to men. Chall: Somebody would have taken care of it before?

Younger: They would have been embarrassed!

ChaZ1: They don't bring it to the candidate? Despite all these problems on the night of the election and the following days, you still had to face defeat on your own terms and alone. Can you recall how you felt--particularly because you were so close to victory? What kind of support were your husband, your son, your close friends?

Younger: I don't really remember. I do remember feeling terribly alone and bruised. I needed a cushion so badly. And despite all the wonderful people I was terribly alone. Everyone else had their own problems. I knew they were all heartbroken-_in different ways and for different reasons. But defeat is very personal and very lonely. I felt guilt for letting them down in spite of the fact that I knew some of them had let me down and badly. Not many but some very key ones. The fact that most of the people had been incredible didn't seem to help that night. Ultimately when you lose you are alone. As most of the dreams and challenges have been pretty private so is the loss.

The Contested Election for Republican State Central Committee Vice-Chairman, 1954##

Chall: You seem to have been caught up in the bitter election campaign in state central committee, for the southern vice-chairman.

Younger: My real problem with that whole state central committee thing was that I was the chairman of the Platform Committee that year, and I really was preoccupied. I didn't mean to be unfriendly to anybody. I didn't want to have anybody go to their grave, as two of the people involved did, thinking I had done something very unfriendly.

Chall: Who were.the people who went to their graves thinking you had done them wrong?

Younger: Goodwin Knight and Howard Ahmanson. I really was very surprised at that. I don't mean that they weren't both friends; I always thought of them as friends, and I was very surprised that they had for those years harbored this feeling that I had done a very dreadful thing.

Chall: It's really quite interesting because whatever you read, whether it's the Los Angeles Times, or the Sacramento Bee, or the present textbooks on California political history, this particular 1954 controversy over which man was going to get that vice-chairmanship, Chall: Ahmanson or Arbuthnot, just seems to be very important. Whether it really is or not, or whether the writers simply think it is-- they consider it portends problems, as there were in 1956 and 1958, among those who were trying to gain control of the Republican party. They see it as a Nixon versus Knight-Warren conflict over leadership. Earl Warren had become Chief Justice by this time and Goodwin Knight was governor. But what little was left of any Warren organization had not necessarily gone to Knight.

Younger: Knight and Warren were not that close; they really were not close at all. This is one of the strange phenomena of the whole business of being governor--and I assume it happens to Democrats as well as to Republicans. Once an individual is governor, he really chooses his own friends, and he pretty much ignores party machinery. It is exceedingly rare to find anybody in a position of being governor who is relying to any extent at all on the state central committee. So while they may have memories and think in retrospect, "If only such- and-such had come out differently at the state central committee levelu--the truth of the matter is that once any of them become governor, that they -are the party machinery. It all becomes a kind of an academic argument but nothing else; it's irrelevant.

Chall: At that time it was Knight who was governor and Knowland came in to help Knight to gain the vote for Ahmanson. In fact, I read that he had come in specifically from Washington, as did other legislators, to help assure that victory. Also, that it was a parliamentary maneuver to ask for a closed vote instead of a traditional open vote. Knowland made a strong plea, and I guess there were other parliamentary activities going on that were quite complex, about keeping it an open vote. Once it was open, Ahmanson got it by acclamation.

Younger : And I did vote for a secret ballot.

Chall: That was the Arbuthnot vote.

Younger: They wanted me to actually nominate Ahmanson, and I was too doggone busy !

Chall: Oh- they wanted you to nominate Ahmanson?

Younger : That's right. This was what made them angry. I said the honest thing at the time--that the Resolutions Committee was to me so much more important than who made any nominating speeches, and that it might very well just completely foul up our ability to get the platform passed.

Chall : That doesn't mean, then, that you were considered an Arbuthnot supporter? -;.s,.c-+. ,:.;...,. . ..+,.<..", ,, ...%.y. -:-..- --, . fiic5ht.. ~ONN~.THE~coNm~RY.. tie' &nt&t:&thir;'r;'cth&Repub]ifan ~Pa&.waS.~not~~Jiierely-,a-~friendIy..,difference ' of-:viewpoint: It,'

,Twas:.khard, i'raw; battle8:fot. power. .Gov;,-.Goodwin'J. Knight. ' ~.wants,agd:.got;control;of'. the..Republican.Party. in. this state- * .,?<>which .. .means.:he.can direct its activities and - its presiden- 2tial.,.:. :. 'delegatio~i-:in'1956 'unless there. isa ,revolt:'. .. :... .. ; . -. .k *?:..,.,'.: ;,Vice .Pre$ident...Ricliard: 'XNixon -.and-. his,.cohorts-,want ,i :hC- .' ..-,controt: . ds$;and: thdy;,!eft. little ;undone- in 'an effort-3.0 ac- .. - :-' quire .it,Evejis:'dodge.:.and Nlse known topolitical inanipu- '.- lation was-invoked. akSacramento by --both.::Republicanfac--7 7;-tioris.!~.Aftek.~U..;.-! S.z?Senators :William-- l?..j.:Knowland and!' ~:Thorhas>~~~XucheI';relatively a "neophyte:at. such.. busine$s,i. ~~ilined.-yp;.-~ith~,nigfit;;#ere I ... was little doubt abqut the oqt< .,lcome;~~:Knight;;<.th~-s,~~re-inforcedand . assured,;. he:::-felt; pf? ?~u'c~of~t~~~b,a'ck~,n~~th~t-*sd tqigo tb .J%rl' Warren. *hen!: .he rded:,:theYrpbs t-rlieie, now. marches - relentlessljr t0ivard.g

*"-?,::'the.~ov.: 2~electi~n;'~He.~be aided by his.friend and for- -::.rner.hpaign.& director;$oward Ahmanson, who was -spared yAmore-seri0.u~ hraw1,because his opponent forthe ,Southern <:~Californizi,vice;chairmansliip,. Ray ..Arbuthnot,::.yithdy. -;.: &-. . ,.., i.,.- . ".i.i.- . . ..3,.. -"I*,. 7. .;: :.- ., .::. . . ..' ...... __ . ._ ... - .. . .. c ..<;-.. -IFANYi.REPUBLICANS or'btheri -believe 'that 'the SA~; .+.:Marina-Pasadena5.. Ni.20n .axis will retirefrom--this:,temporary- ..7setback- chasteied..and 'submissive,- they ;are:; naive indeed :. dNixon. isa,, powerful and ambitious politician who: ,does. not .- .%lose:a:.war:becauseLhe. loses on& 6Httle:In other 'words 'he .is- ..?not-:'&in&foZ 1et';KnighT. get -,+%ay:.witK,.boibingi the'::pai-ty: : ~62-:~.*~:+?<~.2>~:-L'~.' '< ,fight. ',.,..;3,&!ii,?-;.yL.&.+;;::

Chall: To nominate Ahmanson? And it had nothing to do with your not wanting him? Oh, for goodness sakes!

Younger: No! You see, it's completely distorted.

Chall: Well, let's get it straight. That's very interesting.

Younger: I simply was busy.

Chall: You were busy anyway between your own campaigns at that point.

Younger: That's right, and this was, I believe, the first time in the history of the Republican party, and maybe the Democratic party as well, that a woman had chaired the Platform Committee. This was a heavy responsibility, and I took it very seriously. It wasn't as though Governor Knight had personally asked me, or anything like that. I didn't even know he was concerned about a nominating speech. If I'd thought about it, I probably would have figured it out, but it just seemed to me to be such a distraction from my responsibilities that it was out of the question, in my mind.

Chall: One of my sources indicates that Governor Knight actually wanted you not to be allowed to stay on as temporary chairman to the Platform Committee because of your stand on Ahmanson, and he had to be persuaded that you were so qualified and so capable that you must be kept on.-

Younger: You see, I wasn't even aware of that until this minute! [laughter] I was just stumbling along, working like a dog.

Chall : [consulting file] This is the Los Angeles Times. [reading] Mrs. Younger was supporting Arbuthnot. She is due to be named temporary chairman of the Platform Committee of the convention. Knight- told George Murphy, retiring state chairman, that therefore she was unacceptable. Knight later withdrew his objection when told how important and competent Mildred Younger is, even though she won't support his candidate, Ahmanson. Now, all of this is of course in my notes; it's not quoted directly, but that was the gist of it.*

- -

*Los Angeles Times, August 8, 1954, p. 3 Younger: That's very interesting. That explains something that George Murphy has said to me frequently in the years since. Apparently Governor Knight made a remark that George Murphy, who is a very gallant Irish gentleman, as you know, took terrible exception to, about me. He believes it was the only threat of violence he ever made. [laughter] There was some mention of threatening to throw Governor Knight out the window, or something of the kind, which was totally out of aharacter, and I haven't the vaguest idea whether he could have done it; I have to question it in my mind. [laughter] But apparently George's sense of gallantry was very upset at something that was said, and that's probably what it was about.

Chall: Also, dl these sources indicate that Knight was so insistent that Ahamanson get that post that he called the legislators together and told them that they wouldn't receive any patronage unless they went along with him.

Younger: How long had Knight been governor at that point?

Chall: Not more than a year.

Younger: If that.

Chall: If that--about eight or nine months. I think it was in October of '53 that Warren went to the Supreme Court, and this was August of '54.

Younger: I think that that timing explained a good deal of what actually hpappened and what people remember. As a matter of fact, Governor Knight was one of those who had been very much responsible for heavy criticism of Governor Warren because Governor Warren had ignored the state central committee. As it turned out, this apparently was a much more pronounced effort to influence the state central committee by Governor Knight than I was aware that it was at the time. But, Governor Knight, in really a very short time after he became governor, had made the same decision that every other governor makes, and that is, the state central committee is in the law so it's going to meet; it's a necessary evil but from the governor's standpoint it isn't necessarily a plus.

Chall: Doesn' t count.

Younger: Yes--isn't very important. But he wanted to control it.

Chall: Do you recall during that period what Patrick Hillings was doing? He was supposed to have been there as a Nixon man to make sure that Arbuthnot won, and then withdrew when he realized it couldn' t be done and then, according to sources, denied that Nixon had anything to do with this maneuver. Younger: I was so preoccupied. I don't recall that. I would say that the chances are that that is probably true, with the exception that I think that Ray Arbuthnot does his own thinking. I don't think that there's any way that Pat Hillings could do more to influence Ray Arbuthnot's decision on anything than to have a conversation. He would not have made up his mind for him; this isn't the character of the man.

Chall: But he could have been lobbying the other delegates.

Younger: I believe Pat would have been a member of Congress at that time. It's quite possible that Pat was looking for votes; I'm sure he was, and I'm sure there were a good many others looking for votes. But again, I wasn't directly involved. Or didn't think of myself as involved at the time. I guess I was wrong. My guess would be that the decision was not a question of Pat going to Ray and saying, "Do you think you'd better get out of this?" or anything like that. He may have said it, but the decision whether or not to stick-in Ray would have made himself. Ray is by no means a man to be used. As a matter of fact, I think I've heard him talk about times when he was young and inexperienced enough to be used, and that was not about to happen again, I think by this time that he was making up his own mind about what he was going to do.

Chall: Well, it was certainly considered an important election and I guess it was.

Younger: If it led to the decision of Governor Knight and Senator Knowland to reverse roles, it was a tremendously important one.

Chall: Oh, you mean in 1958?

Younger: That's right. If there was any carry-over in that direction. I doubt that there was, frankly. The only reason that it would have been important at that point would be Governor Knight finding out for himself, as all governors do, what the state central committee is and is not worth.

Chall: And what power he has, at that point in the party.

Younger: hat 's right--what power he's got.

Chall: Ahmanson was a close friend and supporter.

Younger: Apparently so. Now, if I remember correctly, that was the first time Howard had been a member of the state committee.

Chall: I think it was. That probably was one of the reasons it upset people. Younger: That's right. This would have been much higher on my list of objections, was having a brand new person, who had no activity at -all in the past, suddenly elected chairman. Chall: Hewouldhavebeen chairmanin1956.

Younger: Oh, this was vice-chairman, was it?

Chall: Yes, in '54. That's always the crucial time--the choosing of the vice-chairman.

Younger: Well, technically it doesn't have to be, but as a practical matter it is because of the North-South rotation mandated by law.

Chall: I think they were really looking toward 1956, you see, and that was part of what had to do with all this activity, as well as just finding out how much power he had in the party at this stage in his career.

Younger: Although, in that regard, I would have said that the governor was sufficiently secure in his position at that point that he wouldn't have gotten any opposition from anybody in the Republican party. He was probably doing what we all do--that is, magnifying things that seemed in his mind to be tremendously important. I think everybody was happy to have a Republican governor [laughter] and there were no plots afoot at all probably. It certainly is possible that all of the leaders would have liked to control the state committee but a great deal of effort seems to have been wasted on plotting.

Chall: It certainly looks like one was afoot all the way.

Younger: And maybe in very close inner circles they were, but I really don't know what it would have benefited anybody because the state central committee really was--well, my estimation was that it was barely and still tenuously off the ground as an operating entity at all. I think John Hamlin was then the director of the state central committee, and I'm not sure there was one before John. It was just barely an organization beyond the required annual meeting. But there was an office open in Los Angeles, which John Hamlin headed. I don't remember when United Republican Finance came into being.

Chall: That was just a little earlier. My dates are a little unclear, but I think about '51 or '52, sometime in there.

Younger: The truth of the matter was that the whole organizational structure statewide of the Republican party was a dreadful mess, and that seemed to me to be the problem, not who controlled it. Chall: Just organizing it.

Younger: That's right--just trying to make it an effective force, which it had not been.

Writing the State Republican Party Platform

Chall: Do you recall anything about the platform work? I noticed a strong civil rights plank and a plank on the reform of liquor administration, which of course was important then--there were the scandals going on.

Younger: That's right. Ar.tie Samish was not too far out of the picture.

Chall: And [William] Bonelli.

Younger: That's right. Bonelli had just gone off to Mexico. I think Bonelli was Republican, wasn't he?

Chall: He had been until 1954, when he switched his party. He was running on the Democratic party slate.

Younger: I knew that he'd switched, but I didn't remember which way and at which t'ime he'd switched. Of course Board of Equalization is non- partisan.

Chall: Do you recall anything about what went on behind the scenes in your work as Platform Committee chairman?

Younger: It seems to me that our work was in pretty darn good shape before we got to Sacramento, and it came down to hearings and some amendments based on the hearings. But they were largely, I believe, more in the field of clarifying or of information and testimony being available that hadn't been available before. Perhaps from a legislator from some other part of the state who hadn't realized that you do indeed have to work a long time on a platform before you actually get to the convention that considers it. You virtually have a draft that has to be edited. But if you go in without a draft, it's almost impossible to complete a sensible document.

Chall: Had you been working on this for some months?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: Of course,inJunewas theprimary. Youcertainlywouldn'thave had much time until after June. Younger: But that would have been my principal area of concern between June and the August meeting. And having been involved in platform committees frequently, as a member or as a person trying to put notes and things together, I knew that if a Platform Committee meets with no document from which to start, though it may ultimately completely reverse the direction of the document, it is just absolute chaos, because there isn' t time during a--

Chall: A day, really about a day and a half.

Younger: In about a day and a half, there is not time to write a platform. You've got to have things in pretty good shape.

Chall: How seriously is the platform taken?

Younger: I felt at that time, obviously, that it should be, and I probably felt that it was taken more seriously than most people did. I'm not sure whether the tendency to ignore platforms has always been there or not. I have the feeling that that may have been about the time when candidates began feeling, and officials began feeling, that they had no obligation to their party platform unless it was a convenience to them. But I think that platforms had been generally more important up until probably the beginning of the fifties.

Chall: I was wondering about that because 1954 was the first time that at least the party designation had to be placed on the ballot so that - cross-filing in its old form had ended. If you had to designate your party, then one would think that the platform of the party might be at that time more important--at least, for a couple of years they might try to make it more important so that people could know what the difference was between the parties. But I don't know whether that's true; it's just an assumption I make at the moment.

Younger: And I think it's a somewhat unrealistic assumption. I think that at that convention, as I always have--anytime I've been involved with a platform, I've wanted it to be a readable, understandable, reasonable-length document. I believe this to be an essential party obligation. I believe I made the motion from the floor at that time that the state committee had an obligation to print and disseminate the platform. This seemed to me to be in order, because I don't know how else you really define parties. But, as a practical matter, particularly since the advent of television and the much greater personality aspect of an election, things like platform tend to get lost in this emergence of a personality that's in your living room. That platform becomes just one more kind of a boring piece of business. You're really talking much more about a personality contest, with the coming of television as an important force. But you still have a multitude of local candidates and committees who must have some uniform guidance. Chall: So the state platform has even less meaning maybe than a national platform?

Younger: I don't think a national platform has a great deal of meaning any more. I haven't bothered to read either of the national platforms. I remember the fight in Kansas City [I976 Republican convention] about it, and I have noticed, with a great deal of interest, the importance that Governor Reagan has placed on what he was able to accomplish in the drafting of that platform. But I think of equal importance is the fact that the Ford supporters felt that most of those things were not worth a fight.

Chall: So that they wouldn't lose friends when it came to crucial ba110 ting--

Younger: But I have the feeling that in the back of their minds was the same perception of a party platform as I have--that this is not really going to be controlling, as far as the outcome of the votes are concerned.

As it turns out, in this particularinstance, the way the obvious, if not split, at least ambiguity in the party has developed, much more discussion is going on about platform. But as a practical matter, if either of the contenders had been elected president, the platform would have been used only when it was convenient. This has been the trend, more and more.

Among other things, with instant communication, issues change to where maybe what the platform said isn't even germane.

Chall: Yes, that could happen. Things do change very rapidly.

Younger: And that didn't used to be true. At least not in the same way. Platforms are intended to define party principles. At this time the individual has somehow become a personification of party and the words a party pledges to live by tend to represent a candidate rather than a candidate being chosen to best represent the platform. VI NEW HORIZONS, 1955-1958

Phasing Out of Political Party Activity##

Chall: I wanted to ask you something that I think I neglected to earlier. After your campaign you went into radio and television and we will discuss that. I wondered, however, whether you had any intentions of becoming a candidate again or whether you decided that you were through with that side of politics. What had you thought you might do politically if anything?

Younger: At that time I really intended to be out of politics completely. That probably wasn't a realistic intention.

Chall: Why did you think that? You really had put a lot into politics over the years.

Younger: . My campaign was based upon a very definite goal and principles. I really didn' t have any desire to run for the sake of running. I was perfectly prepared to do everything necessary to be a good state senator and a broad based state senator. But as far as just running because I wanted to be a public of ficial--no, I didn't have any interest .

At my present age, it's possible that I would rethink that. I think I would rethink it only on the basis of something like a school board or something that would no t--at least wouldn 't intentionally-- be full time. If something would happen to Evelle I really don't know what I would do. We don't have the resources for really even keeping our home.

Chall: But in terns of politics--

Younger: You see, I might then have to rethink, is this the only thing that I am qualified to do?

Chall: That's to earn a living? 224

Younger: That's right, to earn a living.

Chall: Even with the problem that you had with your health you still kept up some party affiliation, some party activities.

Younger : I did for a while.

Chall: Would you have intended to continue that?

Younger : I dropped out of the few activities when Evelle ran for district attorney which is a nonpartisan office. Now, there's more and more tendency in the state of California not to treat designated non- partisan offices as truly nonpartisan offices. I think that that's a darn shame. I think that we are going to lose a great deal of the integrity of government if we do lose the nonpartisan quality of local government but it's slipping pretty rapidly. It used to be that you didn't even know the party affiliation of the person who ran for a local office. - Chall: You certainly know it now, especially in Los Angeles.

Younger: That's right. Well, look at San Francisco.

Chall : All the big cities.

Younger: Yes, in the big cities, you know party affiliation. It's used in the campaigns and I think that's terribly regrettable. I don't know that anybody would ever accept me as a nonpartisan candidate. I think they might. But I dropped out of things like membership on the county central committee and that sort of thing.

Chall: That's when he ran?

Younger: That's right, because I didn't feel that it was fair to him to have a wife who was on the county central commit tee of a political party when he fully intended to and did run for a properly non- partisan office. We would have been on the same ballot even.

Chall : Was it ever a conflict between you as to which one of you might really become the political person in the family? Was that ever an issue or a concern?

Younger: No, and again I think probably that decision was made for me by the speech loss because any potential of the conflict was eliminated simply because I really couldn't be a political person, physically. I remember that there was one occasion when I was asked to run for something. It may have been the school board. I don't even think they had enough candidates to fill up the school board that particular year. Some very responsible people asked if I would consider it. They knew that I couldn't campaign in the normal sense of the word but they also thought that I could do the job. While Younger: the speech loss would be a great imposition on other people and would be a much greater drain on my energy because of the low oxygen intake, a school board position in those days wouldn't have been impossible. That was before the bussing and other overriding controversies came up. But I remember calling a very good friend of ours who was then on the staff of the Los Angeles Times and asking him if the Times would even consider my candidacy seriously and telling him what had happened and he said "no."

Chall: What was their reason?

Younger: Their reason was that they remembered too many scandals where both the wife and the husband were involved in public office. I had to admit that it was a legitimate argument and I couldn't justify it.

Chall : So that took care of that. I have heard that some leaders of the Republican party did step in after 1954 and ask that you decide between you which one of you would be politically active, because it was not possible for two in the same family to aspire in politics, and that the decision favored Evelle. Was this a factor prior to 1958?

Younger: I have no memory of anything of the kind. I believe we both would have rejected any such suggestion. At the same time we could have accepted the probable need to make such a decision between ourselves. As it happened no such decision ever was even discussed.

Exciting Experiences as a Radio and Television Newswoman, ABC and CBSBf

Chall: Well, now we can talk about your career on radio and TV.

Younger: Just glancing down the list of questions here, I notice you have "1954 to 1958-CBS TV news." Actually, I went to work for ABC first, and it was radio.

Chall: I just culled this from the newspaper articles, which generally give you about three lines to this whole career.

Younger: That's right. But I certainly couldn't help but make some observations about the role of women as compared to men during that time. Chall: I did want to get that. Younger: I was paid scale on the radio and on ABC television during the relatively short time that I was also doing an ABC television news show. I don't think that there was anybody else in a decent time slot that was paid just scale, or that had to put as many hours of work and as much energy into their air time performance as I did. I never had a writer; I didn' t even have a desk or a telephone, or access to one.

Chall: You were doing this at home?

Younger: I was doing this at home, and it was one reason that the job appealed to me. I could run the house at the same time. I thought that was important. I could be there when Eric was there, and he certainly came first.

Chall: Still, you weren't afforded any aid.

Younger: No indeed. As I say, I had no desk, no telephone, no nothing. I remember that the noontime news hour on radio was for a short time split between George Putnam and myself. George would come into the newsroom and be handed his script, and of course he has a marvelously melodic voice and a great deal--many years--of broadcasting experience. He would be handed his script, glance through it, and go on the air. I'm sure that he was paid far more than scale for that performance. He would then leave the studio. He usually spoke as he came in and went out. But I would have spent the morning fighting out my right to say things I thought ought to be said in my half-hour, and here he was handed his half-hour! [laughter] Then I would race home and start work on the next day's script.

Chall: You mean you had a half-hour a day?!

Younger: Yes, and that uses an awful lot of material awfully fast. It's like a sponge.

Chall : At noon?

Younger : Yes, from twelve-thirty to one.

Chall: What was it that you provided in that half-hour different from what he would provide?

Younger: He did hard,news. I was more interested in the so-called soft news, community news. It was some times advertised as commentary although that debatehadbarely begun. I sometimes did interviews with people of particular interest, like Margaret Mead or Tom Dooley or somebody like that who came to town. General Doolittle. There were a lot of them that came to town, but there really wasn't anybody else on the air at ABC prepared to-- Chall: It must have taken you hours to ferret all this out and prepare your comments and questions.

Younger: It took me, I would say, eighteen hours a day to prepare that thirty minutes.

Chill: Doing it all yourself--typing it out. Younger: hat 's right . Chall: Did you ever ask for help, secretarial help?

Younger: No, as a matter of fact, I don't think I ever did. I don't Chink it ever dawned on me that there was the slightest chance that I would get any help.

Chall: You were really a volunteer for the radio station in a sense.

Younger: Pretty close to it. Although you've got to remember that even at scale, I was making more money than most women were making in those days. So it was still a pretty good job. Then when I was doing radio and television both, that was really a very good income.

Chall: When did it turn to being both radio and television? How many years were you on ABC radio doing this half-hour?

Younger: I would say two and a half or three. We all got fired in a grbup; it was kind of a nice way. [laughter]

Chill: No discrimination.

Younger: That's right. They wiped the slate clean, and they did it from New York. A new president took over; Robert Kintner took over as president of ABC and decided that KABC in Los Angeles would become a music station, which is the cheapest way to run a station--and that really interested the network. We all got fired together. The sales force stayed on, but the rest of us went.

Chall: What happens to people, particularly men, who must scurry around and find some thing?

Younger: They scrounge around. Most men in a local broadcasting situation-- and in those days it was more apt to be a local broadcasting situation-have moved from one network to another, from one station to another. They pretty well know each other.

Chill: And what happened to you?

Younger: I did some special things for CBS radio. Chall: That means an occasional special b.roadcast?

Younger: Yes. Like the Mobil Gas Economy Run, which always amused me because it was part of the sports broadcasting. But during the time that I'd been on the air at ABC, Mobil Gas had become extremely interested in having women drivers, so that it made good sense for them to have a woman reporter. The same was true for an atom bomb test at Yucca Flats. Civil Defense wanted a woman. Just as when the Strategic Air Command was having trouble recruiting, it made sense to them to have a woman go through the altitude chamber tests, and a woman to fly in a jet fighter, and a woman to do broadcasts from the SAC bases in Western Europe and North Africa, which was a fascinating experience.

Chall: You didn't do that?

Younger: Yes, I did that. Sure.

Chall : Oh, you did? [laughter] This goes from automobiles to Strategic Air Command--

Younger: Yes. You get a little desperate on these things. [laughter]

Chall: I thought you were giving me an example. [laughter] I thought, "Well, it's sort of far out, but it's a good example,"

Younger: It's an example of what happened to a woman in broadcasting in those years.

Chall: This is in about 1955 or '56. Tell me about this--[laughter] I'm open-mouthed and speechless.

Younger: Well, if you've got thirty minutes a day of air time to fill, you get busy and fill it,

Chall: I see. And the Strategic Air Command came to you?

Younger: Yes, I'd done a number of things. I don't remember whether I originally met the man who was running the public information off ice in Los Angeles through my husband or not; I don' t think so. Because they were having recuiting problems, they frequently were very much interested in a woman broadcaster. If they could find a twist-- or thought I could--they called.

Chall: Because they were having trouble recruiting men?

Younger: That's right. They ,were interested in wives and mothers and girl friends .

Chall: What were you reporting? Younger: I flew in everything operational. in the ~uro~eantheater.

Chall: You went into the European theater? You did all these--

Younger: Yes, from the bases. The only tapes I ever had confiscated were in Libya. That goes back a long time. So the Libyan government has been unstable for at least that long. When I tried to do tapes from Wheelus Air Force Base, the broadcast equipment was jammed. Tapes that I did with a brilliant young man who was anxious to talk about schooling, health problems, economicproblems, water purification problems-that sort of thing--in Tripoli, all of those tapes were confiscated by the Libyan government and never aired. He was an employee of the Libyan government. I haven't the slightest idea what happened to him; I hope nothing bad. But they didn't want to talk about social problems.

Chall: As you traveled around and made tapes, were they just recorded or was this put onto a film so that it went onto television?

Younger: No, no, no. These were strictly radio.

Chall: Was it used throughout the CBS network? Younger: No, this.was ABC . Chall: Oh, this was still ABC. Did they use it in the network throughout the country?

Younger: Once in a while you'd get a pick up on something on the network, but in those days you didn't get as much West-East pick up as you do now, not nearly as much. Electronics have changed dramatically in those same years.

Chall: I was just wondering whether they would use it for somebody else, let's say, in North Carolina, or wherever they were trying to recruit all over the country.

Younger: It wasn't really that well organized.

Chall: So it was really a very much of a special thing for you. Did you travel to places like Libya and wherever else, by yourself?

,Younger: Yes.

Chall: You were given a certain amount of freedom in your family to do quite a bit of that sort of work? Younger : Yes, indeed I was, and I appreciated it very much, We had had two children, but only one survived. Having just the one son, I never felt that it was awfully good for him if Mama was always there and always running him and everything about him. I didn't really see anything terribly the matter with my going places occasiondlly. I was usually there. And of course we had grandparents running out our ears. Eric was the only grandchild on either side of the family.

Chall: But when you went, you really went.

Younger : That's what I tried to do. I tried not to be missing in kind of a haphazard manner.

Chall: Go and do the job and then come back.

Younger: Yes.

Chall: Even while you were working eighteen hours a day at home, you were still preoccupied, I would guess, with your career.

Younger: Not really with career. I was more preoccupied with family than I was with career. And we needed the income. This was a powerful, motivating factor.

Chall: So you thought of yourself as having a good job, then.

Younger: That's right.

Chall : That is different.

Younger: At the time that I started with CBS , I was making more money than my husband was and still was at scale. Obviously he was the dependable source of income. But I did very well sporadically.

Chall: The American Federation of--AFTRA?

Younger: It's AFTRA. American Federation of Television and Radio Artists.

Chall : Yes, the scale was good.

Younger: And it never occurred to me to ask for a raise, either. It just was n 't something--

Chall: Just glad to have it. When did you go on to television? Was that with CBS?

Younger: I started with ABC for I think it was a thirteen-week segment. That was fifteen minutes a day. There was a very short time interval between the radio and the television show, and they were a couple of Younger: miles apart so that it led to some rather hectic arrangements. There I did have a regular producer because it was essential; I couldn't possibly get things together for the second show.

Chall: What was that to be--the television show?

Younger: That was still in the area of community news, referred to as soft news and commentary.

Chall: Couldyou talkabout thesame thing as youdid onradio, or didyou have to prepare something different?

Younger: It could be marginally in the same area, but it had to be at least a different aspect or development of the subject. They were rarely even complementary in subject matter.

Chall: Did you find yourself enjoying one aspect of this media more than another?

Younger: I enjoyed radio more than I did television. I always found the camera annoying; it distracted me.

Chall: And that was a fifteen-minute segment for thirteen weeks. Then what happened?

Younger: I got my Emmy nomination after I'd been cancelled! [laughter] It was the only Emmy nomination that the station got that year, and I took a certain delight in getting it after I'd been cancelled.

Chall: Why did they cancel? They didn't think they had enough interest?

Younger: The station was very much oriented to extremely far out kind of programming. They were interested in weird kinds of things. Quite literally I've forgotten the names of some of the programs. There were some late night witch programs and that sort of thing that they were terribly interested in. It takes time, money, and energy for a station to build a program and to sell it.

Chall: They weren't interested in the community news?

Younger: Not particularly. And they had a license-related commitment which they filled pretty sporadically. Television was much cheaper in those days than it is now, but it still was a use of a valuable resource.

Chall: And that was still with ABC. After you were dissociated from ABC, then how long. did it take you to get to CBS? Younger: Not very long. I made a commercial motion picture for General Petroleum, in the meantime, based on the Mobil Gas Economy Run. Mobil is owned by G.P. That was made mostly from a helicopter so we could keep ahead of the drivers. I don't think I ever saw the picture. It was interesting because they were really just becoming aware of the fact that they had a huge market that probably wasn't being satisfied very well.

Chall: Women drivers.

Younger: That's right. They felt that their station operators didn't know how to treat a woman customer, which they didn't--and don't. But Mobil was making an effort and I spoke to a number of their dealer meetings as well as making the commercial film.

Appointments to State and Federal Boards and Commissions

Younger: The American Assembly which is run by Columbia University, isn't it? I was a member of three of their conferences.

There was a very large and important committee appointed in the state of California on the general subject of revising legislative procedures. I was a member of that committee.

Chall: Was that a state legislative commit tee?

Younger: Yes, I think it was appointed--I really don't know who the appointing authority was. I remember that Pat Brown was on it, I would say the leading people in both political parties, a good many just plain students of government, a good many professors. That took a lot of time.

Chall : How big was this committee?

Younger: It was a committee of a hundred, and its mission was to try to help reorganize the state legislature.

Chall: This was before Unruh did in fact help reorganize it? That was in the early sixties when some reorganization came into being. But the League of Women Voters was studying that, I remember, and so this may have been an impetus for real reorganization.

Younger: This was the committee that put the initiative measure on the ballot that increased the legislative pay. I cast the only "no" vote, and I cast the "no" vote with the explanation that I did not believe that the legislators were about to, in good faith, deny themselves any of the fringe benefits that they had voted for themselves, and that Younger: they had to be willing to have written into it lbitations on what was actually income, rather -than.a blank check. As I say, I ended up casting the only "no" vote.

Chall: Was this a subcommittee of the committee of one hundred?

Younger: No, it was the committee of a hundred as a whole that voted on whether or not to go on the ballot.

Chall: You don't suppose that up in your attic there, where you don't go because it's too dusty, that you've got that stuff?

Younger: I don't have the slightest idea. I rarely throw anything out. But I can't find anything either. -

Chall: I'll check this out. I don't have to find it in your attic, but certainly this is an important aspect of California history.

Younger: Tony DeLap was involved in that. The labor leader that I remember in particular was John Despol. Max Eddy Utt was the chairman of the commission. He was a senior partner in Gibson, Dunn and Crucher, and may still be; I don't know. There were not very many women on that committee; very few.

Chall: Pat Brown came in in 1958. Would this have been a Brown--during the Brown years or when he was attorney general?

Younger: That's what's confusing me because--

Cahll: Do you remember what condition your health was in at that time when you were participating?

Younger: This had to be before I lost my voice. No. I lost my voice either just before or during the time the commission functioned.

Chall: Okay. Then maybe it was the Knight era.

Younger: I think it must have been. But I don't believe that I would have been appointed by Knight. I don't know how that commission was arrived at. I know we met in the Capitol always.

Chall: Some of these are appointed by legislators--

Younger: And that's quite possible, yes.

Chall: That you were appointed by some legislator? Younger: Yes. I also notice that in the earlier years you do not have questions about, or you do not have mention of federal appointments. Frequently I'd be busy with work resulting from a federal appointment, under the Eisenhower administration.

Chall : I see. Do you remember what you were appointed to?

Younger: Yes, I was a member of the Advisory Commission on the Federal Women's Reformatory at Alderson, West Virginia. That was before there were federal women prisoners at Terminal Island. Alderson, West Virginia was the only institution there was. So that many of my opinions about penal reform are quite independent of my husband's and based on that experience.

I was a member of the committee that Eisenhower appointed called 11The Republican Committee on Program and Progress." Charles Percy was the chairman. and it ended up writLnn- a little book called Decisions for a Better America which was published in 1960. I lost my voice during the time I was a member of that particular committee.

Chall: That committee was appointed by Eisenhower? So you were on these two committees. Were they ongoing about the same time?

Younger: Yes, because I was reappointed on the Federal Women's Reformatory board. Then of course much more recently [I9751 I was appointed to the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science by President Ford. These are all things that have an effect on how much you can do in other areas. I had also been on three city commissions: City Retirement Fund Investment, the Library Conrmission and the Community Redevelopment Association board.

Chall: Did you enjoy these kinds of activities, these appointments?

Younger: To varying degrees. I find the present appointment very frustrating. As a matter of fact, we had dinner last night with the [Albert] Bowkers and with the gentleman who used to be chancellor of the - University of Michigan and his wife.

Chall : The Bowkers--is that the present chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley?

Younger: Yes. We talked a good deal about being on federal commissions of one kind and another. Mrs. Bowker as well as the chancellor have been on a number of commissions. Doctor Smith, previously chancellor of the University of Michigan, has been on a number and is on one now, which just happens to be submitting a report to the commission I'm a member of. He is prepared to do battle. He didn't have the slightest idea I was a member of the commission. [laughter] The conversation got kind of out of hand before he discovered there was Younger: a member of the commission in the room. He had expressed himself very clearly before the rest of us realized what he was talking about. We laughed a good deal about that.

When President Eisenhower first formed what I think was called the United States Committee for the United Nations, which was to be a volunteer support group, I was the western states chairman of that. There was very little activity, largely because there wasn't any real direction to it. I think it evolved, but I think it took a new chairman really before it started being of any importance.

Chall: Was that because the president didn't give it direction, or he felt that he wanted it to be sort of window dressing?

Younger: I think he felt that the chairman was more interested and more aggressive than he turned out to be. And I don't believe there was any budget at all. I remember going to see the chairman in New York Stanley Rumbaugh. I was in the East for some other reason. I was to meet him at his apartment and then I was to catch a late plane to Los Angeles. I waited for nearly two hours. There was a butler there who, from time to time, would ask me if he could fix me a drink or would offer me a sandwich or something. But when the chairman finally arrived, St was with two airline stewardesses whom he'd apparently offered to show New York before coming back to his apartment to meet with me. I had come very close to leaving a number of times. I was relatively young at the time, and I remember that he very quickly dismissed the airline stewardesses and sat down and offered me a drink. I was fuming by that time. Then he made some remark about if he'd known what I looked like that he would have been there on time. Which confirmed my belief that he'd known someone was waiting for him while he was out partying.

I was furious, but that's not the point. The point is that he was not a man who was as dedicated as the president thought he was. I think that that's what happened to that original committee. It took some time to discover that there was simply a lack of any real interest or direction on the part of the chairman. And the complete lack of budget was totally unrealistic. I don't know how many people were appointed. I believe my appointment was to, cover the eleven western states.

Chall: You don' t suppose that this person was owed something by the president who figured, "I'll appoint him to this. It sounds prestigious," and didn't really pay much attention.

Younger: It's possible that he could have been a heavy contributor; he was a very wealthy man. But I think probably the president was looking for a young, innovating committee, and was more interested in the fact that the man had traveled very widely and had a pretty good unger: overview of international affairs. He came from a very distinguished family, and I think the president had a right to expect that he would make a very substantial contribution to the committee and could spend a good deal of time on it. It may not have been thought out very clearly to begin with--the idea was new and unformed. The United Nations had had little support or understanding among Republicans.

Chall: These appointments, except for one having to do with the Federal Women's Reformatory, were there mostly men on them? Were you one of the few women at all times?

Younger: I don't remember ahout the one on the future of the Republican party. I would have assumed that there would have been a number of women on it, and yet, trying to remember back, I don't remember that there was an even split or anything like that. There may have been but, of course, that was a tumultuous time for me.*

Chall: Was there anyone else from California, for example?

Younger: Paul Williams, yes. I think we were the only two Californians. The executive director was from Stanford.

Chall: After 1958, did some of these--of course, there were Democrats in office until '68--were you appointed to any by President Nixon?

Younger: No. After I lost my voice-that was a terribly, terribly traumatic experience. It certainly was not conducive to anyone wanting to appoint me and, at the same time, it wasn't particularly conducive to my wanting to be appointed. The municipal appointments came during that time. And I did take part in some campaigns, but they were on a pretty limited basis. I remember going to an American Library Association annual meeting in Chicago. One of the speakers addressed breakthroughs in employing the handicapped in libraries. He made the rather overstated remark that the only handicap with which libraries couldn't deal was a speech handicap. I also tried to apply as a masters candidate in Fine Arts. I had been encouraged by the drawing teacher to assemble a portfolio. The dean of the school refused to even look at it because of my handicap. He reasoned that becuase I couldn't teach they shouldn't waste time and space letting me develop my skills. There were many disappointments.

*The book, Decisions for a Better America, lists forty-two members, six of whom were women. M.Y. VII THE POLITICAL PROCESS AND WOMEN IN POLITICS [Interview 8: May 9, 1977]##

Chall: Let's see. You wanted to talk about this Republican state committee list--the officers. *

Younger: Yes. It seems to me that there are a number of things that ought to be said and this applies to both parties. Because the Republican party in recent years has been in such bad shape as far as actually electing people is concerned, the state central is appointed by losers. That means that you're apt to get leadership that isn't outstanding. Af ter all, the nominees appoint the state committee, and if the vast majority of those nominees are defeated, they're still going to appoint the state committee. As a consequence, you may have, oh, I don't know what the percentage would be this year, for instance, but my guess is that 75 percent of the state committee is appointed by people who didn't get elected. That colors the entire effective- ness of a political party. Now, I don't know what the solution is, but I know that it's bad for both political parties to be in that position. It tends to perpetuate and reinforce party strengths and weaknesses.

Chall: I don't have my notes with me, but I have a recollection that at one point, about 1964-1965, the Republicans got .a bill through the state legislature which permitted incumbents to select nine members to the state central committee and nominees four or five, something of this kind, which gave those who were already in office a tremendous amount of power. They did this deliberately because they felt that the Goldwater people were about to take over the party and the central committee. Now I guess they find that the conservatives are

*The list of state Republican party officers and elected officials prepared for use in the California Women Political Leaders and the Governmental History Documentation Oral History Projects. Chall: the ones in office, and so they are now dominating the central committee, which the liberals, the moderate Republicans who put the bill in originally, had not intended.

Younger: But, you see, it's almost impossible to correct. When your party gets so badly out of balance, and it's been some time really in this state since we've had even a reasonable balance--

Chall: This is in the legislature, where it counts.

Younger: That's right, and that's where you get the largest number of your appointees--when they 're so badly out of balance, you simply don' t get an effective state central committee.

Chall: The state central committee is important to the party in what way? In what way are they unable now to function properly, in your estimation, because of the set-up?

Younger: Isee moreand more of the state central committee meetings turning into fund-raising events. I was among those who fought the idea that members of the state central committee should be expected to make I think it was at that time a hundred dollar donation. In those days, a hundred dollars was an awful lot of money.

Chall: When was this--in the fifties when you were active?

Younger: Yes, that would have started I guess in the fifties. I could understand that the party was broke, but I didn't want to see a price tag put on an appointment to the state committee, because you eliminated too many people who had viewpoints and belong on the state committee. I didn't want to see people embarrassed by having to buy tickets to dinners and that kind of thing. That's happening, and more and more there'll be a hundred-dollar-a-plate dinner in connection with any state central committee meeting. And that's wrong !

Chall: Oh, really, right with the meeting itself?!

Younger: Yes, and that, to my way of thinking, is wrong.

Chall: That even rules out hard-working volunteers who can't afford it.

Younger: That's right, and people who you need on your state committee may be those who've really been much more active than the people who can afford it. So I don't like a price tag on the state committee. I don't know whether the Democrats do that or not. But it's something to think about, and that has tended to happen. Just going to a meeting is very expensive. Women and the Political Party

Younger: Another thing that I don't think that the original concept of the state central committees anticipated was this business of kind of throwing bones to women by making a vice-chairman North, vice- chairman Central, vice-chairman South business. I think if a woman is capable of being vice-chairman, she ought to be vice-chairman, period. I don't think it makes any sense at all to water down the impact, which this system does. Of course, California has the geographical problem of north and south, too.

Chall: The party makes that rule itself--that's its own rule? What if you did away with this? Have the women in the Republican party ever thought, or have the men ever thought of just doing away with the women's divisions, which this vice-chairmanship really is? Have they ever thought of just doing away with it and requiring a man- woman, man-woman, instead of just north-south, north-south?

Younger: No, and I think that would be bad if it were mandatory. Either the North or South would always have a woman. I don't think that that would necessarily produce the best leadership to say arbitrarily every other year you're going to have a woman chairman, because that's what it would lead to. Or it would lead to a loss of any continuity you get from carrying the vice-chairman with the chairmanship, which generally happens ; it doesn' t always happen, but generally it happens.

Last summer, a woman did run for chairman of the party.

Chall: Did she?! InCalifornia?

Younger: Yes, and came very close.

Chall: She ran for vice-chairman in order to be chairman the following year?

Younger: Well, let's see. I have to figure out which--

Chall: Generally that's the way it works, but there might have been some reason why. this--

Younger: I thinkshe ran for chairman directly; I'm not sure, but I think she did.

Chall: What was her name?

Younger: Rosemary Ferraro. She was certainly my husband's candidate. She's from the Compton or Downey area. Chall: I would say that's probably the first time in the history of the Republican State Central. Committee that that's been tried--that I know of.

Younger : No, I don't think so. I think that there have been other years when there have been candidates usually for vice-chairman who were women and who didn' t succeed.

Chall: But they got to the point of being nominated?

Younger: Yes, I think so. It seems to me that I remember during the years that I was active in the state committee that it happened, and happened more than once. There was always an unhappiness about the downgrading of that vice-chairmanship.

Chall: Yes, secondary role. What can women do, then? Could the women do something about it if they really pulled themselves together?

Younger: Yes, they could. Unfortunately, the nature of the beast is that women generally don't pull themselves together; why they don't, I don't know, but they don't seem to. Of course, Elizabeth Snyder was chairman of the Democratic party.

Chall: Yes. In the Democratic party, there have been a number of women who have run for this office and almost made it. There's a great ferment there. But I was wondering whether the difference between the Democratic party and the Republican is that there is no such thing in the Democratic party that's like the Federation of Republican Women, and therefore the women who work in the party are generally not so geared into a woman's organization as such, whereas in the Republican parry a great deal of the leadership in the party comes, not always, but comes from those women. I think to some degree they sort of control the caucus, making decisions about who is going to be the women's chairmen.

Younger: Yes, although they're not always that unified. You'll frequently find rather serious differences between members of the federation.

Chall: That 'd be ideological?

Younger : I think that more often that's the perception of the differences rather than the actuality of the differences. It's just as apt to be on a personality basis as anything else. It may start with ideological differences, but it gets carried on at kind of a loosely bitchy kind of a level. [laughter] This is the only word I can think of.

I think I would agree with you that that tends to be the reason, but you're reminding me of a question I was asked last election by a man. I was asked to speak at the Professional Men's Club, a B'nai B 'rith group. Younger: One of the men there was very determined to make it clear that women do not have the same opportunity in the Republican party as they have in the Democratic party. I was quite flustered by his strong statement at the time but I don't think that's true. Opportunity to become candidates, and that kind of thing. I don't think that there is any greater opportunity in one party than the other.

Chall: If you look, though, at the record, in years back, and even today, you'll find I think that most of the women who ever ran for state public offices--I mean beyond school board--were generally Democrats.

Younger : Are you sure?

Chall: I think so.

Younger : Who was the first statewide woman elected?

Chall: Ivy Baker Priest.

Younger : Yes, that's right. A Republican. And I think that if you really sat down and looked at the full record of both nominees and people elected, that you would find much greater parity than appears at first blush.

Chall: In the old days, in the twenties, there were many women in the state legislature, in the assembly, who were Republicans. These were years when the legislature was Republican; this may or may not mean anything. Now they're Democrats. So you may be right.

Younger: But I've been fascinated by that ever since I was asked that question, because I'm just not at all sure he was right.

Chdl: Do you find, in whatever you see of the party now, that they are attempting to help women run for office? Or are women in either party going to do that without assistance from the party?

Younger: That's what it seems to me is going to have to happen, and really is what does happen. If an outstanding woman emerges, she emerges probably in spite of her party, and her party either gets behind her or doesn't get behind her on a basis entirely different from the basis on which she emerged. I don't really see that party affiliation has a good deal to do with what a woman accomplishes.

Chall: It would with a man, though. A man wouldn't necessarily try to run without the support of his party, would he? Would he have had a lot of time in the party and be recognized first? Younger: No, no. I would say not.

[This portion was added by Mrs . Younger. 1 Because this is an open primary state, there isn't supposed to be party support in the primary. And in most cases there isn't. That's what we were talking about when we discussed the federation and pre-primary endorsements. Candidates want and need party support--or at least party neutrality--and the minority party, in particular, must resist giving support. It, too, must settle for neutrality. That's hard. But I think California is better off because of the open primary. But it certainly tends to weaken party structure. There are always "king-makers" or would-be king-makers. But "the party" as such does not seek out candidates in an open primary state. Obviously many individuals form committees and take other actions in behalf of candidates of their choice. The biggest problem remains how to both win an open primary and preserve a position which allows primary opponents and their supporters to rapidly and painlessly get together in order to win the general election. [end of written portion]

The special legislative election coming up happens to be in the district in which we live. Surprisingly enough it's a heavily Democratic district at this point, it didn't used to be. It's one of those little pockets that has been moved around several times. The young man who is, if not the only, certainly the most outstanding candidate, is a Republican. Being a special election, you don't get quite the same party emphasis. And, of course, there is not necessarily a runoff election.

Chall: What's his name?

Younger: ' Dan Smith. He has the kind of a background--I didn't know he was black. Just reading his background, I'd say he was over-qualified for assemblyman. Then I discovered afterwards that he's black. But he makes the backgrounds of every other person running look absolutely sick by comparison. His achievements are excellent , and they are in no way related to political party. Just independently.

Chall: And he hasn't been active in the Republican party?

Younger: No. As a matter of fact, I would say that probably the Republican congressional nominee in our district probably opposes him, or would if he could think of a way of doing it. It wouldn't make any difference; it'd be purely academic whether he opposed him or not because the congressional nominee was a very poor nominee. I think maybe this is the reason that I wanted to mention party organization. That congressional nominee, to my way of thinking, typifies a kind of person who sees himself as a great party leader, largely because of his automatic membership on the county committee, on the state committee, his ability to appoint and that kind of thing. And ye, gods! If that's party leadership, I want nothing to do with it! He ran because it was such a bankrupt district that nobody else ran. Chall: He didn't win, is that it?

Younger: No, he didn't have a prayer of winning.

Chal.1: Is it so heavily Democratic that it hardly pays for a Republican to run?

Younger: I don't think you can ever say that a hundred percent; I don't think that either party can afford to say, "We'll write this one off ," because you do get upsets; particularly in special elections, you get a rather significant number of upsets. But generally speaking, if you're using your party resources wisely and you've got a district that hasn't produced anybody who is a really outstanding candidate, then you'd better keep your resources in districts where you've got at least some kind of a chance. That, incidentally--I don't know whether I've mentioned this or not-is what my husband feels defeated me for the state senate. A fine, outstanding young man was determined to run against Jimmy Roosevelt for Congress, which he did. But the Republican party got all excited about him. As a practical matter, there was no way in the world that he could have defeated Jimmy Roosevelt.

Chall: Jimmy Roosevelt who was then running for Congress?

Younger: He was then a member of Congress ; he was an incumbent member of Congress. The only thing that Republican money and Republican precinct workers did in that congressional district was to defeat the state senate candidate. That was the sole accomplishment of all that work and money.

Chall: So they put their money into the wrong spot; they could have helped you more.

Younger: That's not what I mean. Voters in that district wouldn't have turned out. They had no reason to turn out. Their incumbent was absolutely safe. He probably wouldn't even have campaigned if the Republican party hadn't come in and put money into it and put up billboards and that sort of thing. I carried every other congressional district in the county and lost that one so heavily that I was defeated! Now, that isn't really a male-female decision. [laughter] It just plain is a short-sighted decision and one that I didn't realize was happening at the time.

Chall: You don't suppose it could have been a male-female decision and that they thought, "Oh well, why should we bother with Mildred Younger? She probably won' t win anyway. Women don' t win elections, so we won' t put any money into that campaign. l1 Younger : No, no. The county committee had all but endorsed me to begin with. I had very generous support from them. Senators from the rest of the state were horrified for fear I might be elected. But, the fact remains, I lost by less than half of one percent.

Chall: I know. It was the closest election--just agonizingly close.

Younger : And I only lost one congressional district, and that was the congressional district. So that sometimes there are things that we're not really looking at when we try to analyze the outcome of an election. Now, true, maybe I could have gotten a heavier vote in the rest of the county so that I could have negated that district, had I been male; I don' t know. But just plain on the figures, that district did it! And that district did it because the Republican party was just so happy to have a good candidate-- and he was a good candidate. But in that district, he couldn't be elected.

Chall : I see. So the Democrats all came out.

Younger: That's right. They would have stayed home otherwise. They weren't excited about Richards. There was no particular ballot measure. That's another thing that we always have to look at is what were the initiative measures on the same ballot? They frequently will explain why one party or the other does very well.

Chall: I'm not sure I know. There were no cross-filing initiatives on that ballot . Younger: I don't think that there were any initiatives or referendums of any great significance or interest. I just don't think there were any that would have brought that kind of a vote out, that the only explanation for that vote was that the Republican party just got carried away with, "Oh boy, we've got a candidate against Jimmy Roosevelt and we're really going to help him." [laughs]

Chall: I suppose, in terms of the way the central committee officers have tried to help candidates in districts where they think now they can be helped, they might analyze things a little differently than they did then, to be sure that they don't waste their money or their time. Or do they?

Younger: I don't think they do. This is something that almost takes hindsight to realize has happened. For instance, I don't know what the various figures show on this young man that I was mentioning who seems so over-qualified for the assembly. I don't know how much support he's getting. he would be an outstanding member of the assembly, regardless of party. As I say, he's over-qualified, actually. But I doubt very much that the decision to support him Younger: or not to support him will be related to whether or not he can win. It's a district where theoretically he shouldn't be able to win, and yet, at the same time, he is certainly an attractive candidate. So maybe I, in my own thinking, am making the same mistake as the county central committee made when it went into that congressional district. However, I think in a special election you have different considerations.

Chall : It's a little harder, though, to run. Are there many candidates? That's always a problem.

Younger : There are a large number of candidates. If I remember correctly, there are only two or three at the most who are Republicans, which should help the young man, because there are six or seven Democrats who are, I would say, of relatively the same strength, or pretty close to the same strength. Whether or not Democratic party leader- ship will be able to get behind one of those, I don't know.

Chall: The fifty-fifty representation that we're supposed to follow for men and women in the political party--that was ostensibly sent up to give women a place in the party. Does it? Of course, we see that the women's division relegates them to secondary positions.

Younger: And there shouldn't be any women's division.

Chall: Well, there it is. But do you think women would havea place in the party at dl if it weren't for this fifty-fifty rule?

Younger: I think that that's almost a question that you can't answer because of the vast differences in personalities concerned. Some men are smart enough to know that they desperately need women. Whether they are smart enough to put them in leadership positions or not, I don't know. Whether a mediocre man can always defeat a good woman, I don't know, in party organization. But your observation about the federation is absolutely right. This does indeed color Republican decisions.

Chall: The federation women I've met--I've only met a few--seem to me to be the kind of women who, in the past at least, preferred to be working to a degree in the background, preferred to be working among women, preferred not to be tied to the party. They represent a thinking among women that has changed gradually. But the women who have moved into the party, among the vice-chairmen didn't most of them come out of the federation? I don' t know about Jane Zimmerman or Ruth Watson--but Eleanor Erickson, Gladys O'Do~ell, and Lee Sherry [Smith]?

Younger: Where are you? Are you on page two? Chall: I'm at the second page, yes.

Younger: I was looking at the first page.

Chall: They may have all started in the federation, but--

Younger : That's a misprint under 1948, if that means Margaret Brock instead of Marjorie Brock. Margaret has never been active in the federation, to the best of my knowledge.

Chall: She's where?

Younger: Vice-chairman South. Maybe that isn't Margaret. She uses the name Margaret Martin Brock.

Chall: 1'11 have to check that.

Younger: I think Marjorie Benedict was active in the federation. Pat Connich, on the other hand, was not, or I don't believe so. I think the federation was virtually non-existent in San Francisco. Florence Doe was active both in the federation and she could hold her own with any men's group any time, and she did, and still does. Edith Lehman was active in the federation. I think Geraldine Hadsell was probably relatively superficially active in the federation or perhaps the Southern California Republican women. Geraldine belonged to a lot of different organizations, and I assume that was true politically as well as otherwise. I was active in the federation, but I didn't come into the state central committee by way of federation activities.

Chall: If the federation women hadn't liked you, could you have been elected?

Younger: We were in the middle of a good-sized fight, and some did and some didn't.

Chall: Jane Zimmerman--she was in the county central committee, along with--

Younger : That's right. Both Jane and Pat Connich were.

Chall: Yes, they came out of the party.

Younger: I think the same is true of Ysabel Forker. Frances Larson was active in the federation, but that wasn't her main strength; her main strength was simple ability. She helped candidates. She did the hard work effectively. Arla Reeder was active in the federation, but I think she would have been elected whether or not she was. I really don't see the federation as being the controlling factor, admitting that there are a good many of them here that I don't know. Younger: I really just don't see a pattern of control. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the controlling votes are federation votes. Maybe they have a split otherwise, and the federation casts a couple of votes of control. I don't know. But I don't see it as being the single reason for women emerging.

The women whom I recognize all had excellent all-round credentials.

Chall: In terms of the role of the federation, I wondered whether their choices might have been women who were satisfied to work in the women's division and not interested in going further up the ladder where they would have to compete with men for position?

Younger: I suppose that's true to some extent. And, in a way, that's a point in favor of the federation. One can be active and responsible in politics without being a fund raiser or competitive in the formal party organization sense. This posture is going out of style but it had a very legitimate place when I was first active. Fine, intelligent but non-competitive, calm women had a good structure to turn to and work in. They generally liked and respected one another.

Chall: The women in this so-called fifty-fifty representation are appointed, of course, by the legislators, who are generally men, and I suppose that would have some factor too about who was appointed because the appointees generally follow the instructions of the person who has appointed him or her.

Younger: That's another one I'm not too sure of. It seems to me that it's more apt to be that a successful candidate nominates somebody whom he doesn't expect to be able to tell what to do, and doesn't expect to have to be troubled with it. I don't believe Tom Kuchel and I ever discussed the state committee.

Chall: Is that right?! I always thought that was rather important in crucial tests like who's to be the chairman or the vice-chairman of the party, for example. Maybe not the women vice-chairmen but certainly--

Younger: Really good, secure leaders try to persuade their appointees to arrive at the same conclusions they do and they probably expect to have some input, if there are important differences. But most good leaders are too secure to need to direct and/or deliver votes. Their appointees tend to be high caliber and there's no need to extract promises or anything of the kind. Only if you're careless or superficial about appointments do you need to worry about the consequences. Younger: Take, for instance, Evelle's support of Rosemary Ferraro this last year. I don't think it ever would have dawned on Evelle that any of the people that he appointed to the state committee needed to be persuaded. She was the best candidate. They were people who would have automatically voted for her, because they were people who fit his pattern of thinking. I think this is generally true. I don't think you very often find a successful candidate who feels that he's just got to control or he's got to have a talk with someone he's appointed. He isn't that nervous about them.

Maybe he has breakfast with his appointees or something, and they discuss issues at the meeting. But I think that leaders don't really find it necessary to control their nominees, because they didn't appoint weak people to begin with; that wasn't their object. Their object was to appoint people who could stand on their own two feet and really make a contribution. Quite properly the appointee often asks about a particular vote.

Chall: Well, that's interesting. There've been such extraordinary battles in the Republican and the Democratic parties over the position of chairmen--they usually don't pay much attention to the women--but over the positions of chairman,and vice-chairman in years past. You may be right. It just may be that you've already appointed people who were going to vote the way you'd want them to; you wouldn't have to say anything to them. But in a crucial test I've always thought you might have to.

Younger: Now, that's not as 'true when you're talking about somebody who didn't win. Those are the people who have to worry about how their appointees are going to vote, probably, much more than those who were strong enough to win the party nomination to begin with and who automati'cally appointed pretty strong people to the state committee. I was always appointed by former Senator Tom Kuchel and we never even discussed the state committee--or much else.

Chall: And those who win usually have some voice in the party, and the others won't just as soon as this is all finished?

Younger: No, that's not true and I think I made an inaccurate generalization. Again, when you get parties badly out of balance, you can have your party officials elected by people who represent people who lost.

Chall: I see. They still have some control.

Younger: Yes. And that I think is a very serious flaw. I wish I knew what the answer is, but there may not be a better answer. Sometimes when you go to a state central committee meeting, you realize that you've got just a handful of people who've ever had the experience of winning an election, and yet they're running your political structure. It takes on a different emphasis than you might hope for. Chall: I hadn't thought about that.

Your own feeling, then, about the women, is that they're kind of locked into this system, and it makes it rather difficult to get out from the chairmanships where they work solely with women?

Younger: Yes. I do notice a number of treasurers and some secretaries. I have a feeling that those were pretty much window dressing. [consulting list] I see here, for instance, state secretary 1958 and '56, '62--again, with an assistant.

Chall: It is the woman who was the assistant, isn't it?

Younger: Yes, and that's getting a little labored, I think.

Chall: Yes, that's just to get the woman in there perhaps.

Younger: I don't know; maybe you have to say that--

Chall: She generally represents the other end of the state, however.

Younger: --maybe you hope to train a woman. But once somebody is state chairman, he can decide how active anybody else is, if he wants to.

Chall: [consulting list] I see only two women as either treasurer or secretary. Otherwise, they're always the assistant. That's what's so interesting about these lists--you can see at a glance what's happened, and also you can sort of chart the moderate and consenrative movement too in the party.

Younger: I think a large part really has to be put down to fund-raising ability as opposed to anything else.

Chall: The party does need fund raisers--

Younger: It sure does; any political party does.

Chall : --and women are considered not as able to handle that chore as men?

Younger: They're not as able to. Maybe the time is going to come when they are, but so far, with very few exceptions, and they have not really been policy-maker kinds of women, big contributions do come from men, as a general rule. Margaret Brock and Athalie Clarke have been very effective fund raisers in the Republican party, and their records over the years would be probably more outstanding than any two given men over a longer period of time. You might find a man who was much more important in two or three campaigns, but Margaret and Athalie will always be there, will always be working and giving. And giving very generously. Chall: Are they independently wealthy women?

Younger: Yes, they are.

Chall: Yes, that makes some difference.

Younger : Carmen Warschaw is both, both a wealthy woman and a woman very much interested in party activities. She is, of course, a Democrat. I think it could happen in either party but it's an unusual combination.

Chall: That a person is both wealthy and interested?

Younger: And very much interested in the actual workings of a political party.

Chall: You feel that Margaret Brock and Athalie Clarke weren't as interested in the workings of the party as Carmen Warschaw?

Younger: And I would add Dess [Edessa] Rose. Perhaps I'm talking about the really rough infighting. They have never sought positions for themselves or any favors. I think that they're both, over the years, taken the position that they are going to help whoever gets the Republican nomination, regardless, but have not taken the position that they want to be on platform committees or want to make policy or control. Dess Rose is a lawyer and a smart businesswoman who has moved more into primary battles.

Chall: Women who like to work in the background helping the officials, generally the men?

Younger : hat's right, yes. But they helped me as much as 'they would help men. Maybe more. So I think you could say that they honestly are quite across-the-board with their assistance to Republican nominees.

Chall: But theirs is a background position?

Younger: That's right. But they work incredibly hard at their obligations. Now, they do get invited to meetings of smaller groups because of the tremendous financial input that they have. But I don't see them as swing votes .

You may find an exception in Pat [Patricia] Hitt because, if I remember correctly, Pat is quite wealthy. I think she has more of a background as a worker than those who have been straight fund raisers, and she certainly had more interest in particular candidates than some of the others had.

Chall: She's also been in business, I believe, so that she has a different approach, probably, in what she does. Younger: Yes, that's right. And it's also true of Edessa Rose.

Chall: So given the opportunity, women probably could be as capable as men in fund raising, media, in getting out the vote--all these things that are so important in campaigns, there would be women who could do these things if they were--

Younger: If they were so inclined. I think that the way women use their money is changing quite dramatically now; how soon it'll show up in the political process, I don't know.

For instance, the Palevskys [Joan and Max] are interesting. As I understand it, he made up his mind several years ago that he was not going to support candidates anymore; he was going to support issues. She is still contributing very heavily, pretty much across- the-board, both on issues and on Democratic candidates, so that as of now she may be the better bet as far as campaign contributions are concerned, between the two of them. It's necessary to point out that while they are spending the same fortune, they are divorced and spending it independently.

Chall: Some people have said that women in party organizations come in and move out, whereas men come in and move on.

Younger: I wish that were more true than I think it is. I don't mean that as any disparagement to some of the very fine women whom I've known who've been extremely active for many, many years. For instance, just looking at a volunteer organization like the heart association, that I'm familiar with. Aside from some doctors, who have a tremendous interest in the heart association, the volunteers who last the longest are apt to be a handful of'women who make a very real contribution. I think that's true of political parties as well.

Chall: I think the person who said this feels that the men in the party who move up into party offices, generally then become, oh, judges, or candidates for higher office, or are appointed to administrative positions, whereas women don't move on this way. They aren't, or weren't in the past at least, given the opportunity.

Younger: I think I'd have to argue with t.hat. And remember it's a relatively short time that women have been qualified in broader fields.

Chall: This may be true in the Democratic party more than the Republican, that women don't get very far beyond the women's section; they don't become the leaders of the party; they don't become candidates for office; they're not pushed into any leading roles in the party. Younger: Well, as my husband frequently says--I can't think of his exact words, but the business about somebody being drafted to run for public office is just plain foolishness--people are not drafted to run for public office! People -run for public office.

Chall: Would women have been in the past as supported in public office as some of the men have been?

Younger: Yes, particularly in districts that are difficult districts. I'm thinking of a lady who has run two or three times. I don't happ'en to think she's a particularly good candidate. I find her very shy. She goes to things, but doesn't have anything to say of any significance. And she always runs! Nobody else does. I have the feeling that this is something her husband does for her because he loves her very much and she'd like to be in public office, and that's about it.

You mentioned judgeships there. I don't know about the Democratic party. Maybe party activity helps secure judgeships. The Carter record is extremely partisan. But I don't think it does in the Republican party. If anything, I think it may be a detriment. That wouldn't be true in a state like New York, for instance; it wouldn't be true in a state where judgeships are partisan. But in this state, I really don't think that party work as such has very often led to judgeships. mall: I'm just looking at some of the names here of party leaders, and it's true--I don't really see many judges. Some have had government appointments.

Younger: Tom Caldecott you'll find there, but Tom's qualified without regard to whether or not he was involved in party politics. Loc [Laughlin] Waters was a U.S. attorney (and is now a federal judge), but that's a slightly different kind of consideration because that is strictly a partisan appointment from the White House. Federal judges--this is a standing joke: if you want to be appointed to the federal judiciary, the best thing in the world to do is to be a member of the Democratic party if there's a Republican president, or a Republican Senator. They seem to lean over backwards to the point that it's just ludicrous.

Chall: You mean to be nonpartisan in appointing judgeships?

Younger: To be anti-Republican. I can think of some federal judges who havebeen well-known Democrats, but I'm having trouble coming up with a single one who's been a well-known Republican. In California. Can you think of one? Chall: No, at least not from the list that I see here of the leading members of the party, but I really am not too well acquainted with the judiciary.

Younger: Spencer Williams-is a federal judge, but he was also district attorney, and he didn't win when he ran for attorney general.

Chall: He wasn't active in the party either.

Younger: No. Although Mrs. Williams may have been.

Chall: Maybe the parties are different.

Younger: I think there may be more feeling in the Democratic party of a reward for service, and I think it may even carry on in a family. It may be that a son or daughter gets the reward for the service of a parent. I believe Matt Byrne's father, for instance, was extremeley active in the Democratic party.

Chall: Matt Byre?

Younger: Yes. Justice Matthew Byrne. I don't know in what capacity. Both A1 and Clarke Stephens--Clarke is state appellate court and Albert Lee Stephens, Jr. is federal. Their father was very active in party politics. I don't think it would be hard in a good many cases on judgeships, particularly when you move into the federal area, to find people who, if not themselves, their families had been very much inolved in party politics.

Chall: Did Earl Warren appoint your husband to the bench?

Younger: Yes, he did.

Chall: Did that have anything to do with your activity in the party?

Younger: It's hard to tell. I doubt it. 9 husband was terribly well qualified, regardless of my activity. In fact, my husband had been county central committee chairman before he was recalled in the Korean War.

Chall: So he was an active party worker himself.

Younger: That's right. But there was nothing unique actually about my husband's appointment from the standpoint of other qualifications. And it could have been an obstacle. That was a standing joke about Warren. The remark was usually, "I didn't even know he was a 'Democrat until Warren appointed him." Again it's a manifestation of what happens quite naturally when a governor is elected in spite of a party organization. There is very little patronage. And a great deal of party resentment. Chall: I'm not thinking that the judges appointed by the Democrats were not qualified; they may very well have been. But many were also active party workers.

Younger: That's right. I think, if anything, probably Evelle's active party work would have hurt him with Earl Warren. Earl Warren was very much inclined to stay away from party workers.

Chall: What about your son? Is he on the bench?

Younger: Yes. He was appointed by Reagan. He came out with the state bar committee's highest rating on qualifications. That's kind of hard to beat. He's probably the only judge in California, and possibly in the entire United States, who has been both a street policeman and is an honors graduate from Harvard Law School. [laughter] That's an advantage for a judge. He's extremely active in the ABA. He teaches and has taught for a long time.

Chall: He's a Harvard Law School graduate, is he?

Younger: Yes--top ten percent. Phi Beta Kappa. Very personable. I think it's quite possible, when you come to an appointment like Eric., for example, that maybe he wouldn't have come to the governor's attention. But when you get down to whether or not to appoint, the qualifications will stand up against anybody's qualifications.

Chall: I guess there has to be some sort of initial screening process; somebody has to come to the attention of the governor.

Younger: That's right. But that's not all that difficult. I know of a young man now, a Democrat, who is just--although I think he may have changed his party registration during the years that he supported my husband--but he's just convinced that Evelle could get him appointed to the bench. Evelle could not walk into Governor Brown's office cold and say, "I want so-and-so on the bench." That doesn' t mean that Governor Brown's office doesn' t respect Evelle' s opinion on appointees. Obviously, if they've got somebody that for one reason or another they want to appoint to the bench, they're going to appoint that person to the bench, and probably regardless of the Bar Association's recommendation, unless they get a "not qualified" rating back.

Although I do believe that there are a very few judges on the bench--and not all appointed by Brown--I think some of those in that huge number that Pat Brown had just before he went out of office- gosh, how many were there? There must have been seventy-some or ninety-some; it was a tremendous number of judges to appoint. I think some of those got "not qualifiedn--not very many of them, but Younger: a few. I imagine that every governor gets some that the bar does not qualify and that he feels there are overriding considerations for appointing, and he goes ahead and makes the appointment anyway. I And most governors do take care of old friends as they leave office.

Chall: He can do that still?

Younger: Yes, and I hope they always can because absolutely the only control that the people have over the judiciary is the ability to vote on the appointing authority. This is what's been so confusing about the whole Rose Bird thing.* The appointing authority doesn't change. If the Commission on Judicial Qualifications votes against a particular appointment of the governor, the governor is still the man who makes the appointment. This has been very hard, particularly for Republican organizations, to understand. The vacancy doesn't suddenly become open to some burning, totally objective consideration if a particular appointee is turned down; it's still the governor's prerogative.

Chall: He could still make that appointment?

Younger: No, no, no. But if she had been turned down, nobody else would have stepped in to make the next appointment. The next appointment and the appointment after that, forever on, remains with the governor. If he appointed twenty people who couldn't get the votes out of the commission, he still has the authority to appoint. As long as you want any kind of an ability to control appointments, somehow it's got to be made clear that you've got to vote for a candidate for governor who's going to appoint the kind of people you want appointed; that's the only way you can influence judicial appointments.

Chall: Yes, I thought your husband made a very proper statement [laughter] and clarified the whole issue quite well, I think.

Younger: Most people didn't bother to read it.

Chall: Well, I read it [laughter] and people I know read it, and they all felt that it was the right statement.

Younger: Good. The thing that interests me about that is that here is a three-member commission. To my way of thinking, both of the other members of that commission violated their trust.

*Rose Bird was appointed Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, an appointment whi.ch involved much controversy. Chall: In what way?

Younger: They both had their minds made up before the evidence was in! Can you imagine being willing to go to court with your life on the line or looking at a murder conviction or something like that when you knew that the court already had its mind made up? ! Wouldn't that be perfectly horrendous? And yet that commission sits as a judge.

Chall: Is the commission, because of the way it's constructed, then, really window dressing, do you think?

Younger: I think it was more coincidence in this case than anything else. But it amused me that none of the media made the point that the two that really should have been looked at closely and criticized were the two who nobody paid any attention to because they made up their minds without hearing the evidence; they weren't interested in the evidence; everybody knew exactly how they were going to vote.

Chall: Yes, they did. It was only your husband who was put on the spot.

Younger: That's right! So the only one who kept an open mind and played it straight was the one who got criticized. [laughter]

Chall: That's a tough spot to be in, I'm sure.

Younger: Yes. They're both venerable gentlemen, but it seemed to me that their approach was about as wrong as you can get. Nobody noticed it. [Interview 9: May 26, 1977]## Chall: It's on my outline to talk today about the difference between being a candidate, a candidate's wife, and an officeholder's wife. From your perspective, does this take three different kinds of roles, maybe three different kinds of people? Have you found that you have to be a different kind of person to be a candidate than to be a candidate's wife than to be an officeholder's wife?

Younger : Oh yes, I think so. Both calls this morning had been indicative of that.

[Some problems, at this point, with the tape recorder, prompt the following recollection.]

Younger: I remember one time when I was on the air, the Strategic Air Command had me doing various things for them, largely because they were having trouble with recruiting, and they thought that a woman reporter might help. The first thing was to go through an altitude chamber test, and they were awfully glad to see me--I think it was out at Lockheed--because the only other woman who had gone through it had been killed in an airplane crash. [laughter] So they wanted a living woman. Younger : The next step was to fly cross-country in a jet fighter plane, which I did; I was either the first or second woman to do it. I carried a tape recorder with 'meall the way.

Chall: Talking into it?

Younger: Oh my, yes! I carried on a brilliant discourse [laughter] on what we were doing. All that equipment, like the oxygen mask and the rest weren't going to deter me!

Chall: The noise of the motor dominant behind, I'm sure.

Younger : There wasn' t a sound on it. [laughter]

Chall: There wasn't a sound when you got to your destination?! Oh no.

Younger: Not a sound all the way. And, you know, the cockpit on a jet fighter isn't all that big. I was wearing a parachute and all the other life- preserving devices, had a helmet. And of course there had to be an oxygen supply system. [laughter] Those are difficult circumstances under which to record.

Chall: Yes. So if it didn't get plugged in, that wasn't your fault.

Younger: But it was battery operated, and there was not one sound on the entire ,tape. [laughter]

Chall: Did you have to repeat the performance?

Younger: I wouldn't have repeated it for anything in the world. The only thing that I understood, I think, about the majority of the flight was the altitude at which we were flying, which was exceedingly high in those days--or seemed to me to be exceedingly high; it was something like sixty thousand feet. I could just picture something going wrong and being ejected and trying to find the right thing to pull. At least I figured I had plenty of time to pull it. I'm not sure whether the useless tape recorder would have ejected simultaneously or not.

Chall: What an adventure!

Younger: The one thing that I could make some sense out of was the gyroscope, so I watched it like a hawk.

Chall : To be sure you were on level.

Younger: And we were upside-down for a good part of the flight! I finally got up my nerve to speak through the speaker, and that was complicated too in view of the fact that I was wired to all of these things. I Younger: finally got up the nerve to try to contact the pilot, who of course was in the front compartment, and mention to him that things didn't look quite right to me on my set of instruments. After I had everything all arranged so that I could use my intercom with him, I looked up and he was no place in sight! There was no head showing in the front compartment. So I started sorting out my equipment, looking for the "Eject1' button and the proper rings to pull and tried to remember the sequence. I was a blank! I decided to let out a few appropriate yells to see if there was life up there, at least, and his head came up. We were in clouds; of course, and couldn't see a thing. He said, "Oh, I'm sorry, Mrs. Younger. I was just looking at a map, trying to figure out where we are." I felt much better knowing he was still there; I couldn't figure out what had happened to him.

I said, "If I understand anything about the instruments, we're upside-down. Does that bother you?" He said, l1 You're right. I think I'll turn us over," which he did. It was all a horrendous experience. And then to have none of it on the tape! [laughter]

Chall: Nobody would believe you. I-f you wrote it up, they'd say you were kidding.

Younger : Sixty thousand feet, in clouds, upside-down. [laughter]

Chall: Isn't there a feeling--you were strapped in, of course, but couldn't you feel in your head that you were upside-down?

Younger: That's what's weird about it. I guess that because you're so high anyway, you've already had all the sensations you're going to have, from the altitude. I guess that it happens all the time, that they're flying around upside-down.

Chall: And they don't know it. My, you were really a brave person to go on a flight like that.

Younger : I didn't know what I was getting into or I probably wouldn't have gone. [laughter]

Chall: Just take on anything that's a challenge; one new challenge after another. .

Younger: It seemed to me like it ought to be worth a couple of tapes anyway, and then to blow it completely!

Chall: So you weren't able to convince any potential wife of a flyer that all's well up there?

Younger: I don't think that the general experience would have gotten rave reviews. Chall: Maybe it's just as well it wasn't on tape. Now it's on tape. [laughter]

Women as Candidates

Younger: You wanted to know about the difference between a candidate's wife and an official's wife.

Chall: Yes, and a candidate, because you were a candidate. You can take them separately or talk from where you are today.

The Need to Have a Strong Community Identity: Mildred Younger's Experiences

Younger: Number one, I wanted to be sure to emphasize again about the experience of running--how much a part of running, for a woman, is an image which she has already created. I don't think that it's an image she can consciously create. But the public has to have some kind of a concept about a woman candidate, particularly if she hasn't a profession or if she doesn't have something that she can put on the ballot besides housewife. She's got to have taken part pretty heavily in community affairs, and she's got to have an identity.

One of the ballot measures that I remember being extremely active on had to do somehow or another with the size of families, and I can't for the life of me remember what it was.

Chall: That's an unusual ballot measure.

Younger: Yes. It couldn't have been a birth control thing that early.

Chall: This would be in the fifties.

Younger: That's right. But I remember that there was a very large--I mean physically large, a huge woman--Catholic lady who kept appearing on the opposite side on this particular ballot measure.

The early fifties were an ideal time, actually, for a woman to establish a political identity, because television was such a new quantity in elections and because so much bf it was local. There was very little national programming or syndicated programs at that point, so, that there were a lot of locally-oriented talk shows, and they needed people to appear on them. The debate format was Younger: extremely popular. As a consequence, there was a type of exposure available which is no longer available. I think that that was the reason why it was possible for a woman, without even thinking any particular--I suppose it was always in the back of my mind, but I really didn't ever feel like a feminist or like anything was unusual, because I'd been taking part on all these issues on the same basis as any of the men had. If anything, I was in more demand because television had so few devices for getting any interest at all, that a woman who was at all vocal was really more attractive to a person setting up a television panel than to have all men. So that women did take part at the same level as men did.

I think that that's something that is important both as a comment on a particular period and is important as a woman looks at herself, maybe not having the slightest idea that she's ever going to have any desire to run for public office, but feeling very much a part of the community.

But I do remember this very large Catholic lady who appeared as a member of a television panel one night. I've forgotten how many children she had; it was a very large number. We had only the one son; we had lost our second child, and then I'd had polio and it was the end of family. This was not by design.

I remember on the air that she made it perfectly clear that she was going to heaven and I was not, because of the number of children she had. This came as quite a surprise to me because I had never thought in terms of having children in order to get kind of a pass into heaven. That seemed like a peculiar attitude towards one's children to me.

I wish I could remember what ballot measure that was. It was one that was a very emotional one. It was statewide. But it was a very emotional one, and I think that the audience wasasshocked as I was when it finally came out what her real interest in this very large family was. It wasn't in the children; it was in her own destiny. Or at least that was the way she sounded on the air.

From then on, it was almost impossible to stay off the air with her, and I didn't want to be back on the air with her.

Chall: Were you one of the primary speakers on the side that you were taking?

Younger: Yes, yes, and I wish I could remember what it was.

Chall: It was in the early fifties, you say?

Younger: Yes. It couldn't have been birth control, but it had something to do with family planning or something of the kind. Chall: Maybe it had to do with welfare.

Younger: It might have. But somehow or another the size of family got into it. It was a peculiar issue, but I remember that that and the George McLain things became very emotional ones and they were good television. Considering that the competition was very poor in those days, they were just' plain good television if people got upset or angry or excited.

I think the thing that got me so deeply involved with the McLain thing was what happened the first time that I appeared on one of these so-called debates with McLain. We each had an opportunity for two or three minutes to make an opening statement, and I think we probably drew for places. He spoke first, and I was seated to his left. During the time that I was making my opening statement-- he was a great showman--he put his hand up, apparently in an effort to put it over my face for some reason or another. I reached up instinctively and put it down. But it looked apparently to the audience like he contemplated hitting me. From then on, this was a very desirable combination on the air.

It really was an accidental thing. I don't know why he put his hand up except that it was a visual distraction. Actually, from the direction in which we were sitting, it would have been very awkward for him to hit me. Maybe he was going to anyway; Idon' t know. It would have been awful. But it was things like that that caused some people to get a lot of exposure because this was what the public was seeing. And it was news.

Chall: And it was unrehearsed?

Younger: That's right. It was television in probably its purest form. Make-up wasn't a real consideration; it was black and white; there were no fancy angles or camera work. There was often only one camera.

Chall: Straight on, just talk.

Younger: Yes, and that's all it was. Something that you normally probably wouldn't notice, became a subject of great public interest. While certainly the audiences were not anything like they are today, those who did watch were very much tuned in to both the subjects and the people when they watched. So it was an unusual period, both from the standpoint of television and from the standpoint of participants.

Chall: These two events that you're talking about now occurred before you ran for office.

Younger: Oh yes, and many others did too. Chall: So you had quite a bit of exposure, then, besides just the work solely in the Republican party.

Younger: Oh yes. Then later, after I ran for office, I was co-chairman with John Krehbiel for Southern California for the measure to enlarge the state senate. (One man-one vote) That was constant television appearances again. And, of course, during the Warren-Werdel contest in 1952, I was speaking night and day.

Chall: You were on television then; that was '52, wasn't it?

Younger: Sure. The debates took place then too. Again because there wasn't other material available for television, or there was very little other material available to television. Remember, such things as network programming either didn't exist or was limited.

Chall: There were probably very few women who were as articulate or able in this form of debate as you were because that had been your basic training, and you'd always done it. You were really ready.

Younger: Yes. Liz Snyder, for instance, was excellent.

Chall: Yes, she was a debater.

Younger: Yes. There were some around, but we all had exposure that was quite out of proportion to what it would normally be. So you knew when somebody was interested in something, and the television programs in the paper said who the participants were going to be. As I say, it was pure use of television, and a very different use of television than we see today.

Chall: It wasn't anything you were striving for particularly; you just accepted it because it was given?

Younger: In one case--this was an aspect of television that I had not been aware of. This was just after the convention in 1952. I got a call from the producer of Groucho Marx's television show--one of those silly question things which was really just a showcase for him at the expense of whoever was asked to be a guest. I said, "No, thank you." I wasn't interested. I think I'd maybe seen the program once, and I wasn't interested.

It then took a very unusual turn because they said, "Well, if you won't do it, then we will invite Edith Van de Water to do it." This -was national. Edith was, you see, either in her middle seventies or possibly even eighty years old. They knew perfectly well what my reaction would be. She was a perfectly marvelous woman, but to portray, nationally, a spokesman for the Republican -party a woman of Younger: her age and general appearance was something obviously I'd do anything under the sun to avoid. It was an image that wouldn't help a political party.

Chall: You thought she would accept?

Younger: She wouldn't have accepted willingly, anymore than I accepted willingly. But when I started trying to figure out who they'd ask if both Edith and I said no--well, that's a chance you can't take that near an election. They could either have a young and relatively photogenic spokesman, or they would go to the opposite extreme. They could very well have put on, say, a Taft supporter who was infuriated at Eisenhower's nomination.

Chall: It sounds so strange for Groucho Marx's program.

Younger: Yes, it seems completely out of context. But politics was what was going on. They had a young man who was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, and me. But there was a little bit of blackmail there. The program was "You Bet Your Life."

Chall: So you did go on.

Younger: Yes. Believe me, I tried very hard to think of women who had been delegates, which was what they wanted, who would make the impression of a young, vigorous kind of political party, and there weren't very darn many. They wanted somebody from this area because, again, they were working on a very low budget, and they also wanted a woman. That was very limiting. It wasn't as though you could say, "Why don't you call Clare Booth Luce.''

Chall: There might be an honorarium attached.

Younger: No--you could win a few hundred dollars at most. But things like that did happen. In that case, they were very well aware of what television could do in the way of an impression. Choosing their contestants pretty carefully provided a better show. But, of course, they implied that everyone was clamoring to go on.

Chall: How did it turn out?

Younger : Oh, it wasn't too unpleasant and, as it turned out, there wasn't any question as to which one of the two of us got Groucho Marx's attention--I did. The young man just stood there and looked stupid. It wasn't fair; it wasn't the least bit fair to him. But it just happened that a young woman from this area, where they were doing their filming, was available. Now, if the reverse had been true, if some young woman who was a Democrat had emerged in any way prominently at the convention, the reverse might very well have Younger: been true. But it was just one of those opportunities you don't give up. I was campaigning for issues and candidates and a philosophy I believed in. And I think I understood where television was going and what it was doing earlier than most Republicans did.

Not all of 5t was pleasant or expected to be pleasant, but it was a funny kind of a period and a period when you could establish yourself with a rather large percentage of the population even if that was not your goal. That was pretty automatic.

Chall: Without doing any more than you would have been doing anyway; it may be easier being on a program than going around to half a dozen different Assembly meetings.

Younger: You certainly reached a very large audience free and that's good politics. But you go to the little meetings too.

Chall: This gave you a different kind of exposure.

Younger: Yes. That's one reason why I didn't think of it being nearly as unusual as, in retrospect, I realize other people thought of it being for a woman to run. After all, I'd been appearing just like anybody else on the programs. I was an established information source.

That was I think a very large part of the reason--trying to think back, as a result of your questions--that strange little period there when there was a television audience based on issues. Television was kind of feeling its way. And the process had some side effects.

Chall : Also, I suppose it would have enabled people who'd followed you all these years to realize that you were as capable of understanding the issues and parrying the questions, et cetera, as a man would in the legislature; that you just weren't somebody who decided, "I'd like to run,'' and really had nothing behind her.

Younger : That's right. But to get that exposure today would be impossible. Among other things, one would have to buy it, and the cost is prohibitive .

Chall : Right. Then, it is also understandable why you would be picked up immediately by the networks. They knew you already.

Younger : I was kind of a part of the labor pains for this gigantic baby industry. By the time I got back from Chicago, there was a contract with MCA in the mail. They never lifted a finger to do anything about it, but they covered themselves. They were beginning to realize where television was going, and they were going to sign up anybody and everybody who had any exposure. Chall: This is the background that you're giving me as to why you could go on as a candidate with a strong identity?

Younger: That's right, and women have to be prepared to create some kind of identity prior to the time that they run for public office. This 'is an ideal time for women candidates. Watergate and the election reform reactions to it left a terrible void. Much that seemed appropriate to "clean up" politics now stands as an insurmountable obstacle for a great many men entering public life. Conflict of interest laws and the like are not as hard for women to live with. What I'm saying is that both parties--but particularly the Republican party--have lost supporters, workers, and candidates. Traveling statewide I've been appalled at some of the candidates I've met.

But looking on the bright side it's a great time for women. Unfortunately, I don't think that women's organizations give women as much opportunity to create identity as they're going to have to have. Before they can become candidates, they're going to have to have an opportunity to get their feet wet. This means that the tendency to keep having the same group as officers, for instance-- in a club or an organization--is an extravagance. Otherwise, we're not going to expose women to leadership positions from which they might expand into their communities. It takes some leadership experience..

Let's face it--and the situation is very much the same in the Soviet Union as it is here, much more so than I had really expected-- women are still obligated, in the Soviet Union, as well as here, to hold down full-time jobs and to do the things that are traditionally female. When it comes to running the household, doing the dirty work, doing the things that are traditionally female things, they're still expected to do them. This doesn't leave much time to establish a community reputation. So I'm not sure that we're doing women any great favor as far as preparation for public office by increasing the number of women in the work force.

Chall: Do you think that women, if they're elected and appointed to public office, are going to bring something to it that men don't bring to the office? Are there differences in their approaches?

Younger: Yes, women are generally less subject to pressures. Maybe as we move into a time when women are more inclined to work outside the home, maybe that will not be as true as it is now; maybe they too will become as subject to pressures from their peers in business and the professions and that kind of thing. Younger: But at this particular point a woman is apt to be running for public office from a background of volunteer work or of being involved in the political process in an ideological way--perhaps a nonpartisan way, or maybe in a partisan way. But at least she does not carry with her debts and overtones of job obligations. Women in general do not yet tend to be perceived as greatly influenced by business and professions which are regarded as suspect.

What Differences Will Women Make in Government?

Chall: But women may come into politics eventually, if they do, the way men will--through the professions. Is that the way it would look to you? Some will come through what you're calling community volunteer'activity, which becomes a career in itself--

Younger: That's right.

Chall: --and they do get exposure. Others may not be from working women, any more than they are from the average working man.

Younger: That's right.

Chall: You'll have a professional cadre of women as you do men--lawyers, accountants, doctors. If we do, will the women who come into government from that kind of background be any different from the men in government? Will their perspectives be different? Will they offer anything different?

Younger: My guess would be that they will not be as different as if they come from a volunteer kind of background. They will be able to come into government only as the philosophical concept of what a woman is expected to do, regardless of whether or not she's also working full-time, changes. It hasn't really changed that much yet. As you know we've recently been in the Soviet Union so I keep making comparisons. In the Soviet Union, this is also the biggest complaint that women have, is that they are still expected to do the shopping which is terribly inefficient and time consuming, the mending, and the washing, and the ironing, and the cooking, and everything else--

Chall: And work.

Younger: That's right, and hold down full-time jobs.

Chall: Things have changed in this country. Younger: Yes, and I think they will in all countries, unless the economic situation gets to the point where the working woman is again forced into a position of working only at a very low level and can't advance and has no interest in her occupation aside from the fact that she's got to bring some money in.

Chall: That woman we tend to forget when we talk about the woman's movement. We forget that they're the ones who really should be earning equal pay for equal work and having opportunities.

Younger: Yes, and the vast majority of women are still working in that category. As I say, it's a shame to me that we've downgraded the domestic arts to the point that we have. They're worth a gold mine, among other things. The governess, for instance, didn't used to be, I don't think, anything like as unique as she is today. If she's capable of teaching children today, she's in teaching.

Is the Woman Candidate More Acceptable in 1978 Than She Was in 1954?##

Chall: The fact is that women do have it easier to be candidates today; they're not really looked ac as if that was a strange thing.

Younger: I don't think I admitted that. I don't think I went quite that far. I had not really in 1954 accepted some of the deep prejudice against women per se. And I don't think the voters had either. We had a special cause which overshadowed other considerations.

Chall: Do you feel any bit envious about the fact that it's generally simpler for women. I mean they're more acceptable. It isn't easier probably to run a campaign but it's more acceptable that women will be running in larger numbers. Are you envious at all about the different attitude toward women in politics than there was in 1954?

Younger: 1'm not even sure I concede that.

Chall: Okay, that's all right.

The Equal Rights Amendment

Younger: I think that women themselves may have a different perception of their role in all phases of life, but I'm not at all sure that the woman running is more acceptable. Look at what's happened to ERA. That says an aGul lot to me. Chall: I know that you have said in the past that you were a supporter of the ERA.

Younger: Yes, and I don't think it's going to pass.

Chall: It looks as if it won't.

Younger: My personal feeling is, and if an audience ever asks me, or if anybody who is terribly serious ever asks me, I would say, "try to soft pedal the nuts if you can."

Chall: Now, I think you were saying that you wanted to take care of the 'I nuts," to so£t pedal them, but they seem to have become--that's the opposition to the ERA--very strong politically. I don't really know whether the pro-side is going to be able to take care of it. You're probably right though that it's an indication nationally that there's a great undercurrent of feeling against equal rights.

Younger: . Yes, but I was talking about both sides. The extremists make the news and the more extreme the more headlines. But I see the under- current as a reflection that there is still a resentment against women.

Chall: Movingout inanyway.

Younger: Yes. Coming back from Washington, D.C. last week--I've recently been elected as one of the laymembers of the National Board of the American Heart Association which is fifty percent physicians and fifty percent laymen.

Chall: The National Board of the American Heart Association?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: That means if you're a lay member you're not a doctor?

Younger: That's right, and I'd been elected as one of the board members-at- large of which there are very few so I have to try not to be too provincial in my outlook. But I noticed coming back Thursday night that there was a tremendous number of members of Congress on the plane. I'm afraid that the old Thursday-Tuesday club is back in operation because the young lady at the airport in Washington said, "Oh, yes, every Thursday night is like this." We don't hear about this anymore. But, of course, the travel between Washington and California costs an awful lot of money, but there were number of members of Congress traveling. The United Airlines asked me if I would like to sit in their little VIP waiting room. It's the very small area that they have at Dulles and they were bringing the Younger : congressman in there. This is one of the advantages of having been out of things for those seventeen years. There are an awfully lot of them that didn't have the slightest idea who I was. [chuckles] Not that many of them cared, but I heard some conversations that I don't think would have taken place had they been aware. [laughs] So there are some advantages to being a woman and anonymous. They referred to two different women members of Congress in very derisive terms.

Chall: Is that so and are they women whom you would respect from what you know about them?

Younger : Yes, from what I know about them I respect them both. This came as quite a shock to me. Among other things it came as a shock because a substantial number of the members of Congress who were in the room are members of minorities. Of course, that's something I learned very late in my campaign is that members of ethnic minorities-- not all ethnic minorities; I don't think it's true in the Jewish community--but in the black community and in the Mexican-American community there is apt to be a strong prejudice against women candidates. I think it's based on the same economic factors, the same other factors that have caused problems over the years. A woman candidate quite possibly is seen as having less right to a position.

Chall: Taking away a man's job?

Younger: That's right. The prejudice is stronger in minority communities than in most communities.

Chall: So we really aren't as far along as we think we are.

Younger: No, I don't think so. But to go on to the ERA thing. I would then advise them after getting rid of the--not getting rid of, I don't mean it that way--but trying to change the image a bit, one reason being a kind of a sneaky one and that is to make the Phyllis Schlafleys look like the nuts instead of the--[laughs]

Chall: --extremists in the women's movement?

Younger : That's right, I'd rather have them on the other side, and I don't think you can get them on the other side without being sure that those who are pro-ERA are very responsible people. I think that's the only way that you make those who are opposed to ERA more visible and therefore less acceptable. Well, that's true of any contest. Younger: But I really would advise them to try and find an appropriate lawsuit and get it to the Supreme Court because I believe that the Supreme Court would now define a person or citizen very differently than it has in the past, and ERA might not be necessary.

Chall: The Fourteenth Amendment or something of that sort?

Younger: I don't know in what field it would be but it would be some place there has been an abuse of a woman's constitutional rights based upon sex and if you could get the Supreme Court to redefine citizen or person you might accomplish exactly the same things as you would with a constitutional amendment.

Chall: That's an interesting point. Maybe they're going to have to get to it. Do you think that the women's movement is now more respectable? That is, when you talk about the extremists on the feminist side, are they less visible than they were do you think? You always get abrasive people at the cutting edge of any movement, so are we still thinking in terms of the cliche "bra burners" who really aren't visible anymore? Are we still saying that without realizing that maybe NOW [National Organization for Women] and the National Women's Political Caucus have really changed the focus of the women's movement?

Younger: I think they have changed but I still think--

Chall: There's .a residue there?

Younger: And I think that the media is always going to go to that residue. I hear radio and television--I really don't see much television but I'm sure that it's just as true of television interviews as it is of the radio. I'll hear a story about some particular measure having passed maybe ten to four in a city council or ten to two, or some overwhelming majority , and the person that gets interviewed on the air is one of the two. It's never one of the ten.

Chall: You're getting a minority point of view all the time.

Younger: A minority point of view is what is considered the news in spite of the fact that it was the losing point of view and that it didn't even have a chance.

Chall: So you think that the media, as others say, thrives on the controversial angle and makes an angle controversial when it might not be?

Younger: But to get back to your earlier premise about the differences between yesterday and today, I don't think that a woman candidate comes as much of a surprise today. I think she has many of the same drawbacks Younger: as she ever had. I think that a really good woman candiate has a better chance than she had, but that's not necessarily based on anything except her own intelligence and her own way of handling herself. I don't think she gets any more breaks than she ever got. I wish I could say that there are many more women interested. I don't think there are. I think there are maybe more women interested who end up doing something about it.

Chall: A lot more will do it rather than hang back now?

Younger: I think that they may know their own strengths a little better, but there's still an awfully lot of women who would make better candidates than men would who simply get shoved out and for not good reasons.

Chall: What's the shoving out process?

Younger: Money--the ability to buy media time when you get into races where there isn't any other way to reach a large population. We had a woman candidate in this general area very recently who did almost everything wrong. The truth of the matter was that she would have made a good legislator. But either she didn't seek broad-based advice, couldn't get it, or didn't take it.

Chall : She was a bad candidate?

Younger: She was an incredibly bad candidate. Now, this was largely a matter of self image. She saw herself in a different way than what she needed in order to make an impact on voters. To find good management for any candidate is darn near impossible these days, at any price. So that a woman needs very definitely to know herself and to know her strength before she goes into a campaign or to have awfully good advice in lieu of the impossibility of hiring a manager.

Chall: Those are problems that men and women have and women are going to have it harder?

Younger: They've got it harder. That's right.

The Demands on the Wife of a Government Official#%

Meeting People

Chall: In your role as officeholder's wife, you've mentioned, at least in San Francisco, dinners with people like Cyril Magnin, Chancellor Bowker--those are the only names that I can recall right now, but they seem to be people whom the average attorney general would not Chall: necessarily meet in the course of his work; they might even be in different political parties. I was wondering what aspect of office holding this means. How does this come about?

Younger: He's interested in people. Cyril Magnin, for instance, is tremendously interested in the arts, and he doesn't necessarily feel that everybody in state government shares his interest in the arts, or shares it in a way that he feels the arts should be developed. There are state budgets for the arts, and there are potentials for misuse in fields like that, where a governor is apt not to be a specialist, that are really incredible. You can throw away so much money in misdirected support of the arts that there's nothing left for the constructive programs that would be meaningful over a period of time.

Chall: Does Cyril Magnin then seek out people whom he feels he wants to educate in this field? It's his mission?

Younger : That's right. He also wants us to be aware of relations with China and the Soviet Union and other parts of the world, California being a seaboard state. I believe that he has been the volunteer chief of protocol in the Bay Area for the State Department under several administrations.

Chall: So he seeks you out. Younger: It works both ways. In this case I think that Evelle sought -him out but sought him out without realizing the vast extent of his interests. You get into the Magnin family and, my gosh, you've got one of the historically most interesting families in the state of California! You've got the merchandising field, the arts, religion, you've got interests beyond belief in that one family. You certainly have many different and rather sophisticated attitudes towards the communist countries for a Jewish family to have-a very different perspective than you would get from a Jewish activist group, for instance. You find that kind of person in every community if you look for them.

Chall: I see. So this is a mutual association.

Younger: That's right. It's an enriching experience for us, and I like to think it is for him. For instance, his grandson is entering law school. So he brought his daughter, her husband and son along to dinner.

Chall: But you have been meeting with some top-flight leadership people, .at least in Northern California; I'm sure it happens probably all over the state. I was just interested in how all this comes about. Here you're in the role, then, of the officeholder's wife in which, there again, you're a combination of hostess, helpmate and, one Chall: would assume, an interesting individual on her own that the office- holder would need. But you could be a retiring person who was just in the background--the nurturing sort, as they call them.

Younger: Well--and don't forget the seventeen years of disability that forced me into that kind of a role, to a very large extent. In that sense I'm almost a stranger rediscovering living. Those years also forced him into a recognition of the problems of disability. He's very sensitive to the problems of the disabled. I'm sure that he would not have been as sensitive if he hadn't had to live with the emotional problems oFa person who was disabled.

Chall: I think that very few people could be empathetic without having lived through it in some way.

Younger: I'm not even sure that I'm empathetic, but at least I know it exists. I know there are people for whom you've got to make some kinds of concessions; I don't understand what they are. I don't think that I have any better attitude than anybody else does, but I think maybe he does. I think maybe living with a person with a disability or a handicap of some kind gives you a better insight into that person than the person himself has.

Chall: Into the person and the problems?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: Do you enjoy these roles 'that you have, as a candidate's wife and the officeholder's wife?

Younger: No, and I resist them' in a peculiar way. Well, that's not true; I enjoy some of them, yes, very much. I am utterly fascinated by the whole water problem, because that one I can understand. I resist going out to dinner, endless head tables, and that kind of thing. We are always late, because I am always late. I am told that this is an indication of just plain not wanting to go, and I don' t ! Believe it or not, I'm an introvert, and it's hard for me to realize that what I'll wear and what I say and do are all public property. I don' t like that.

Chall: You don't like the fishbowl atmosphere.

Younger: No, not at all. Often very superficial things are all that's noticed. This doesn't bother Evelle to anything like the extent that it bothers me, and it doesn't bother him to the extent that it should bother him. So I nag at him about that too.

Chall: You mean it doesn't bother him to be circulating in a fishbowl atmosphere? Younger: That's right. He likes it.

Chall: Well, he's a real public man, then.

Younger: Yes, except that he can be a brilliant conversationalist and usually isn't. Among other things, he is usually much less sensitive to his companions than he should be.

Chall: Isn't this what happens to a public person?

Younger: Yes, and it shouldn't. On the other hand, people do approach you with the darndest things and the most inappropriate things. Attorneys general do not "fix" drunk driving tickets, for instance. And you do get an awful lot of, "You don't remember me do you?" in receiving lines. I say, if I'm sufficiently fed up, "Of course I do, and how is Mabel?"

Keeping the Full Schedule##

Younger: Many problems which wives of officials have are attributed to other causes but are really the result of just simply not being able to be a person.

Chall: In your own?

Younger: That's right. Nobody could be more generous and more open minded about what I ought to be able to do than my husband is. But the fact remains that his schedule comes first. It must. I find it so controlling that I'm totally worn out when I haven't done anything, and I think it's just f rustration--f ighting an insoluble situation.

Chall: I suppose that if a person had a job as a state legislator or congressman and was settled in one place it might be easier. Of course, nowadays, they travel considerably back and forth to Washington or Sacramento. But your husband travels around to--what was it? Four different offices?

Younger: Yes, and it's constant.

Chall: It is constant?

Younger: Yes, it is absolutely constant. He feels that the attorney general should be physically present in the three major offices every week-- often twice and often in other parts of the state. I don't know how he does it.

Chall: I don't either. I wonder what it's like for him. Younger: He's obviously an entirely different person. I started out by saying that he needs a rest; we both need a rest. The rest is as much a psychological rest as a time rest; you just need a change of pace. Not that we don't have a marvelously varied existence, but it's the constant pressure to fill everything completely full. Evelle tends to push all of the time and that's awfully hard to live with. I'm always so amused when I hear poor young Governor Brown talking about the long, long hours he works. The truth of the matter is that anybody who's been in an elected office any length of time at all has been working those same hours, and there is no thing unusual about an eighteen-hour day.

Chall: It seems it's par for the course.

Younger: That's right. That's the rule and not the exception.

Chall: So your husband puts that time in, .no matter where he 'is?

Younger: He sure does, he sure does.

Chall: I just wonder about these kinds of hours and the times that people keep. Apparently it's necessary, but it seems to me that one has to give up a tremendous amount, not only the person who is in public office, but his family or her family.

Younger: It dominates everything; it's the dominant factor in every decision. I know few political wives who are really able to maintain any personal identity.

Accepting What Is

Chall: So you just have to be prepared for it. You have to say, "This is the life I want."

Younger: Or "This is the life I've got," if you're the wife.

Chall: Oh yes, yes. If you're the spouse, I think that's true. Many, of course, aren't accepting it; and at one time they might not have accepted it, but they would at least make a pretense of accepting it. Now there seem to be so many more divorces among public officials than there used to be, because it's accepted, I think.

Younger: You mean because divorce is accepted?

Chall: Yes. Also because it is now accepted for public officials. Younger: Yes, I think that's altogether true. I've forgotten, but it seems to me that the group in society that has the highest divorce rate is police officers and then public officials, which is kind of an interesting comment. But I'm also talking about a very serious escalating problem--personal safety. This didn't used to be true; there didn't used to be the element of threat that there is now with being in any way associated with the public. It's very definitely there now. It shows up in odd places; it shows up maybe at the level of a city councilman in a very small town. He'll get a threat on his life or a threat against a member of his family or something of the kind because of a vote that in no way justifies a violent reaction of that kind.

We used to think that your ability to vote at the polls was the way that you changed the system. Now there seems to be a rather appallingly large part of the population that thinks the way to change the system is by blowing it up, and if there happens to be human beings around, well, so what!

Chall: So the peace officers' wives, I guess, feel threatened.

Younger: I'm sure they do. As do public officials--particularly those who deal with law enforcement.

Chall: They feel they don't want this kind of life.

Younger: Yes. It can be a constant feeling that their husbands may or may not come home. Maybe you shouldn't let threaxs and fears creep into your thinking, but they do somehow. They creep into it, and the first thing you know, they become the dominant factor in your thinking. It tends to paralyze you.

[This portion was added by Mrs. Younger] Let me mention a couple of examples. There was, of course, the kidnap threat against me here in San Francisco. It was irrational, remote, and unfounded. I was admitted to the University of California Hospital here. The state employs parolees as a matter of policy. Less than twenty-four hours after major experimental surgery the threats began. And all that had to happen was the computer work on the hospital registration. A parolee from San Quentin was notified by a friend and we lived with continuing very tangible threats for months. The man committed a number of additional felonies before he crossed the Canadian border and was rapidly convicted and jailed there for a felony.

I'm very sure that there are many threats against my husband of which I'm not aware. Certainly during the Manson trial, for instance, intimidation was constant. He was district attorney of Los Angeles County at the time. The deputy who finally tried the case was not first choice. There were life threats and kidnap threats. Younger: The threats against Evelle weren't even mentioned in the media. Those against the deputies who bowed out worked. There were no limits on what that "family" and the sympathetic hangers-on could think of.

The Watts riots are another example. The district attorney was essential to working out the massive problem of the huge number of arrests. Fortunately, Evelle had been a judge and knew both the process and the personnel very well. A quick arraignment is required in California but when arrests are by busloads the legal problems are overwhelming. The city was on fire and there was panic--but the job of protecting individual rights and sorting out genuine instigators and criminals from those who just got swept up in the excitement meant twenty-four-hour-a-day courtrooms and many other unusual and--I thought--brilliant innovations. We flew in over the conflagration. It was sickening. We were met by men armed with shotguns. They lived in the house for days. I remember the shotguns on the living room furniture. It was sickening. And no one knew the dimensions of the threat.

Evelle's office was bombed when he was district attorney. It was bombed again when he was attorney general. The state car went up in flames in seconds during a totally unscheduled stop in the state garage. There wasn't enough left for the fire department to analyze.

Violence just because you're there is a price people in public office pay. It's irrational but it's one of the considerations. [end of written portion]

Decorating the Attorney General's Offices////

Younger: You know, nobody has cared about the attorney general's physical offices. They've gotten very big and very worn. Four offices-- San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento. They've all moved except San Francisco, and what they did here was. they moved out the--I think it was the Bureau of Narcotics to get more office' space. That's the only reason they're not in leased spaces here (in San Francisco) now.

Chall: Where were they before?

Younger: Well, of course in Los Angeles the state building was condemned, then immediately after it was condemned, the Weather Underground blew up my husband's office and an elevator [laughing], and that sort of accelerated the move into leased spaces. In San Diego they just plain outgrew the offices. The same thing happened in Younger: Sacramento. In each one of the cities we've moved into these terribly sterile, huge areas, and there's no budget at all for any pictures on the wall or anything. We've really been scrounging. The staff seems to appreciate any possible help on making the offices more pleasant.

. It used to be, of course, that state prison inmates made the furniture for state offices. Some of it is very handsome and beauti- fully made. And we have a good deal of prison-made furniture in all of the offices. But since the attitude of prisoners has changed so much, they no longer turn out the furniture, and when they do it it's done obviously in anger.

Chall: So the whole thing looks like a government-issue office?

Younger: It is literally a government-issue office. A combination of the new concept in building, you know, where you build by the square foot and you do it in ways to cut down on costs, plus the total lack of budget. There is a budget for the attorney general's private office but it's very difficult to divert any of it to other areas. I suppose we've had five miles of wall space in the various offices and have barely scratched the surfaces in decorating.

Chall: Are you doing it or the wives, or do you have any other--

Younger: Well, where there's anyone who's interested, then they '11 take care of their husband's own office and try and personalize it and make it pleasant. And other ones, obviously nobody is interested, and they're pretty dismal. But, I've taken over more offices and reception areas and that sort of thing than there's any budget for and the budgets are specific and very rigid--often to the detriment of the overall project.

So, we've tried to save money or do without wherever possible. But what we've done is approach companies that do a lot of photography of the state, in particular, and ask them to loan us copies for the enjoyment of the public that comes into the offices, and then we get them framed by any means humanly possible. But because of Proposition 9, the contributed source almost dried up ; companies were unsure of making political gifts to the attorney general. So what we've done is simply ask them to loan them to the office, and they can reclaim them at any time that they want them.

But we can't even afford to buy the state pictures, which I think is both sad and funny. You know, you would think that the state would be delighted to have their own--for instance, the Highway Department has fine pictures. But they're something like eighteen dollars a piece, unframed. And we have no budget for eighteen dollars a photograph; it's rough! It doesn't go very far on all those blank walls either. Chall: Well, you're doing your thing as the wife of a public official.

Younger: [This portion was added by Mrs. Younger] That's a pretty sad comment. But I'm afraid it's true.

There was a marvelously imaginative and creative administrative officer in San Francisco who knew the ropes very well. We formed a lovely conspiracy in the state's best interests and accomplished a great deal. Silvio Ronzone has since retired but he was an unused resource who didn't mind working with the elected boss's wife one bit. Some of them were patronizing and rigid beyond belief. But not Mr. Ronzone.

Nobody had ever challenged him to do more than very routine work before and he positively glowed when his talents were finally utilized.

He always insisted on taking me to lunch during which time he would attempt to educate me on the subject of the state's policies-- what could and couldn't be done. And, of course, purchasing policies deeply influence what can be done by an interested wife.

My husband shared the view that reasonable pride in the office environment would improve his and his deputies' bargaining position when dealing with private counsel. The barren, thread-bare offices were not only unpleasant and unnecessary they are a hindrance in the practice of law. We were deeply indebted to Sunset Magazine, Security National Bank, Pacific Gas and Electric, and a number of other organizations which had great libraries of both historical and contemporary Californiana and people who understood our problem. They donated large collections of framed or mounted photographs which made marvelous handsome offices.

I tried to keep a very low profile. The office wife is a very mixed blessing but space was being made interesting and attractive and it was worth the long, long hours of fighting the budget, and trying to work out the problems. Among other things, the complete collection of pictures of past attorneys general didn't exist--nor did the money to frame them--outside of Tijuana! There wasn't a state seal in any of the offices (although the state was reluctantly prepared to buy one of the commonly used versions which even has the wrong number of stars on it). Most legislators, congressmen, and even United States Senators buy this very careless version at a very substantial price-and we turned it down, much to the amazement and eventual satisfaction of the state's purchasing agent. Once he got interested, he loved digging for an authentic state seal. There is also a pretty poorly designed seal for the attorney general's office. Justice Stanley Mosk held a contest in a metal working class in a state vocational school which eventually produced that effort-along with a kind of slang Latin motto for the office. It was adopted and made official but the only version was hammered out by Younger: a kid who had long since gone on to other things. Twentieth Century Fox made--and donated--large plastic copies, that looked very real, mounted on big square fabric-covered squares of thick wallboard behind each A.G.'s desk. They weigh almost nothing but they look great.

Often Mr. Ronzone and I had trouble getting help with even the physical parts of decorating. His health was kind of frail so we'd join in the projects. We hung hundreds of pictures between the two of us. We filled holes in the plaster and made many relatively discreet changes in furniture arrangements and combinations. Often nobody knew that the grimy female was the boss's wife.

One time in Sacramento we had managed to find about three hundred dollars for pictures and accessories for the main reception room. We had compromised but the ingredients weren't bad. I was hanging a large, but mass-produced, square oil painting we'd bargained for and finally bought for thirty-five dollars when a woman deputy walked through and said, "Well, I suppose some people like that kind of thing."

I don't think she knows to this day who the laborer was. Nor that the only abstract painting in that reception room was stolen-- and it had to be by someone who had a key--within forty-eight hours after I hung it. It was a good little painting and someone liked that kind of thing.

This is too long a dissertation but in many respects it sums up the role of the elected official's wife. And I do mean possessive. She is an owned commodity with eccentricities to be gossiped and quarreled about. But very few attributes. As Dick [Richard] Bergholz reveled in saying to me when I was powerless to fight back, ItYou remind me more and more of Pat Nixon." He meant to be cruel. But the comment is thought provoking. You can't be a person. You're part of the inventory. And nobody let's you be an asset very often. [end of written portion] VIII EVELLE YOUNGER'S CAMPAIGN FOR GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA: THE EXPERIENCES OF THE CANDIDATE'S WIFE, 1977-1978

The Early Stages of the Primary Campaign##

Chall: We talked once before about the kinds of problems campaign people will bring to a woman but not to a male candidate.

Younger: That's right. For instance, I mentioned the call that made me angry this morning [May 26, 19771. A very fine, professional fund raiser, putting on a fund-raising dinner for Evelle in a couple of weeks, called here with a long list of calls, of things that I was to follow through on because she just simply doesn't have the time to do it.

Chall: Doesn't she have a staff to do it?

Younger: Of course--at least people are being paid and are being paid very well. Beyond which, I don't know how many letters and calls we've had from people who want to volunteer, who are very capable people. But her concept, in spite of the fact that she's a woman, is that the person of last resort, when something has to be done, is obviously the candidate's wife, and it was thoroughly unreasonable of me to say, "I'm sorry, but I'm just as busy as you are." Chall: It -was unreasonable of you? Younger: As far as she was concerned, I was just totally temperamental when I said "no." For instance, she'd made a contact with somebody or another. She said, "He -has to be called back. Somebody is going to have to go out there and hold his hand, and you have got to do it." I said, "Forget it! I don't have to do it, and I'm not going to do it. Furthermore, I am very bad at fund raising. Don't try to unload it on Evelle, either." Chall: Does that mean that you're not fulfilling the role of the candidate's wife?

Younger: Right. I'm not being cooperative. But I don't think the candidate's wife is an effective or appropriate fund raiser. And if I said "yes" and got less than expected, guess who's to blame!

Chall: Of course, prior to this when he was a candidate, you weren't able to do these things as well as you can now; less might have been expected of you. Does your husband expect more of you as a candidate's wife?

Understanding State and Local Issues

Younger: Yes, but he doesn't know it. Among other things, he's unique in that he really campaigns all the time. He keeps a schedule that is unbelievable. Now, he does not expect me to go to everything with him all the time. I don't go with him nearly as often as he would like. But there are obligations that don't show. Like clean shirts and the like. Really,'itls much more complicated. For instance, tomorrow I'll go to Bishop by car; he'll fly to Bishop from Ventura. We'll go first to a reception at a county supervisor's home; then there'll be a dinner given by law enforcement people at the Elks Lodge; the next day, he's the grand marshal1 in the Mule Days parade. Then we go out to the fairgrounds where there are things like a square dance, and rodeo, and other events. The morning after that, on the way back, there'll be a brunch at a very interesting but very different kind of a private home in Lone Pine. That night, we go to dinner at Chasens (I have a feeling I'm not going to look like I belong at dinner at Chasens) with a group of people who are working on his banquet. If the lady who called this morning had any sense or, perhaps, sensitivity, she would have called one of them, because they're all very good in the fields that she was concerned about. I'm not. Further, my guess is that Evelle would agree that direct fund raising is inappropriate for me to undertake. I have no way of knowing about cases pending in the attorney general's office or about a multitude of political implications which could be drawn by giving the candidate's--and the attorney general's--wife a contribution. That's a field I better not get involved in.

The next morning.at nine o'clock I leave for New York for the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. It's a full schedule!

Chall: That's a very killing schedule, actually, because you do have your own activities, which are rather time consuming. Younger : Yes, and, incidentally, I hope they give him dimensions he would not have if I did not have them. This is important with a man like Evelle, because he has a very single-minded approach to things. If his horizons are going to be broadened, a good part of that responsibility is 9 fesponsibility.

Chall: So you see yourself as broadening the candidate--bringing a broader perspective to the candidate--as your role as the candidate's and office holder's wife; not going out and raising funds, or writing letters, or doing the campaign chores, which he's paying to have done?

Younger : That's right--or answering the phone, or something like that, or keeping the card files straight.

Chall: In other words, you do not fall into the role of the typical candidate's wife?

Younger : I'm not sure who the typical candidate's wife is, really.

Chall: Any more?

Younger : Yes. She can be any number of people. In many cases, ultimately-- in a superficial but essential way--she's actually the campaign manager. Evelle would like to have me involved in all of the meetings on issues. I don't think that that happens very often.

Chall: No. Are you going to? Can you do it?

Younger: I can't manage it, in many instances, because they'll be in different parts of the state, and we can't either spend or justify the expenditure of the time or money to get me to the meetings. But frequently I'll see an issue coming, or see an inconsistency or something like that, that everybody else is really too busy to see. I guess I'm really talking about having a different perspective.

The other night, for instance in the Bay Area a very distinguished gentleman asked me if Evelle had worked out an appropriate tax program, particularly as related to the rapidly growing state surplus and the Serrano decision. The answer turns out to be "no," but I had to check with a number of people. And, having found a gap, that will now become a priority.

He feels that he has a responsibility, as attorney general, to originate and sponsor legislation in many areas, or to ask that legislation be introduced--find people to introduce legislation. Frequently it's never even known that his office has originated and often drafted it. Either it'll be legislation that corrects language in a measure that is incomprehensible as it was originally written or Younger: doesn't say what it was meant to say. Sometimes it will be in an area that doesn't seem to be of particular interest to the attorney general, but he may be the first to realize that there are some serious legal problems that have to be anticipated. ,I a Chall: But in order to run for governor, he's got to have that issue ready, doesn't he?

Younger: In order to do his present job, he's got to have that issue ready. Obviously subject priorities vary, but for instance, on the question of the tax package. Just by coincidence, one of his top staff members was on the same flight I was, coming down from San Francisco the next day, following this discussion. I asked him about it. He said, "We know that we've got an obligation in that area, but we don't have anybody on the staff who really can handle it. We need help with it." Tax law is highly specialized and pretty complicated. Oversimplifications are popular but lead to unpredictable legal consequences.

You see the state's in the complicated position of using tax money that is collected by the state for a specific and limited earmarked purpose for other, unrelated needs, for instance, quite possibly to equalize local taxes for the running of local school districts. It's very easy to write attractive legislation that won't hold up in court and will cause serious economic maladjustments. This is true of almost every field. It's very, very easy to get into legislation that can't be defended or is just plain unconstitu- tional. Evelle often finds himself looking at proposed--or adopted-- legislation that is full of problems. He tried to anticipate them. But it takes expertise both to identify and clarify such problems.

On Proposition 20, the coastline initiative, he could anticipate-- he and his staff could anticipate--that there were going to be problems for which there were no legal precedents and that some of them could be avoided if the environmentalists and the developers were willing to sit down and talk with each 'other.* He tried repeatedly, statewide, to get some kind of dialogue started figuring that if he could get a group to sit down, that they could begin to identify some of these areas where there were going to be serious legal problems. But once people have a cause, it's pretty hard to get them to compromise. And the initiative process leads

*The California Coastal Zone conservation Act, an initiative statute better known as Proposition 20, passed by a substantial margin in the November 1972 election. It established planning and land use control powers along the state's 1,100 mile shoreline. Younger: everyone to think it's winner-take-all. There is the whole question of inverse condemnation. The question of taxes levied on a piece of property that you can't use for the purpose for which you bought it. The law has changed. The property has lost its value to that owner but government continues to tax it at the same rate. All these things are matters that his office ends up having to try the cases on. An awful lot of the questions go to the United States Supreme Court because they are new fields of law.

If you can anticipate some of the problems by means of persuading the people directly involved. to sit down together, you can then draft legislation that makes much better sense.

Chall: Is his problem a matter of how much money he has for budgeting his office?

Younger: That's part of the problem. Another part of the problem is the extreme limitation on the number of appointments he can make. He is a genius at working with people already in place; finding the best talents for particular jobs. But another part of the problem is that legally he cannot even indicate that he'd like a particular person hired for a vacancy.

Chall: Why is that--in his office, he doesn't have appointing powers?

Younger: Believe it or not, it's a criminal offense if he suggests a person for employment beyond his very limited top staff.

Chall: In his own office?

Younger: That's right, yes. Which is ridiculous! There's no other constitu- tional officer who has the same breadth of responsibilities, to begin with. The state controller, because of the inheritance tax appraisers, has eternal problems. But there's no other office that has the tremendous number of employees. Evelle has precisely eight appointments he can make, and there are thousands of employees in the Department of Justice: civil and criminal and legal, supporting staff, investigators, all kinds of technical specialists--all kinds of things for which you need sp.ecialists, and he's got to take them from civil service ranks.

I think his military experience helps here. But at different times, you get different kinds of people interested in public law .offices. They're not necessarily balanced people, interested or able to deal with many different assignments. There was a period-- and I think it's let up, to some extent, now--when virtually everybody who applied for a job was an environmentalist. This is fine up to a point. But if you've got a disproportionate number of people who insist that they want to work in that particular department, some of /- Younger: them end up by deciding that they're being discriminated against and that he [the attorney general] really isn't interested in the environment b.ecause they're not personally assigned to that department and allowed to run it.

If you've only got so many slots where you can use an environmentally oriented lawyer, there isn't anything else you can do except put him in a different job! And he's not going to like it.

Evelle would like to be able to hire more women. They do, as a matter of office policy--and he can do this without being specific about which women--place a much greater emphasis on the number of women lawyers who are hired, than is represented in the number of women who apply for jobs. He doesn't think that he necessarily always gets the best of the applicants through the system; no matter how good the people are to whom they're giving both the oral and the written tests. They may hire the people who are the least apt to stay, for instance.

You see, the state can compete, from the standpoint of salary, pretty well up to a certain point.

Chall: I see--the hiring level.

Younger: That's right. But you get past that point and you don't necessarily get people who are going to stay with the office, and yet they're going to be senior enough that they've got to be moved to more senior positions. That's a constant problem.

Chall: When it comes to running an office and campaigning for another position, as he probably is doing now--according to all the press-- that I guess means that he has to be thinking in a broader way. Even if he doesn't have people on his staff who can do the work that needs to be done as he sees it, still, if he wants to be governor, he's got to keep branching out, wholly aside from what he's doing now, which means that he's taking on a tremendous burden in terms of time.

Younger: That's right, and he always has worked incredibly long hours, regardless of what his--

Chall: He has a lot of stamina, then?

Younger: Yes, and he takes very good care of himself physically, to the point that it drives me nearly out of my mind at times. He sets aside a specific amount of time each day for exercise. There's no question at all but what it pays off in energy. Chall: He'd have to have energy. Candidates, holders of jobs at the kind of top level position he has--must have energy. This I would think is true of a man as well as a woman.

Younger: I think probably more true, in a sense. I think that women probably are inclined to generally have more nervous energy than a man has. His nervous energy level is rather low, but he can wear anybody out on the basis of steady pace. The reason that he can is because he is an absolute nut about an organized exercise program.

Chall: Exercise time for him is then what other people would consider a rest period? Does he require a certain amount of sleep or quiet?

Younger: Yes, and he sleeps very easily, which is infuriating! There's nothing that makes me madder than to be all wound up on something that I think he desperately needs to be alert to right then and there, and to find out he's sound asleep.

Chall: That's his saving, isn't it?

Younger: Yes. It's hard on a wife, but it's marvelous from his standpoint. And, of course, I'm really very grateful. He goes to sleep the minute he lies down. This is- one reason why we have to maintain the residences that we do; if he had to spend time packing and unpacking and waiting for a room to be ready, not having a regular telephone number, not having a place where he could have meetings set up ahead of time, he would lose so much time that he couldn't run the office the way he does--which is to cover the whole state. He covers the entire state just about every week of the year, Very rarely does he have a weekwhenhe isn't in the Los Angeles office, the San Francisco office, and the Sacramento office.

Chall: One week--

Younger: Every week. About every second or third week, he also goes to the San Diego office in the course of the same week. And he schedules "zone" meetings in other parts of the state year round. This means that he's got to use his time very differently than I, for instance, use mine. I'll spend a ridiculous amount of time packing for this weekend in Bishop, because I know that the way that I will be judged by the local ladies will be by my appearance, to a very large extent; I won't have a chance to meet or know most of them.

Chall: They don't really care too much about you; in this role you're an adjunct.

Younger: That's right, to a very large extent. Yet petty snap judgments can be very hurtful.

Chall: You're willing to accept that? Younger: No, I'm not really willing to accept it, but it has to be done.

Chall : As long as that isn't your total role in life, you're willing to do it as it's necessary?

Younger: Yes. Sometimes people approach me who can't get to him and I'll hear things and understand local issues a little better. I also try to set goals appropriate to an area, which gives me some control of my schedule, and also shows an interest, which I have anyway, in a local area. This gives me the kind of change of pace that -I need to keep my sanity.

Chall: How do you do that?

Younger: To use Bishop as an example. There are all kinds of possibilities. I may know more about the history of the Owens Valley than most of the people who live there, because my father was very interested in it, primarily because of the water situation. We spent many vacations camping out and fishing on the east slope of the Sierras.

I won't insist on going all the way to Mono Lake because I've flown over it recently; I know how very low it is. But I will want to see some of the dams and what condition they're in. Are they producing capacity hydro-electric power? In many parts of the state the water projects aren't producing full power. I will want to check on--superficially, of course; I obviously am no expert-- whether or not it seems to me that there is more groundwater being used in the Owens Valley than I remember. This is a point of contention locally.

Chall: You mean you're going to be looking for actual subsidence, or what?

Younger: No--the amount of land being used for crops, the amount of grazing, that kind of thing. True, they use their land very differently than any other part of the state does because they have a very different situation. But if the Los Angeles Department of Vat-er and Power is being honest about the increased percentage of ground- water that they want to develop and redistribute, most will go to use in the Owens Valley. The local people say that's not true but I'd kind of like to see it rather than read about it.

Chall: So you want a special schedule of your own, then.

Younger: Wherever I see a place that it looks to me like maybe I can accomplish more by going in a different direction, I'll do it.

Chall: Can you arrange this ahead of time?

Younger: Only to a very limited extent. Chall: That sounds like quite a special kind.of trip you're asking.

Younger: And this I try to do to his trips because, in the first place, I find that he too gets a certain amount of relaxation and enlargement out of a change of pace--or subject matter. If I find something that looks to me to be particularly interesting, yes--he'll see it or he'll at least be aware of it.

Chall: Because it sounded to me as if your schedule in Bishop that weekend, and coming back, is just about breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Younger: That's right, which he could do anyplace. I would like him to be learning from it, as he does it, and not necessarily just learning what people tell him. After all, he goes to different areas as much to learn as to bring state government to them.

Chall: So how are you going to be able to do this little trip that you have in mind, this little side trip?

Younger: Oh, 1'11 manage to get something in. There'll be some things that he'll pick up that he wouldn't pick up if he weren't pushed into it. It's not that he doesn't want to see more, it's that the schedule runs away with him unless I add some priorities.

Chall: When you get to a place, you still can make arrangements if you talk to the proper people?

Younger: If I've got some idea ahead of time.

Chall: And you usually try to?

Younger : Yes.

Chall: That takes a bit of thinking ahead and planning, studying.

Younger: Yes, and it takes a certain amount of interest in the background of the place. For instance, I'm willing to bet that the gates are already locked on the trail that goes to Mount Whitney. Did you know that they have to lock the gates on that trail now?

Chall: Because of the fire hazard?

Younger: No. Because many self-proclaimed nature lovers, who climb to that height, leave so much trash behind them that it is literally impossible to allow the people in the numbers' that would like to go. They have to sign up ahead of time. Last year I think they were only able to allow thirty people a day. Chall: Well, we have to preserve the land. We'll have to be careful or we may destroy it while we're saving it.

Younger: That's right. Here they are--nature lovers climbing all the way up there in those glorious mountains in order to leave behind the most incredible mess you ever saw in your life--which is terrible! and which is a problem the state has to face. This is a huge cost problem as well as the destruction of a fragile ecology.

Chall: So that I see is one of the ways you look at being a candidate's wife.

Younger: Yes--enriching his outlook. Sometimes he fights it like crazy, and other times he gets absolutely enthralled with something. He loves the Sierras.

Chall: Youhaveanadvantage, avery goodone,inthatyougrewupherein California, and you certainly did learn much from your father. That is an advantage which is worthwhile using and passing on if need be.

Attitudes and Expectations: Housewife Plus##

Chall: How about the attitude toward a candidate's wife? Are different kinds of questions being asked you now? [February 13, 19781 Are there different expectations?

Younger: I'm in a peculiar spot, of course, obviously. Number one, the seventeen years when my participation had to be on a very peculiar level because of my speech problem. Those years gave me some insights-- but they also kept me from participating. My husband is now being perceived--with the help of other candidates--as dull. What he is, is responsible. But responsibility is not something we've been looking for recently as a necessary component in government. We've been looking more for alternatives to responsibility and experience in recent years.

Chall: Style.

Younger: That's right--charisma. Evelle is -not that kind of a person. Occasionally, he can be. Under the right circumstances he can be the most entertaining and charming and the most enlightened speaker that you could hope for, but he's more apt to get stuck with very serious subjects. This is the way he sees government, as being serious business with serious problems and challenges. And it's the way I see government. Recently for instance, he was criticized for not smiling on a particular television interview. The subject was capital punishment and he doesn't think it's funny! Younger: But I'm being asked now by his friends and advisers to try to supplement his serious image. Those seventeen years of speech handicap made me a new component to his political image and this is kind of unusual. I certainly think that political wives, at least at the national level, have become more important, recently, perhaps by accident--the phenomenon of Mrs. Kennedy, for instance.

Chall: Jacqueline.

Younger: That's right. I suspect that a large segment of the population may ultimately remember her much better or as well as, than they remember him. It's a very different image but I think that the drama of both his death and her part in the funeral and the previous image of a very high style kind of a White House, almost a royal family, the Camelot emphasis--this is something that people seem to yearn for. The ideal, beautiful couple kind of thing. Is it real? I don't think it's particularly good for the country. But you can't say that it's without impact. It has a great deal of impact. Her first real demonstrable public impact I think was her pillbox hat, wasn't it?

Chall: Yes, I think that's right!

Younger: Without the media which has changed all of the things that we know about candidates so much, probably nobody in the world or a very few people would have had the slightest idea that she wore a pillbox hat. And it was chosen so people could see her face.

Chall: Yes, I guess we do have to crank the media into all of this too. It has made a tremendous difference. Betty Ford is an example I think of somebody who was used--not used in a bad way--but who gave some character to the role of a president's wife and a candidate's wife that was certainly different .

Younger: Well, her courage in permitting her masectomy to be talked about came as a great inspiration for millions of women and it will continue to. It took a terribly degrading, difficult-to-handle kind of a situation out of the closet and made it more possible to face a terribly common problem. If a first lady goes through that and comes out of it looking and feeling good and willing to talk about it, it isn't quite the stigma that it was and the psychological impact on the victims must be lessened a little. Then, of course, that was reinforced by Mrs. Rockefeller having the double masectomy in two separate operations very shortly afterwards. This was a great contribution really to the health of the nation. Women in particular accepted that contribution in a way that they haven't accepted first ladies before. There was a great empathy few first ladies have enjoyed. Chall: What it may mean is that candidates' wives are now expected to be persons in their own right, and they can be whatever kind of persons they want to be, but they'll be looked at as persons. Younger : -Some will be. Chall: If they want to be?

Younger: That's right.

Chall: They don't have to stay behind the scenes the way they used to.

Younger : That's right and some of them will prefer to stay behind the scenes.

One of the great big dilemmas, and I think it raises all kinds of questions that aren't even germane to your question, is that we have now new kinds of political reporting laws and financial disclosure laws. In some ways they are counter-productive. We have cut down on the ability of a person of small financial means or even of average financial means to run for public office. Now, the wife of that individual has a horrendous job of projecting an image, not only of herself but for her husband compared with the image of the independently wealthy candidate. This is a new phenomenon and it will be interesting to see what comes of it. But a woman who can't have substantial help is faced with an incredible burden in a political campaign. I really feel for those with young children.

Chall: She's expected to be with her husband on the public platform and on his tours and still manage her home. Is that it?

Younger: Not only manage her home but she's expected to be highly visible. Her hem is not supposed to be pinned up. Her husband's tie is supposed to match. For instance, Evelle has the common male blue- green color blindness which leads to some pretty awful combinations in this day of sudden televised press conferences. His secretaries try to keep standard changes in case he comes in in a totally unacceptable combination but we all forget. I tried writing directions in the lining of his ties to cut down the number of brown ties with blue shirts and black suits when he was in a different city. He took to reading the instructions to ladies' luncheons so I gave up on that project.

There is one retired superior court judge who phones either Evelle's secretary Lily [Ring] or me and complains bitterly and at length when he sees Evelle on television in a blue shirt--which, of course, is the color that televises best. But to this old friend anything but a white shirt is a serious breach of propriety. At this point, he is wearing the world's dirtiest London Fog raincoat Younger: and he's wearing it every place. I cringe every time he leaves the house. It is filthy. I have washed it as many times as I can and still have it water repellant. I don't dare put it through the washing machine again or he's going to be soaked through.

Chall: Can you spray it with Scotch Guard? That may help.

Younger: I don't know, but it probably would also take the washability out of it. This is the dumb funny kind of thing that has to preoccupy a wife along with her appearance and pouring tea and filling the gaps when he can't make it. [laughs]

Chall: When we last talked about your role in the campaign, and that was nine months ago so, you were just getting into the swing of the campaign and you were feeling I thought two things. One is that one role that you were going to take on was broadening your husband's knowledge of various aspects of a community that he was going into so that he was aware of other things than he might be able to be aware of considering the amount of time he has. The other is that you were also hoping and expecting that all of this campaigning was not going to impinge totally upon what you have built up as your own private individual domain, that is your work with the national library commission and anything else that you were working in and active in on a personal level. I got the feeling that you weren't quite sure how all of this was going to fit in.

There were some demands upon your time from campaign people to get in there and make a lot of phone calls and do the things which you felt that they had been hired to do and you had already put your foot down about some of that. I was wondering just how all of this was in fact affecting your own way of living, how you were fitting it all together and/or accepting it?

Younger: It varies from day to day. I think that yesterday afternoon, for instance, was a very low point. He had worked all day long. He is an eternal optimist and this gets him through an awful lot, but this morning I talked to his secretary at great length in spite of the fact that it's a holiday. As usual she's working when we have no right to expect her to. She told me something which I think explains part of his problem, and that is that the exercise time which has always given him added energy and perspective, has been virtually squeezed out of his schedule. Now that I know that, I'm going to have to try--and I'm the world's worst example--but I'm going to have to try and force him to get that exercise time back in again because that serves as a great pool of energy and buoyancy for him. I didn't realize that although it shows up on the mimeographed schedule that I get every week; he isn't really getting the exercise.

Chall: Somebody has to protect that for him. Younger: That's right.

Chall: Somebody who knows what it means to him.

Younger: Well, what it means to anybody who needs a high level of energy, really.

Chall: Either rest or whatever it takes, but that's usually not given much consideration in campaigns as they get going unless people are really aware of it or made to be aware of it.

Younger : I think that we know more about energy and protecting good health than we used to know, and again this is based on my I!eart Association experience. But I know he can't function, and function effectively, unless he has a good deal of exercise. He's perfectly willing to do it on a stationary bicycle. And he's willing to use those dreadful wheel things, but I didn't realize that even that time has been squeezed out of the schedule but it's one explanation for what he was talking about yesterday.

Chall: How he felt?

Younger : That's right.

Chall: Did he realize it?

Younger : I don't think he probably does but I didn't know about it until I talked to Lily this morning. -She knows it and is concerned and the campaign people know it in theory but they don't respect it in practice.

Chall: They 've got what they want; they're scheduling.

Younger : Things keep moving in on top of it. For instance, he said yesterday for the first time in my memory that he's not sleeping well. I think he is sleeping well but I think the quality of his sleep is not neaxy as good as it should be and the exercise would explain that too--the change in his exercise habits.

Chall: Besides, it's one way of working off tensions.

Younger: It certainly is.

Chall: There are bound to be tensions coming up in this campaign. So there's an area where just by chance--well, it wasn' t just by chance--you were checking in, weren't you, and just happened to learn it?

Younger: I just happened to learn it. We were talking about something else and she happened to mention it to me. I had no idea that that schedule was not really being realistic. Younger: He's got another problem and this too impinges on the kinds of things that you were asking about, and that is that the candidates he's now facing are not doing extremely demanding full-time jobs while they're running. A campaign is a full-time job and to be doing a responsible full-time job on top of it means doing two full-time jobs, and this makes it much more difficult to help him with any interests that might help him relax because he just plain doesn't have the hours in the day to do it.

Now, we will go to the opening of the King Tut exhibit tomorrow night. I'll tell him what pitifully little I know. But we have been in the Cairo Museum which is overwhelming--it's more like a warehouse. You can touch everything. The guards don't know what's there and what isn't there. I think we spent something like nine dollars in American money trying to find a--I've forgotten what it was--it was a particular bust--because every guard has his hand out and there are hundreds of guards. Nine dollars was an awful lot of money in Egypt at that point. I don't think they get paid anything but tips and they make it clear that if you want any information it's going to cost you. That particular bust is actually in Berlin. [chuckles] But we certainly got a lot of directions and it certainly

was expensive to find out. \

Chall: Who finally knew?

Younger: Nobody knew! Long after we got back I was reading something, and it's in Berlin. [laughter] Kind of like the Elgin marbles in . London.

But I will have a chance tonight if he isn't just dead tired-- I'll be meeting him in San Marcos down in San Diego County tonight-- and on the way back 1'11 have a chance to remind him that he's been to Luxor, that he's been in the museum and of the fun time that we had and the funny things that happened. 1'11 have a chance to bring him up-to-date a little bit. I know he'll fall asleep in the car and that he needs that sleep, but I also know that he'll be curious about and interested in things at the exhibit. {I {I Chall: Attending the exhibit is not just trying to go through the exhibit and sort of take it.all in, but it would be seeing different kinds of people, wouldn't it--being seen in a different atmosphere, and relaxing?

Younger: Oh, definitely, definitely. I'm sure there will be marvelous friends that we don't see enough of--not necessarily supporters, just people that are interested in culture and that are a part of the museum world, and that we want to know better. This is the ideal opportunity to get to know them better. He will be absolutely fascinated. And the whole exhibit is about a man who became king at the ripe old age of nine and was already married. Chall: And died when he was still in his what--twenties?

Younger : I think less than that. I think, if I remember correctly, at seventeen or eighteen.

Chall: That's right. He's hardly memorable. Very little, if anything, would have been known about him had they not found the tomb.

Younger : And that tomb robbers had made very few really serious ravages and had not even opened--

Chall: The inner sanctum.

Younger: That's right. He'll remember going down into tombs which were considerably more important tombs from the standpoint of Egyptian history and the history of art. He'll remember the sensation of it being totally black and of being very difficult to find the hidden chamber, and then suddenly walking into a room so brilliant with murals and hieroglyphics that you're not in this world; you're some place else.

Chall: You were in those?

Younger : Yes, he's been in those and he knows, though he's probably forgotten, that hieroglyphics are a form of picture writing.

It helps put his own problems into perspective, I think, when he's reminded that we're talking about--I've forgotten the exact years but I'm going to take one of the books down with me and hope to look up some of the details. I am far from being an expert but we will be with experts tomorrow night.

Chall: Will there be a tour, a sort of a docent tour, or are you just on your own?

Younger : I really don't know how they have it planned. I imagine that there will be a reception, that there will be some outstanding Egyptologists. There will be collectors and students. I've forgotten who is responsible for bringing this particular collection to this country.

The Egyptian ambassador whom we met in Washington will be coming. Cyril Magnin will probably fly down for it, certainly Dr. [Armand] Hammer and his wife will be there. The entire board of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, many of whom are good friends, will be there, people whom we thoroughly enjoy and who are not particularly political supporters. Caroline Ahmanson, Mia Frost, and a number of others will be there. Younger: How they intend to handle it I don't know and how they've exhibited it I don't know. I know that for the Scythian show they did a kind of a tunnel arrangement and someone said that they were approaching this in somewhat the same way as though you were going into the tomb.

Chall: Just letting everybody wander around and look. They'll probably give you something to read. It's really quite a small exhibit as it happens and the artifacts are rather all small. I think most of us expect something as big as the pyramids but they're not. Some of those little statues I understand are only about six or eight inches high.

Younger: After all, when you think in terms of -his size you really don't expect them to be quite as massive because it wasn't a very big tomb.

Chall: Do you have much chance for doing things like this which are somewhat off the campaign trail?

Younger : Not as much as I'd like. On the other hand, his job gives us wonderful opportunities and he does this pretty much on his own. In getting around the state, he very rarely misses a chance to maximize wherever he happens to be. Now, he was up speaking to the convention of the IBEW [International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers] on Saturday. He took our grandson with him. I asked our grandson if he liked his grandfather's speech. Our grandson is a perfectly darling child who is almost totally dominated by his older sister, and he answered with a perfectly straight face, "Oh, I didn't listen." The implication was very strong that he felt he really shouldn't listen, that this would be kind of indecent. [laughter] So there he was in the same room being very careful not to hear a word his grandfather was saying. [laughter] I think it's a panic!

But then Evelle planned and did take him over to see a friend's ranch in Coalinga. It has the largest feedlot in the world--100,000 head of cattle! That's a pretty impressive sight for a little fellow or anybody!

He doesn't go to a convention in Fresno or anyplace else without making a side trip like that if he can possibly arrange it.

Chall: To friends--to visit friends?

Younger: Not necessarily. For instance, it may be a geothermal power development, a special school, a forestry project or an offshore drilling rig.

Chall: So he takes in whatever would be important for him to know in the area? Younger : Not necessarily only important for him to know, but that gives him a broader picture of the state of California.

Chall: He does this because he, wants it?

Younger: He very much wants to and he's done it ever since the day he was elected attorney general. I think the first trip that we went on was--actually the office had litigation pending--concerning the change of the Colorado River bed. It keeps shifting and it changes the international boundary.

At that particular time an island had formed. Mexico and California were at odds over who owned it. There are houses on it and people with different interests. And, of course, there are nearly insoluble property problems among others. It's been a peninsula at times.

But we flew down the length of the Metropolitan Water [District] delivery system and stayed overnight at a generating plant near Parker Dam. Then we flew along the Colorado to see that shifting river bed. Then we went out and toured some of the different kinds of farming interests in the valley and were fascinated, among other things, to find out that they are actually farming catfish--there are catfish farmers. [laughs] It's kind of different! It's shallow, it's laid out like any other crop.

Chall: Yes, that's right. It is a crop.

Younger: He's run his office that way all along. It helps keep his interest high and it also helps him understand problems as they come along if he's seen them.

Chall: So you're just carrying on as you expected to. Have there been any special demands put upon you that you feel "put upon" about?

Younger : Well, the schedule becomes horrendous.

Chall: For you too?

Younger: For me too but in a very different sense than for him. The demands on me are often ones that I absolutely hate and that I'm very bad at. The minutiae. Now, again there's a place where a person that's independently wealthy doesn't have to worry about because he'd automatically have somebody taking care of that kind of thing. Somebody said everybody needs a wife and I certainly do. There's so much bothersome little stuff--distractions.

Chall: What is it? Younger: It ranges every place from the availability of the right colored shirt for whatever he has to wear the next day--which frequently means doing laundry at a very peculiar hour--to correspondence at which I'm very bad.

Chall: Thank you letters?

Younger: No, I don't do those and that's a question I've got to ask. He has always done them himself, primarily because he goes to so many things that I don't go to. For years it was because I got only about 20 percent of normal oxygen and couldn't function at all the next day. And there again you've got the money factor coming into it because after all, I can't travel as extensively as he must. It's very expensive, particularly if my presence isn't really necessary. So he fell into that habit because he was so frequently alone at different events. But it has crossed my mind two or three times that I'm not at all sure he's still finding the time to write thank you letters.

Chall: Did he write them himself or did he dictate them?

Younger: Some of both but mostly he dictated them. I haven't the advantage of having anyone to dictate to and that's a very real problem in a campaign. But I have not noticed recently--and it used to be that we had no sooner left a place, when we were together, but what he jotted down what he wanted to say--I haven't noticed him doing it recently, and I've kept meaning to ask if that has been kind of forgotten. I hope it hasn't been lost in the shuffle but it may have been. Chall: So part of your responsibilities then is getting him off with the right kind of clothing and--

Younger: Definitely and meeting emergencies and changes in schedules that happen with absolutely no predictability at all. For instance, I looked at the--and looking far ahead in the schedule is usually counterproductive because it gets changed so frequently, but I just happened to glance at the schedule that I got yesterday and found out that he's filing tomorrow morning and it isn't marked whether or not I'm supposed to go with him.

Chall: It's usually a media event.

Younger: He says that they're not going to treat it like a media event, but when I asked him about it he said, "Of course, I wish you could go but I know that I've been asking you to do so many things that you don't have the time to do the things you have to do." Younger: Both the basement and the roof are leaking in this heavy rain we've been having. The dogs are wading to their doggie door. But these routine problems can become chaotic under campaign pressures.

Chall: Soyou'remanagingtwolivesinasense.

Younger:, Yes, and it's not an uncomplicated two lives either. And, again I feel for those with dependent children. Our lives are pretty simple compared to theirs. During the statewide drought last year I volunteered to write light hearted articles about saving water. I did a series and contributed them to the Metropolitan Water District and they had a fair pick-up, particularly in neighborhood newspapers. But I felt very deeply about water conservation and I also felt that Southern California was very slow to respond to what was happening in Northern California. Of course, our water sources are different and Southern California -did close the gates and did not take water from the northern projects during the emergency. But everything got awfully tight and we had to get used to using Colorado River water. which suddenly became the only water available to much larger areas than is normally true. For instance the very high mineral content of that water is very hard on many plants we take for granted.

I was over at the kids' house one night and there they had a leaky toilet and I tried to persuade my son that that was a priority problem. They were wasting a tremendous amount of precious water. They were incredibly busy with all kinds of problems and projects of their own, and I wasn't getting any place at all, and it finally came down to pretty much "lay off," and I said without thinking, "Eric, I am in charge of fourteen toilets and I know what this means!" [chuckles] Now, Eric stopped--he dropped everything. He had never thought of his mother as being in charge of fourteen toilets.

Chall: That's a mighty large number of toilets!

Younger: And an awful lot of wasted water if each one isn't properly modified. It really is the kind of dimension that you don't think of in terms of public life, but the number of toilets you're in charge of during a water shortage is something. You have to think! [laughter]

Chall: In your houses? Younger: That's right. All over the state! And it's not that we -use all fourteen but it's, I felt, a responsibility that --no one of those toilets had a leak or was using more water than it should. I had - all kinds of Rube Goldberg stop-gaps in the different toilet tanks. Evelle said he was afraid he'd drown getting to his own shower because I was saving all the waste water to reuse. This is something that you just don't think of.

Chall: Of a candidate's life. Younger: That's right.

Chall: 'or a public office holder's life.

Younger: That's right. Nor do you think in terms of the skunk problem.

Chall: Did you have one here living close by?

Younger: We continue to have one. I hold the local animal shelter's record for trapping skunks. This is a matter of self preservation. I've trapped forty-six skunks which is, for a city girl--[laughter] This too adds a dimension to our lives.

Chall: It's sort of interesting. People sometimes ask, when I say I'm going to see Mrs. Younger, "Mrs. Younger? Is there a Mrs. Younger?'' I say, "Yes, there is!" They don't realize that Mrs. Younger is quite a person in herown right let alone the potential governor's wife. People don't really know about you and here you are the champion skunk trapper of Los Angeles! That in itself is a credit line.

Younger: And it's a very time consuming occupation. [laughter] I've been rather slack about it recently. I'm going to have to jack up my efforts. When I let up the dogs take over and then we really have a problem. Evelle ends up having to explain my absence because I smell toobad to come along. It takes time!

Sometimes It's Great Fun [Interview 10: February 13, 19781///I

Younger: And the skunks win a fair percentage of the battles! Getting back to the mental broadening of Evelle, poor guy! Not the physical broadening, I hope-- [laughs]

We rode in the Chinatown parade the other night, the Chinese New Year's parade down here. [Los Angeles] Last year he was grand marshal of the Chinatown New Year's parade in San Francisco. I think that they borrowed the car that we rode in from a funeral home. We couldn't see out; nobody could see in. [laughs]

We took the grandchildren with us to the local parade, the first parade they had ever ridden in. There was a delightful black lady, just a lovely lady, who had a darling child with her--her son. We don't know what she was doing there, but she ended upbeingthe only person who had a convertible that was large enough for all four of us to ride in so we rode with her. One of the security men asked her if she would be more comfortable if he drove and she was greatly relieved. Evelle absolutely loves the parades, particularly the little kids, but he enjoys everything that goes with a parade. Younger : This is the kind of thing that he can turn into fun.

Chall: Those kind of little ceremonies.

Younger : Yes, there's no wooden faced approach to it. And we involved the grandchildren, and we persuaded the little black boy to join right in. We explained to them that the little children that had come to see the parade were going to enjoy it more if they took part in it, and they would take part in it only if we smiled and waved at them first and then they would smile and wave at us, and it's true. You have to work to get a response out of the parade crowd unless you're part of the dragon or something glamorous like that! [laughs]

Chall: Well, I am glad that there are those kinds of moments.

Younger : That's the kind of thing that keeps his sanity and that makes him valuable to the Chinese-American community when they have problems because they trust him. He's been a part of their community through the family meetings and the like.

Chall: That's in both Los Angeles and San Francisco?

Younger: Very much so, very much so.

Chall: So part of his job as he sees it really is getting to know the people who come into conflict in one way or another with the law? They don't necessarily come into conflict but they all have problems and need to be assured that the chief law enforcement officer understands.

Younger : That's right and he tries to establish that first and he has fun doing it. He enjoys doing it.

Looking into the Future as Possible Private Citizen

Chall: What are your plans for the future? Of course, there's the possibility that you will be the state's first lady.

Younger : [laughs] There's a possibility that I won't too.

Chall : All right, we sort of know what you will be doing if you're the first lady, no question about that--at least somewhat what you'll be doing. You'll find out and we'll all find out with you. But what if you're not the first lady of the state government then you're also not the first lady of the state law enforcement agency.

Younger: It will be very difficult. Chall: Have you thought about that?

Younger: It will be an extremely difficult adjustment. I think that we both have private ideas of a kind of a Walter Mitty existence. We think of all the wonderful things that we haven't had a chance to do, and haven't had time to do, but the truth of the matter is that the years of just almost total devotion to his job have cut us off from deep friendships. We have lots and lots of friends but a large percentage of them would not be particularly interested if he were not an important person.

Again, money comes into it. If we were independently wealthy, we could maintain our relationships with those people. Traveling and entertaining would keep more friendships going. We don't belong to clubs. This is not only a financial consideration. It's also that Evelle doesn't think it's proper in his present job. There are too many moral and legal questions. For instance, he enjoys the Bohemian Grove. He's probably not going to be invited back to the Bohemian Grove if he's not attorney general and facing that kind of thing is going to be hard.

Chall: Are you assured that there are certain areas that he wouldn't be invited back to if he weren't in his office? There may be some.

Younger: I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect.

Chall: I'm sure that you're right in realizing that part of what he is--what people see him for--is his office. There are some adjustments that have to be made but do you see anything positive about the way the two of you could lead your lives?

Younger: I think we both try to. But although it would be a great relief in many ways, I think that we're both scared to death of entering what would be an entirely new world for us. Again, without the resources to really make the ultimate decisions of what we might like to do. He will certainly have to continue working.

Chall: There has been quite a bit of publicity about his retirement income from various positions, which would make the average citizen feel that he could probably have a very nice home and do some traveling and live a little bit above the way the average citizen--quite a little notch above the way the average citizen lives. I'm wondering whether you have more in mind than most of us think about in terms of how we live our lives?

Younger: The answer to that is twofold. Yes, being important for any reason spoils you and shapes your life. There's no question about that. If an interesting delegation comes to town, if an ambassador comes to town, particularly with the present governor who has not shown an interest in this kind of thing, we're very apt to be invited. Chall: That can be stimulating.

Younger: It's fun, it's stimulating, it's exciting. We meet interesting people, most of whom we couldn't keep up with.

Now, when you talk about the pensions, it's a long, complicated subject. I don't think that there's any doubt but what we both recognize that many of the public pensions, public employee pension systems, are not actuarially sound and should be changed. On the other hand--and I gave him a note yesterday to please find out for sure--I think we have been paying full income tax on pensions that come off the top. I remember my uncle asking me one time, if we were saving money. It was when Evelle was district attorney. I think his pension payments were something like $480 a month then. Nobody says to an elected district attorney, "Do you want to be a member of the pension program?" There were buy-in options but not basic decisions if I remember correctly. I tried to explain that our total income was pre-planned for us. And there was really no way of building capital.

Those who wrote the public pension plans blanketed in the elected head of any office to protect those who had chosen to make a career of the office, because they obviously needed both the example and the contributions of the person who was making the highest salary in the office. So you didn't really have many options. You couldn't say, "No, I prefer to put that $480 into an insurance program," or "No, I prefer to be able to retire the mortgage on my home," or "I prefer to make a capital investment of some kind." That option was not open. Perhaps it was technically open but not as a practical matter. Whether we would have done it or not, I don't know. But it's not something that we ever had the choice to do,

Chall: But you will now derive an income from it?

Younger: Certainly. Just as we have an investment in it. The income depends upon how long he lives. As it stands right now, if something happened to him today, do you know what my total income would be from all those pensions? $390 a month.

Chall: Good gracious, that's a disturbing--

Younger: Now, isn't that an incredible--

Chall: . No spousal support there?

Younger: None at all and it doesn't start until he's old enough to collect the pensions.

Chall: Sixty-two or there-a-bouts? Younger: One of them is sixty-five. One is sixty. I think the military is sixty. If he dies the day before he can make an election of whether he wants to take less pension and turn the rest into life insurance, I don't get anything. Not one dime. [taps each word for emphasis] There are no secondary beneficiaries which means that there is no estate. So you look at what sounds like a huge pension situation but it's got some bad holes in it. And., as a practical matter, it does not obviate the need for insurance or savings.

Chall: I guess those bad holes were put in before the women's movement which in some degree has now given widows benefits, I think. At least there have been attempts in some of them to allow widows to have the benefits of these pensions. I don't know whether there's anything ex post facto in any of these but that's one benefit I think which will come out of the women's movement. It has to do with changes in beneficiary allotments, and credit, and things of this kind.

Younger: Well, there have been any number of divorce cases now where the courts have held that if money was made during the--particularly in a community property state like California--if money was made during the course of a marriage, and was kept from the spouse, that the spouse is entitled to 50 percent of that money. But it doesn't apply to the pension plans. This is a darned unpleasant thing to have discuss with a spouse. With his job, under our particular circumstances, and under most circumstances, he can't have a full time working wife and yet those pension benefits--

Chall: They won't benefit you in the case of a catastrophe.

Younger: That's right, that's right. He's got some proposals that he wants to make about pensions across the board. Fly personal feeling is that-- For ins tance, he' s talked about unifying all government employment pensions. But it's very difficult because so many have been established by entirely unrelated means and based on differing formulas. Few are actuarially sound. Pensions are very much a part of the incentive to enter public life under some circumstance, but pretty irrelevant in something like a statewide election. And, of course, the legislature puts the constitutional officers out front in order to cover what it does for itself. He ought to have some options.

Chall: The way. they do in private businesses.

Younger: That's right. He isn't really part of the system. He ought to manage his money a little differently.

Chall: Does he put in bills of this kind or try to? Younger: No, I think if he's elected governor that he probably would. He feels that under the present circumstances that it would probably be interpreted as a purely political move.

Chall: A personal one?

Younger: Yes. But he sees what the pitfalls are and it's going to be pensions that are going to break cities. I think that there's no question but that New York is a prime example of an awfully lot of actuarially unsound pension plans.

Chall : All over.

Younger: Yes, it has been true all over. Here in Los Angeles, the very generous program for peace officers and firemen was voted for by the public. This wasn't something that was sneaked through. This was done with absolute full public knowledge and the public cast the vote. But you can't work just twenty years at a job, retire possibly at the age of forty on a pension and figure that pension plan has paid for itself. Life spans are much longer.

Chall: Is there anything of a positive nature that you foresee in this potential new change-in your life?

Younger: Yes, we both foresee positive things but we don't know how honest we'rebeing about it. That's the problem. To actually project how you're going to handle a dramatic change in life style is pretty difficult.

Chall: The options for him, I suppose, are appointments or moving 'back into private law practice--governmental appointment somewhere or moving back into private law practice.

Younger: He doesn't think that there are many potentials for appointments.

Chall: Because the Democrats now control the state and national government?

Younger: That's certainly a consideration. But there are few jobs that would interest him and fewer still which he could afford to take. i/i/ Chall: They do stay in law; go back into law practice.

Younger: Yes, I think that the majority of them who do, do not go into law practice in the same sense that a lawyer of the same age would. They go into law practice more as business getters for a firm rather than as active practicing I don't think Evelle would be much good at that. Although he's always done well at whatever he's Younger : undertaken. On the other hand, he doesn't believe that he would be much good at the active practice of the law because his jobs have been essentially administrative for so long. That's a difficult thing.

Chall: He must have had some understanding that this might occur when he chose to run for governor. You don't do that without assessing the options. Did he discuss this with you?

Younger : We discussed it superficially, yes. But I think we both know how superficial it is and that it's a scary prospect to change life- styles so dramatically. We're not awfully sure of what or how well we'd handle it. We're kind of whistling in the dark when we do talk about it.

Chall: Was there a reason for his deciding to challenge Jerry Brown rather than staying another four years in the attorney general's office?

Younger : Yes, he believes that Governor Brown is a genuinely bad governor. He is sick and tired of having to defend the action of any number of state commissions that do incredibly stupid things, largely because the governor's ability to appoint people is not awfully good. He's made some awfully bad appointments. The less experienced and the less knowledgeable the appointees,to a commission are, the less they realize what their jobs are and what the responsibilities are that go along with being a member of a commission.

Chall: So the ramifications you feel show up in the area of law enforcement and other areas?

Younger : Oh, terribly, terribly. You see, Evelle's office represents the vast majority of the commissions and, of course, we've had dramatic changes both by initiative and by gubernatorial appointments in areas of law--the whole coastal commission. Oh gee, I can't even think of the number of areas--the Political Fair Practices Commission--all kinds of areas that have been unexplored and where the legislation has not necessarily been well written. Environ- mental law, of course, is almost entirely new.

Chall: So he chose to run, one of the main reasons being that he felt the present administration was very bad.

Younger : He feels too that the frustrations of running a law office, supporting bad laws, are pretty great. He loves the job but he keeps coming across things that are obviously unfair, poorly thought out-- laws which he has the obligation to defend. He doesn't like that position. Mildred Younger's Activities: Present and Future

Chall: Assuming that his future is not too clear at the moment, you at least have some activities of your own as an individual. You are now on the National Board of the American Heart Association which I would assume is a good board. Is it something that would take some time and would it be interesting to you?

The National Board of the American Heart Association

Younger: Well, it's like all boards. It's caught between what they call the general assembly and the executive committee and in many respects is a rubber stamp. I found myself frequently raising questions I felt were ethical questions at the meeting in Washington, which was the first meeting I've attended as a board member, and I don't think I endeared myself very much to some of the people. As a matter of fact, I'm sure I didn't. I've never been famous for being a good rubber stamp. [laughs]

Chall: Did the persons who appointed you know what they were doing when they put you on?

Younger: P.robably not. They're terribly short on women.

Chall: Yes, I was going to ask you about the composition of the board.

Younger: Extremely short on women and interestingly enough (and this is true of so many things I suppose, of politics as well as anything else) I found much more in the way of thoughtful consideration of remarks that I made on various subjects coming from men than from women. A new woman board member is a threat more to other women board members than to male board members and I suppose it's because the men's egos are more secure or something. I was anxious to meet one brilliant and perfectly lovely woman doctor from the South because I was terribly impressed by her. Finally at the banquet I took the bull by the horns. She had shown not the slightest desire to get acquainted during the course of the meetings or the other events. We ate together, different meals and that sort of thing. So I approached her that night; it turned out that my estimate about how she felt about me was overly optimistic, that she thought considerably less of me than I had sensed. I find this terribly disturbing. But she regarded me as potential competition. I was both disappointed and hurt. I don't know what in the world we could be competing for. Chall: Does it make you wonder whether you want to go back to the next meeting?

Younger: No, it's important. The Heart Association is split fifty-fifty between lay members and doctors. An example of something I think is important, then was a matter before the board. It would put the Heart Association in the position of supporting federal legislation entirely pre-empting fund-raising rules for private charitable organizations as well as health agencies. And doing so in such a way that very unlike agencies are lumped together. Budgeting for a local child care center is quite different than for a remote but promising long-term cancer research project. So is the funding. I believe that the private sector must be encouraged to involve itself in both such projects but that both the appeal and the response are quite different. Many business leaders much prefer the easy way of giving--lump it all together, give the pre-arranged percentage and get on with other business. It's very much like income tax withholding. A very impersonal kind of tithing which absolves individuals of any personal involvement--or responsibility. Aside from mail fraud and income or inheritance tax evasion the federal government should have little, if any, involvement in charitable, educational and health agency voluntary giving.

But the easy way when you're on a national board is to generalize and lose sight of the personal obligation in charitable giving and moral commitment that must exist at the local level. Many local organizations can't, don't and shouldn't fit the mold of rigid federal standards. I've a lot more to say about the equities and priorities of giving and fund raising--whether we're talking about charitable or political support--but that's one very good reason why I don't give up on the American Heart Association board.

The Commission on Libraries and Information Science

Chall: How is the library board? Are you still an active worker there?

Younger: Yes.

Chall: Has it changed with a change in administration? [President Ford to President Carter]

Younger: Unfortunately, my feeling about it is not a particularly good one. The staff--not a ,100percent--but some members of the staff are much more interested in protecting their own future civil service status than they are in doing their jobs. I find that a good many things that should be done by board members are being done by the Younger: executive director because these things build his importance. The last time that he sent out a report of his activities, I counted the number of first person singular pronouns in it and in an eight-page report I think it was sixty-seven times that he took full credit. [laughs] I don't like that kind of thing and am combative about it and therefore ineffective.

But there is the tendency and it's a very realistic tendency for an executive director who is extremely ambitious to find a group of three or four members of a commission who will do pretty much what he asks them to do, and to give all assignments to those three or four members. The others really become an audience. It doesn't matter what the subject is. There's no way to break into that kind of pattern.

I enjoy it from the standpoint of getting to know Dan Boorstein, for instance, head librarian of the Library of Congress. He is a brilliant, charming man. We don't see much of him but he's technically head of that commission. I've got some pet theories about how to get people to read in addition to taking advantage of the media, other than trying to fight the media. [chuckles] I discussed them at lunch one day at the Library of Congress with Dan and a month later, some national columnist wrote a full column on exactly the same thing, and I got a marvelous kick out of this because--

Chall: He had passed it on?

Younger: That's right and I couldn't care less. There's no way a national columnist is going to write about an idea of mine, but they'd listen to Dan Boorstein.

Chall: So they wrote it as if it had come from him.

Younger: It was fairly clear that that's the way he'd represented it. [laughs] I thought it was great! He would be the first to say, "Boy, did I get coverage out of that idea you gave me!''

Chall: So he would admit it?

Younger: Oh, sure he would, but he would admit it to me and he probably wouldn't admit it to anybody else. [laughs] I've enjoyed a number of peripheral kinds of people that I'm meeting that way. I am absolutely stunned by the complexities and the way that information science is being used or being thought of being used by libraries'. I just can't believe that the computer has moved as far as it has with really the little thought and understanding that has gone into it, in the library systems.. There is infinite talk but very little projection of the impact. There are such endless ramifications of it. And the potentials literally change almost daily! Chall: So right now you're really in on just the beginnings of thinking how it could be used in libraries? Is that what is happening now?

Younger : Oh, we're way, way past that--at least in some respects.

Chall: Past the beginning?

Younger: Oh, yes, and there are some libraries across the country that moved very quickly just as any commercial computer information company would do it, because they wanted to become the center of a data base. Some libraries and some universities have managed to do that. But inevitably they make obsolete or ineffective very expensive systems installed elsewhere that can't plug into their system, so that the competition at the public library level or at the university library level is a very real thing. I don't even know whether it's soluble now and it's far from being thought through or carefully evaluated. Probably it can't be. Breakthroughs come very fast .

Chall: What's the role of the commission, those you called the board members on this commission? What are you all supposed to be doing?

Younger : Too often rubber stamping papers and studies that may or may not have been actually commissioned by the commission itself. Some of them are tremendously important. Others of them have missed the mark very far.

Chall: That's dealing with libraries?

Younger : Yes and with all kinds of libraries. For instance, one of the more recent problems about which a good many scholars feel rather deeply has to do with establishing a national periodical depository which is really the preserving of periodicals for which there is no longer space at special libraries and universities. We were at a dinner at the Bowkers one night with an old friend of my husband's with whom he'd gone to law school, who was at one time president of the University of Michigan, who was determined to talk about those idiots on the National Connnission of Libraries and Information Science who didn't appreciate what a wealth of material they might well be throwing down the drain if they didn't fund the establishment and maintainence of this thing. [laughs] A1 Bowker finally spoke up and said, "You don't seem to realize that Mildred is one of those idiots you're talking about!" He said, "I don't want to be a party to anything improper here. "

It got pretty funny because the focus of the conversation changed abruptly. It didn't leave the subject but it certainly changed. [laughter] I had been trying to figure out, now do I say to him, "I'm a member of the commission," or "What's the best way to Younger: handle it?" and Al Bowker spoke up and saved me. As one commission member told me, "The reason academic in-fighting is so bitter is that the stakes are so low."

For instance, we're spending a tremendous amount, I think a disproportionate amount, of time and money on the subject of libraries on Indian reservations. Libraries on Indian reservations in some cases I think are very much indicated but I think that we are spending time, money, and energy considering this really quite remote problem. There are many more urgent problems which we seem determined to avoid. Maybe they're so big we can't grasp them. But the Bureau of Indian Affairs really has the primary responsibility for reservation services.

Chall: In other words, your commission studies problems having to do with libraries and then makes decisions about funding?

Younger: It makes recommendations about funding. For instance, there's a White House Conference on Libraries coming up and I have asked two or three times, "why?" Somany White House conferences have absolutely no impact on anybody. And they are terribly expensive. Now we're asked to extend the number of days of the White House Conference on Libraries because they're going to have a special conference for Indians before they get into the other conference, and the complexity and expense are greatly multiplied. But that special conference on Indians seems to be the only one that anybody has come to grips with.

The Indian tribes that are involved don't speak the same languages. For some of them, there's a very legitimate need we ought to be putting federal money into, and for some of the rest of them there just isn't, and we're not being very discriminating about it.

But we've spent a fortune on setting up an office to plan the conference, and having state conferences, and one thing and another, and I don't know yet what anybody thinks is going to be accomplished. I don't like that kind of expenditure.

Chall: That's a frustrating position that you're in.

Younger: Yes, it is.

Chall: What I'm trying to find out is what you can look forward to in the next few years in case this transition is going to be a difficult one, from public to private life; what you as an individual can look forward to that is challenging and interesting. I pick up two things which I know you're on nationally and they aren't challenging and interesting. Younger: Well, the Heart Association may turn out to be.

Chall: But it isn't anything apparently that you look forward to as a substitute for what you've had.

Younger: No.

Chall: Painting? travel?

Younger: These are the Walter Mitty things.

Painting

Chall: Is that your paintingon the easel?

Younger: Yes, and it's far from finished and it's sitting there because I know there are some bad flaws in it and if I leave it in the basement where it belongs I can't see the flaws, not only because the light is bad down there but because I'm not in the basement that much. So it's the only way I'll ever correct the flaws! If I'm lucky I'll suddenly see what's wrong. Then I could get on with it.

Chall: That seems an area you might work in although it's not one's total life.

Younger: After the Heart Association board meeting--it closed Thursday in Washington--I had a couple of hours before I had to leave for the airport. I took off for a local--not museum--but private gallery and that collection turned out to have some remarkably interesting things in it--very, very poorly displayed. It was in a family home where the collection had obviously been collected and is now maintained by a private family. But there were very, very few artists represented there who had not painted at least a thousand canvases, and I couldn't help but think in applying it to myself that it wouldn't matter if I started today painting eight to ten hours a day, I could never reach even the lowest level. This was a collection that included some mediocre but historically interesting paintings and some very good ones. Painting is generally a lifetime occupation of dedicated people that are extremely prolific and hard working and it's kind of discouraging--not that I wouldn't enjoy painting but I don't kid myself that I could ever move into an area beyond "Sunday painter." A Grandma Moses comes along very seldom!

Chhll: I guess what we're going to do then is just to see what comes of 1978. Evaluatingtheimary; Losing the General ~lection## [Interview 11: July 7, 19811

Chall: You were telling me that this is the usual kind of hot day you have been having in Los Angeles.

Younger: As a matter of fact, today hasn't been quite as hot, but it's been a most unusual summer.

Chall: Because of heat?

Younger: Yes, normally our Junes are cold and gray.

Chall: Today we'll finish your oral history by continuing where we left off and cover the winning primary and the losing general election campaign. I clipped some material out of newspapers and I have some editions of the California Journal, and I have the campaign material that Carol [Waters] sent up to me.

So that's all I have. Of course, I recall something that went on in the campaign. From what I can tell, during the primaries and during the general election, you were used extensively in the campaign. You were called part of Evelle Younger's brain trust,

and his secret weapon, and you did a great deal of speaking all , around. You came into Oakland and Northern California and spoke for him during the primaries. I just wondered how it came about that you were used this way and whether you enjoyed this aspect of the campaign; how you felt about it.

The Effect of the Media on Campaign Plans and Costs

Younger: Probably the most fascinating change or aspect of campaigns today and the most incalculable [are] the changes in the media and what it will and won't respond to. It seemed to me, and apparently to the campaign management. that anything that could get attention and media coverage had to be done, and I was getting attention. I got much better coverage frequently than Evelle did.

One day, I've forgotten where it was, I think it may have been in Salinas or in that general area where Evelle had made a major campaign speech. I made a kind of a pep talk, and I got the coverage-- front page. He got separate coverage inside the newspaper. Now, -his was the news; his was what should have been covered, but you Younger: cannot control the media. And only rarely can you outguess them. But, remember, I had been a professional commentator and know fairly well what will and won't make news. Furthermore, I'm a ham. Evelle isn't.

Chall: Why do you think that was? Is it because you are a woman?

Younger: In that case it was because it was a woman reporter and she liked it.

Chall: She covered both of you?

Younger: No, no.

Chall: So the media is a real problem in a campaign?

Younger: It certainly is and it shouldn't be. You should be talking about straight, hard news and the ability to expose viewers and readers to as many different thoughts and ideas as you possibly can, but that's not true. I can understand in many respects -why it isn't true. I have gone so far as to suggest to the Los Angeles Times, to one of their reporters, that if they are going to be as selective as they are about what they '11 pxnt and what they won't print, that then they have a duty to at least once a week put in a section that is made up of the things that the candidates actually say in their own words--not comment--and not after predigestion by a reporter whose primary concern is his by-line. His own image not the candidate's. The line is pretty thin between comment and actual statements.

Chall: I noticed in one of the articles I read that your campaign office felt you had not had enough finances to send a mailer throughout an area or in selected areas. So you really had to depend then on the media, didn't you?

Younger: That's right, and the media is the first to criticize campaign spending and over spending and-that kind of thing but, by golly, if they won't give you the coverage, then you have to buy it. And you have to buy it in the same news sources that have cut you up or off. They actually editorialized by assignment. This adds up to gross inequities in political campaigns. It's almost--and I've seen this happen so often with the Los Angeles Times--it's almost as though the less coverage they give a candidate, the more the candidate has to buy space in the newspaper. !You've got entirely conflicting views.

The same thing is true in television. Too often the legitimate news gets lost in between. Television time is so expensive and yet if an editor decides that you don't belong in that evening's news, or if there's a coincidental major news event the same day there's Younger: a good chance the office seeker can't make that very limited thirty- minute time-slot. The only thing you can do is buy their time. I don't like to think it's often done on purpose, but it sure could be done very, very handily. I'm quite sure that a major Los Angeles radio station endorses the other candidate so that their favorite gets on the air just before the election to reply under the equal time law.

Chall: So one of your problems was just getting across.

Younger: That's right. It's a major problem.

Chall: And you were used for that?

Younger: Yes, yes, and another thing--I could get coverage in different kinds of news than he could. He was always seen as straight political news. I was not. I would frequently be seen as feature. That's not as valuable, but it's a way in and you have to use it.

Chall: It gets the name across.

Younger: That's right.

Campaign Strategy, Managers, and Advisors

Chall: I guess you are familiar with the California Journal. It had several articles during the campaign about the Younger campaign.*

Younger: Which I didn't even see! [laughs] And that's a phenomenon which the public can't understand. Again, the issues may have been seen by the audiences in a light of which the candidate is unaware.

Chall: The author in one article expresses his general feeling was that it really wasn't going to matter what Evelle Younger did; it was what the people perceived of Governor Grown. While he did comment on the

*Ed Salzman, "General General Younger," California Journal, July 1978, Vol, IX, No. 7, pp. 290-213 Ed Salzman, "What Happened to the Rules in the Brown-Younger Race?" Ibid., pp. 283-285. "The Younger-Brown Trus t--Wife Mildred, Alter-ego Bakaly , Young pro-Reitz, California Journal, September 1978, Vol, IX, No. 9, pp. 289-290. Chall: campaign and your place in it, and the campaign brain trust made up of you, Charles Bakaly, and Kenneth Rietz, in both articles he seemed to come to the conclusion that Governor Brown was the key factor.

Younger: I would not put me on a brain trust list except occasionally, and I would not have used that same group of names.

Chall: Whom would you have used?

Younger: Certainly, I would have put Shel Lytton on it. Remember, that's Sheldon Lytton. [spells last name1 He had left O'Melveny and Myers to fill one of the appointed positions that the attorney general has, several months before the campaign began. There are a good many areas that are essentially legal in nature, but you need to make a decision that maybe something should be handled a little differently than to simply refer it to the deputy in charge and let it take its course--areas, for instance, that had to do with the legislature and others that tend to shape general office policy. It isn't always best to handle those with a deputy who is routinely assigned to handle all legislative matters. There are odd sensitive areas, and Shel had left O'llelveny and Myers to take that spot when it became vacant. Somebody must have been appointed to the bench or retired or something of the kind. So there was a vacancy in Los Angeles. Shel is a brilliant young man, a great asset for the campaign as well as the attorney general's.

Remember, too, that this campaign was run as a joint campaign with Mike Curb, so that the advisors would always have included someone representing Mike.

Chall: Did Sheldon Lytton leave the attorney general's office--

Younger: --and went with the campaign, yes. As a matter of fact, he went to work for Mike after the election.

Chall: He was your person in the campaign, not Mike Curb's?

Younger: Oh, I would say both, but because of his legal background, he fit more naturally.

Chall: What would you use him for in the campaign?

Younger: Issues in particular. He was new to politics. He was very good at it, but he was new to it. But he was very good at issues.

There was one group with which I met and I can't remember who all was involved. There was a brilliant young tax lawyer and Shel. Chuck Eakaly was supposed to be a part of that group. He is one of Younger : the senior partners at O'Melveny and Myers, wh.ich was the firm that She1 had left to go with the attorney general's office. But Chuck was usually not present. There was an economist from either Claremont Men's College or Pomona that met with us.

I was convinced very early in the campaign--actually before the campaign got started--

Chall: Was this the primary or the general?

Younger : This was the primary. I thought that the smartest thing that we could do was to put together a series of very legitimate constitutional amendments on the ballot, each one of which would have stood on its own, as an initiative measure so that you didn't wipe them all out with one part of it, that would have reformed overall state tax policy. I still think that that would have been the way to go.

Chall: You could have run on a major issue, is that it?

Younger : That's right, and it was a very, very legitimate issue. Certainly the vote on Prop~sition13 proved that the people thought it was a legitimate issue and Proposition 13 is a mess, legally. It's an incredible mess. For instance, we pay four times as much property tax on this house as anybody else on the street does.

Chall: Yes, because it's a new purchase.

Younger : That's right, and because every time we got a permit on the remodeling--and, believe me, cities use that licensing power as a source of revenue--but everytime we got a permit, our property taxes went up. So it's a no-win situation, but it's ridiculous that we're paying four times the taxes of our neighbors. That's bad law, but it's the kind of thing that is awfully hard to change without tearing everything up.

But our little group was convinced tha.t that was the way not only to produce a very legitimate tax reforn package--this was before the Jarvis thing had come up--but to literally take the initiative. But do it in a very responsible leadership way.

Chall: Would that have been an initiative? That would have meant you would have had to go out and get all of those signatures.

Younger: Yes, that's right. That was precisely what defeated it--the expense and the effort of running an initiative campaign in addition to the gubernatorial campaign would have been much too much of a burden. As it turned out, Jarvis managed it and, as I say, managed it I think very poorly. But he certainly proved that that's where the interest was. Chall: That's all he had to think about. He wasn't running for office and also running an office.

Younger: That's right, and, of course, he wouldn't have anyway.

Chall: That was another reason why you did some speaking, I guess, during the primary.

Younger: Oh, yes.

Chall: Did you continue to help with his schedule and go with him when you could?

Younger : When possible, yes, but the fact that they had a heavy schedule for me meant that we usually didn't end up in the same part of the state. That was considered a great extravagance if we were any place together ! [laughs]

Chall: I noticed in one of the articles (it had to do with the primary), that other candidates were asked some questions about where they stood on ERA and abortion and things of this kind--the tough questions--and occasionally you would say, "I don't know Mr. Younger's position on that."* I thought that was a marvelous way of getting out of it, but I wondered if anybody accepted it. Did they accept that you would know some answers and respond very spontaneously and at other times you would say, "I haven't consulted him on that."

Younger : It was true. There were only a couple of them I think. Among other things, you have to be very careful when the person you are speaking for is the attorney general because I don't know what is pending in the office, and if they've got a major case going and his idiot wife comes along and says, "This is the way he feels about it,'' that's a risk you can't take.

Chall: But on the platform apparently people would accept this--I mean you felt that they did.

Younger : It didn't really matter whether they did or didn't. I couldn't do anything about it. It was interesting. There was the day that there was a very loaded question directed at me. I am still convinced that one of the other candidates was responsible for that question, and it was one that didn't know me very well and thought that I would leave the platform in tears after such a cruel attack on my husband. It had to do with Evelle's position on something and

*Gayle Montgomery, "Varied Views by Five GOP Candidates," Oakland Tribune, April 16, 1978:8. Younger: with an accusation--this was in Fresno--that he had left the convention without fully satisfying their platform committee. It was the California Republican Assembly which, as you know, is a very super-conservative group--it didn't use to be, but it is now. The claim was that he had left the convention on purpose because he was afraid to be asked questions. The other candidates for the most part were saying, "Oh, don't answer that," and that kind of thing-- [laughs] as I say--one of them I felt with a good deal of bad faith. I answered it, and I answered it with both barrels.

Chall: What did you say?

Younger : I said that he had gone to San Francisco for a meeting of the Judicial Qualifications Commission of which he was a member and that if any volunteer political group really put its own lack of willingness to do its homework on the issues and on positions above a vote as important as the one he was casting on behalf of al1,the citizens of the state of California, then I thought the group ought to disband right then and there. I got a standing ovation.

Chall: Did he get the CRA endorsement?

Younger: No.

Chall: Did they endorse anybody--Davis ?

Younger : I don't think they did. They decided to drop the subject. Which neutralized them very effectively.

Chall: The CRA gave you a standing ovation for that?

Younger : [laughs] Yes, which is what led me to believe that whoever's idea that was didn't know me very well.

Chall: As one of the articles says you were feisty.*

Younger: I think that was one of the nicer things! Who was the reporter? Larry someone from San Francisco worte that I was little bit zany, which I'm still thinking about! [laughs]

Chall: Well, you did get coverage when they used words like that because, of course, as you know, they were always telling of the contrast, not so much between you and your husband, but the contrast between your husband and everybody else or Jerry Brown--that he was so dull, so

*W.E. Barnes, "Evelle Younger's 'Secret Weapon,"' San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, October 8, 1978: Section A: 8. Chall: languid, not a real candidate that you could get fired up to, and all of that. I wondered--how does that affect a person? How did it affect you when you went out? You are so different. And you had told me during our last discussion that he was not actually a dull person.

Younger: I was angered by it. It was Ed Davis who referred to him as being about as exciting as a mashed potato sandwich. I can't pronounce the name of the classic French cook book, but I have it.

Chall: Larouss e?

Younger: Yes. Larousse Gastronomique. It has twenty-three recipes that add up to mashed potato sandwiches, so I publicly offered to send them tb Mr. ~avis.- [laughs] He didn't accept.

Chall: Was it frustrating as you got further into the campaign? You did win the primary and that must have been an elation.

Younger: But so costly. That's murder for a minority party. You just can't spend resources like that in a primary battle and end up with a good possibility of pulling everything together for the general. You have to say it's healthy but it's an incredible drain.

Chall: That's in terms of money?

Younger: And people, emotions, yes, the whole bit.

Chall: And the way the party gets split, too.

Younger: That's right, and we were still at the tail end of Watergate, remember, so we still had a minimum number of volunteers any place. Four years earlier it was almost academic to even run, as Hugh Flournoy found out, but he was determined to move up or out. There was no help, there were no volunteers, there was no money. You couldn't raise the money to pay for the campaign.

Chall: Is that why you joined forces with Curb?

Younger: One of the reasons, yes, was the fact--and this continues and was not originally caused by Watergate, although it certainly was made worse by Watergate--lack of experienced management. Almost no one can afford to be a campaign manager because of the numbers of months where you have no income in between. It's almost impossible for a good professional to take on a campaign and many, many public relations people will find that that's written into their contract with a regular commercial campaign. They can't take on a political campaign.

Chall: Who was Kenneth Rietz? Was he your campaign manager? Younger: Yes. He was a poor choice, and that would make Evelle furious to hear me say that because the truth of the matter is there wasn't any choice. There was absolutely nobody else available. He was a good friend of Mike Curb's. He uses volunteers very poorly and he is inclined to be withdrawn and unapproachable.

Chall: So even if there had been any [volunteers] out there, you might not have gotten them?

Younger : There were plenty by the time we were down to the wire, but Ken couldn't use those that there were; didn't know -how to use them. He is brilliant in many respects, but this was a very weak part of his make-up. He just couldn' t do it.

Chall: How would you have used volunteers?

Younger : Oh gosh, you'd have to look at the whole campaign structure to answer that and I'm not sure that I know the campaign structure well enough. But much addressing, as a very obvious example could have been done by volunteers.

Chall: Oh, you paid for that?

Younger : We had to.

Chall: Was it done by a machine?

Younger : A lot of it is these days simply because you are talking about such a huge population. But there are all kinds of mailing in a campaign.

Chall: Did you use computer mail? You didn't use much mail-out did you?

Younger: I don't really remember. I don't think we had any significant mailings again because of lack of money.

Chall: But if you had volunteers, you might have? You might have paid for the printing and--

Younger : I don't know. There are an awful lot of things that volunteers can do, but that's almost a separate operation.

Chall: You bring somebody in to work with volunteers and plot it all out.

Younger: That's right, and that wasn't done. Ken didn't have an operation that got the phone calls returned, for instance. Intelligent, sensitive volunteers could have done that. Frequently there would be things that could have been very valuable to us that really added up to in-kind contributions. But the calls didn't get answered. I think it's primarily because he's the kind of man who tends to work Younger: by himself. For instance, in the campaign headquarters on Wilshire Boulevard, which, of course, was donated space, there was a little area upstairs where the supposedly important people were. But there was nobody upstairs who could type. That's incredible! Now, there were surely a -lot of volunteers that would have been delighted--

Chall: Youonlyhadto call them.

Younger: That's right. Somebody has to return the telephone call. We had marvelous volunteers, but we didn't have anything like as many as we could have used. They were put together on a very informal basis, not on a good sound, productive basis.

Chall: What about the Republican party itself? Did it provide you with any help?

Younger: Yes, but of course that's spotty. When I say things like that, I'm thinking back to one of the earlier things we talked about--and that was choice. If you decide what you want is a system where your party is super - efficient, you are going to end up with a controlled, convention-type state party. For instance, you1-re not going to have an open primary. In spite of the many, many, very difficult draw- backs of an open primary, I'm not ready to trade.

Chall: The Younger staff, I understand--that is, your campaign staff--had a number of women on it. Joyce Valdez, Bonnie Shok, Carol Waters and her husband, Dan, were in touch with groups. Carolyn Booth was the field director. Those are the only names I have. [There were] quite a number of women.

Younger: There were more than that and I have forgotten their names. I would say the professional staff was preponderantly female.

Chall: How did you get along with the females? Did you have any inter- action with these staff people?

Younger: Read them again, if you don't mind.

Chall: Joyce Valdez, the fund raiser--

Younger: Joyce is a professional fund raiser. She probably officed that' headquarters during the campaign, but she runs her own fund-raising operation and she has her own staff.

Chall: Bonnie Shok was press.

Younger: Yes, and Bonnie is a darling. She was in the office. That job was coveted by a good many men and she got some criticism that she did not deserve simply because of that. After all, press is an area that has been very much a man's job and, like any other new job competition it tends to draw unwarranted criticism just because a woman is in there. Cahll: Carol and Dan Waters--

Younger: Of course, they are very good close friends and they are both very competent politically.

Chall: Carolyn Booth, the field director--

Younger: I almost can't place her.

Chall: I guess maybe there wasn't much field work being done.

Younger: No, but I was seldom in the headquarters. But that's what I was saying before! [laughs] Remember that Peggy Stout was hired to handle my press and that was a full-time job.

Chall: What did she do? Did she schedule the times when you went out to do speaking? Did she handle your schedule or what?

Younger: Yes, although not exclusively. In other words, if Ken made the decision that I should go a certain place, of course, that would take precedence. She made a good many of the television contacts, for instance, around the state and nationally. I was on "Good Morning, America," through her. Again, we had the problem that Peggy couldn't type. And her time was misspent when she tried. Her time was too valuable. It's just a physical impossibility to not have any Indians, and we didn't have any Indians; we had chiefs. /I /I Younger: I don't suppose that unless you had a tremendous amount of experience running campaigns that you would realize how desperately you need people who are available almost twenty-fours a day to take care of obvious routine things. For instance, it took the longest time and finally I virtually had a tantrum about it, to get cards typed for Evelle in big type. That's essential. But it's such a little thing and he couldn't get it done. There was always some excuse. So there he would be trying to make a major speech from his own longhand notes and it couldn't be done. There was so much of that.

Chall: As the campaign wore on then, did you have a feeling that you might lose or that you were losing?

Younger: Evelle did, though we did not discuss it. Oh, another one that would certainly be in that brain trust you were listing was Dick Wirthlin, very much so, very definitely.

Chall: He sat in on policy decisions and-- Younger: Oh yes; Jack Courtemanche also. Courtemanche who is now the national committeeman was close to Mike. Certainly Dixon Arnett in the general election. They were all brilliant. But the group often varied depending on the particular issues--or part of the state. I'm still missing a couple of names.

Chall: You can fill them in later.

Younger: If I can; although that group was not as firm as you might think and did not meet as often as it should have.

Chall: When you felt the need for making some decisions, who got the group together, or who would come?

Younger: That was supposed to be en's job.

Chall:. Were you in on most of those meetings?

Younger: I think I was usually invited, but obviously it had to be Evelle's schedule and not mine that was controlling it. So I was in on some, but not on all.

Chall: If you were around?

Younger : Yes .

Chall: Did you feel that you were listened to, feel confident to be in on this?

Younger: Sometimes, yes, and of course the group would vary, too, depending upon what the subject of the meeting was.

Chall: There have been times, I understand, when the wives of candidates are usually considered such a pest, such a nuisance--that some campaign people have said that they do everything they possibly can to keep them out of the office and away from the campaign. My assumption is that you were not considered a pest and a nuisance.

Younger: Oh, sure, frequently, frequently. Sure, it depended on what I wanted.

Chall: They used you, however, where they needed you?

Younger: That's right and if I saw something that seemed to me to be tremendously important and nobody else thought it was important, then I was a pest. If I had an idea that everybody thought was brilliant, then I was a genius. [laughs] That's the main role of a wife!

Chall: But you stuck it out! Younger : Well, you don't have much choice.

Chall: Yes, but they didn't--or did they--in the campaign have meetings and deliberately not contact you?

Younger: Oh, I don't know. [laughs] Hob7 would I know?

Chall: How did you feel generally? Did you feel pushed aside or did you feel most of the time that you were an asset, that you were wanted and were useful?

Younger: Probably my background would lead me to be more objective about what was usable and saleable and needed to be done than most wives. That would be my guess. I'm more apt to know what is news and what isn't news, for instance. I'm more apt to know the difference between something that really ought to be said and what the candidate can't say, than most wives. I'm terrible when it comes to raising money or detail work or anything of the kind. I'm just dreadful. Some people have a talent'for it. I don't. So that's the main problem-- to figure out what is overall the best use of all resources. And I was a campaign resource. A wife always is.

Evelle now refers to having been convinced that hecouldn't win, but he never said that to me during the campaign. We simply .didn't communicate very much during the campaign. For instance, the day that I guess I got us about the biggest coverage that the campaign had was here in Beverly Hills. I flew north afterwards to meet Evelle at something. We met in the editorial office of a newspaper--it could have been in San Jose, I think it was in San Jose--and he didn't know I had made the speech, which was on the wires by then. So there he was sitting there talking to the editors of the paper and I had to ask him to excuse himself when I arrived. Be was very put out, but I thought it was important [laughs] that he knew what I said!

Chall: You had really said something earthshaking or campaign shaking?

Younger: It was a little more--well, it just didn't seem appropriate to let him go in there totally unaware of what his wife had just said. [laughs]

Chall: On the whole, he was able to take the fact that you were out there campaigning for--

Younger: Oh, I think he accepted it very much the way I did, that we had to do anything that we could do.

Chall: This is unusual to have a piece of literature on the candidate's wife, or is it? "Mildred Younger, A Most Unusual Womantt--was that part of the strategy? [shows campaign pamphlet] Younger : Oh, I know why we did this. I think Peggy probably put that together and it was intended to be a means of persuading people that--[~ause] I'd forgotten that this existed but remembering back I'm pretty sure that this was actually my own idea.

Chall: I think Carol [Waters] sent it to me. In fact, she sent me twenty of them. I had said if there were such material around I would like to use it in the volumes.

Younger : This was done in an effort to satisfy organizations where Evelle couldn't go and where they might take a person about whom they had read something but definitely didn't want just any speaker. Using this device we didn't leave people so high and dry. And often angry.

Chall: It meant that you had a place in the campaign.

Younger : Yes, and I think it was essential because that is pretty hard on a program chairman, to all of a sudden discover that they--

Chall: --have a surrogate.

Younger : That's right.

Chall: They don't like surrogates, do they?

Younger: No. And they'll maybe cut your time down to five minutes and give other candidates thirty or something! [laughs]

Chall: Were you treated pretty well?

Younger : Generally speaking, yes; a few times not, but generally speaking. It was probably because of a piece like that. This is the same device used by professional lecture agents and I had been a lecturer.

Chall: Even his campaign material had a lot about the two of you in it, but this was special.

Younger : It just plain helped to equalize out the treatment. For instance, the Republican Assembly meeting in Fresno took place before this was published. Letting the candidate's wife share the stage with the other candidates was probably intended to hurt Evelle badly. But they weren't burdened with remembering that I'd held three presidential appointments. In that case this piece of literature would have been a disadvantage.

Chall: When did your husband think-that he might lose?

Younger: I don't know that. I've only heard h'im talk about it, well, 1'd say in the last four to five months. I never heard it before. It came as quite a surprise and as a matter of fact, I have not asked Younger: him about it. I have heard him mention it to people when I have been present and each time I think, "My gosh, I've got to ask him." I began to feel like an absolute dope.

Chall: Was it a Wirthlin poll, do you think?

Younger: It could have been, although if I remember the ones that I heard Dick analyze, he always thought that there was a chance, particularly after the first debate. It showed that there was a change in direction. I'm on the board of the Rose Institute which, as you know, is now in a good deal of conflict over the redistricting proposals. But I am not at all good at the whole area of demographics and they mean substantially less to me than they should. And, of course, Dick Wirthlin is incredibly good at it.

Chall: Was the relationship with Curb a difficult one? Were you able to sense that he might go ahead of the gubernatorial candidate?

Younger: Oh yes, and without in any way diminishing Mike himself, you have to remember that he was running against a very doubtful candidate. The incumbent lieutenant [Mervyn Dymally] was black; I think there may have been in the beginning some feeling against blacks in high . public office at that point. Remember that the black areas themselves are often the most destructive to a black either in public office or seeking public office, particularly if you are talking about a much larger political constituency. But statewide, it's a mixed kind of thing. Lieutenant Governor Dymally had been in trouble and he was an unpleasant kind of an incumbent. Governor Brown disassociated himself pretty completely from Dymally.

Chall: As a result of all that, he got more press and publicity, do you think?

Younger: No, but there were good reasons not to vote for the incumbent lieutenant governor--

Chall: Than there were [reasons] not to vote for Governor Brown?

Younger: That's right.

Chall: Were the relationships in general good between the candidates?

Younger: Oh, yes.

Chall: That was no problem?

Younger: No, and I had great fun. I enjoyed Linda [Curb] very much and I had great fun dragging her into her first interviews and that kind of thing, and she did just beautifully. But she hadn't done it Younger: before and there was no way that she was going to respond if asked, so I would push her! [laughs] She did it so nicely and so well.

The Campaign Hiatus in Hawaii

Chall: At some point in the campaign it was said that because Evelle Younger stayed in Hawaii for a couple of weeks after the primary that he lost ground to Jerry Brown.

Younger: In the first place, it was five days, not a couple of weeks. In the second place, that was the kidney stone episode which, of course, the papers very conveniently forgot--that he was trying desperately not to have to go in for surgery. He ended up having to have surgery, and I think that that period -did hurt him. Oh, that was both funny and infuriating.

One morning the phone rang and I guess it was five o'clock in the morning in Bawaii and Evelle answered the phone. It was a reporter asking what was his response to the telegram sent by one of the union leaders--William Robertson--demanding that Evelle come back and get busy on preparing the state case for the supreme court on Proposition 13. Obviously, that had been prepared before he ever left. It didn't help that Evelle said, "Do you know what time it is here?" He had not received any telegram and, of course, we found out afterwards that there are no telegrams delivered off of the main island of Oahu. [laughs] We weren't on the main island, so we never saw the telegram. If there was in fact a telegram, we never saw it. I doubt that there was one.

As a matter of fact, Evelle did it to himself. The secretary called and said that the governor's office had called and said that it was urgent that the governor speak to him and wanted to know how to reach him. Evelle said, "Well, just give him the number if it's urgent." Of course, it wasn't urgent. It was for the purpose of finding out where he was and getting the telephone number, so the whole thing was a lie. But nobody ever bothered to print that either.

I've forgotten what it was that Evelle suggested the reporter do at five o'clock in the morning, but he suggested it. The phone rang and rang and rang. We were staying in what was apparently originally a caretaker's cottage, really a nice little house that was being rebuilt on a part of an old plantation--a botanical garden that Athalie Clarke had recently bought. There was a young couple, a botanist and his wife, who were living there. She had offered it and we accepted it. But it was private property and one of the wire Younger: services even sent a camera crew that attempted to break into the house. It was just a nasty, put-up kind of a thing all the way.

But about seven o'clock, I guess, in the morning, Evelle decided he wasn't going to take any more calls because he was so mad. It had been a good faith effort to accommodate the governor. That was why that telephone number had become available. There was no other way that it could have. Of course, the governor's office had some very unimportant thing that had no time value, no importance at all, and didn't really want to be called back. It wanted that number and it got it--because Evelle was a responsible attorney general.

But about seven I answered the phone and said on an impulse that he had gone surfing. It was a reporter from the San Diego Union and he said, "oh, come now, Mrs. Younger, do you really want us to print 'the attorney general has gone surfing?"' I said, "Yes, I think it would make a fine headline." [laughs] Well, they printed one edition with this banner headline. Of course, this almost killed the Brown people because you cannot imagine Governor Brown on a surf board! There was a funny cartoon that they subsequently ran of the governor using one of those life rings and Evelle surfing over him! [laughter]

Chall: Basically was he trying to take care of his kidney stone? He didn't have surgery in Hawaii, did he?

Younger: No, he did not. The surgeon had alerted a doctor over there to be prepared to do the surgery, but they were hoping that he would pass the kidney stone.

Chall: So that is what he was really resting for?

Younger: Yes, and that was the doctor's recommendation, that he go some place where he would be basically undisturbed and see if he couldn't get rid of the kidney stone. But it didn't work, unfortunately.

Chall: Did he have surgery then after the general election?

Younger: No, he had it during the summer and it did set the campaign back because, of course, that meant that a substantial amount of time was lost, but he didn't have any choice. Adjusting to Life as a Private Citizen

Chall: When did you know that you had lost?

Younger: Election night.

Chall: Did you have any doubts or any fears that you might be losing or were you just going to wait and see?

Younger: I didn't spend any time dwelling on it, no.

Chall: When you lost, how did you feel?

Younger: Bruised, I guess.

Chall: You did?

Younger: Oh, sure, that's a long, hard, time-consuming--

Chall: Having had a loss yourself in your campaign, and knowing how it feels, were you able to help your husband with the loss? Did you think he felt the way you had, alone and bruised, after his campaign as you did after yours in '54?

Younger: I don't imagine that I helped very much, no, and he is not one to seek or really accept help either. We never discussed it.

Chall: You never discussed it after the loss--how he felt, what was going through his mind? He was prepared though more than you apparently.

Younger: It may be hindsight that causes him now to make remarks about it, but at the time, I would say, no, I didn't have an inkling. But we were together very little toward the end of the campaign and audiences were enthusiastic. But I don't think I was much help to him largely because life goes on and you've still got obligations and you've got things to do and, of course, some of the idiocy that goes on after you've lost a campaign is rather profound!

Chall: Your own campaign people, how did they feel? Do you know? Were you in touch with them for several days cleaning up at the office and all the sort of things that have to be done after a campaign?

Younger: Yes, although not having been much involved in the office I wasn't much help as far as that kind of thing was concerned. Everybody disappears awfully fast. Chall: What about close friends that you had like Peggy Stout and the Waters, people who were really close to you, not just campaign people but your good friends?

Younger : I don't think that I discussed it muchwithanybody. I guess it isn't the kind of thing that you go around talking about really. At least not at the time.

Chall: Then you have to internalize it somehow.

Younger : That's right, and we still do. This is a whole new life for us.

Chall: I know how concerned you were about losing because of the change that would come over your life.

Younger: And it did. This house is the manifestation of losing and the change, because all of a sudden we were in a whole new world. Of course, he was attorney general for almost two full months after the election. Then we had all the moving to do.

Chall: What made you decide to move?

Younger: That reference was to all the moving from San Francisco and from Sacramento, and four off ices. I had had some back trouble before and it was packing the boxes and the like that led to the point where I couldn't walk.

Chall: That was within that space of a couple of months? When did you have your back problem?

Younger : I had the back surgery after we moved here, but there wasn't any question but what I was in bad trouble with my back during the moving.

&all : What kind of surgery was it?

Younger : I don't even remember the name of the operation. I've got it written down some place, I don't know where. I know that they removed the bottom vertebrae. There was the beginning of a spur inside the spinal column so that there wasn't any question about it. It had to be done. It couldn't get better by any other means, but we didn't know that right away and, of course, we spent a fair amount of time trying exercises and that kind of thing and it just couldn't work.

Chall: There were several things that you had told me earlier in other interviews that you did find difficult: being controlled by the schedule of the attorney general; the moving around continually; that you weren't really too happy in the fish bowl atmosphere; that your husband pushed an eighteen-hour day which was difficult for you; Chall: there were threats on your life continually that were hard to take. You said that an office holder's wife is someone to be gossiped about and can't really be a person in her own right--those were all negatives, the reasons why you might not care about the public life. On the other hand you really were concerned about a certain loss of status, the inability to travel the way you had before as a V.1.P.-- various things of this kind. You felt that some of the friends you had made or good acquaintances--that they wouldn't care about you if you were no longer in public office. Those things were what you were concerned about, too.

Younger: And the marvelously interesting experiences that we had, the stimulating ones.

Chall: Now I'm wondering how it's all turned out. Your husband has gone into a law office. Where is he?

Younger: He is with Buchalter, Nemer, Fields, Chrystie, and Younger. [spells names 1

Chall: What does he do?

Younger: I'm not sure.

Chall: He does a lot of travel.

Younger: Yes, a pretty fair amount. He took quiteawhile trying to figure out what his role should be with the law firm, just as the law firm took a long time trying to figure out how they could best use him. I would say that it has been in the last six months that they finally got into perspective with one another. It's an unusual situation and, as he says -so -9 often he'll find out that they've been doing something or that they've had some kind of litigation where he would have automatically known the answer or could get it easily, and it hasn't dawned on them that they've got a resource, and the reverse is true. He feels uncertain about his own ability in some fields where he is perfectly competent, but he's not very sure of himself.

Both district attorney and attorney general are pretty much administrative jobs and a private law firm is quite different.

Chall: How is he, in general, adjusting? Is your life going on pretty smoothly, more normal let's say than the eighteen hours a day it used to be?

Younger : Yes.

Chall: Time for exercise and all of that? Younger: Well, I'm not much good at exercising, but he loves to play tennis. You saw his bicycle.

Chall: You had told me that he needs a certain amount of time during the day to do that.

Younger: He sure does.

Chall: Now he is able to get it?

Younger: It makes a tremendous difference.

Chall: What made you move? Where is his office?

Younger: In downtown Los Angeles.

Chall: And you're way out here? [Beverly Hills]

Younger: Well, this isn't really way out. For instance, a week before last, as it worked out we were out every night of the week and everything we went to was on this side of town. The air quality is certainly better on this side of town, but we had no problem where we were. in Los Feliz. Still the basin is full of air pollution. I think it would be very hard to move to the eastern part of Los Angeles County for that reason.

Chall: Why did you chose to move at all and why here?

Younger: It was kind of a psych.ologica1 thing as much as anything else. We certainly bit off more than we could chew as far as moving was concerned. Our own home in the Los Feliz hills was very nice and so was the immediate neighborhood. /I/I Younger: But we were concerned about the area around us. It was going downhill awfully fast. Though I think that we did some pretty stupid things, it seemed to us like we better sell and get out. It was a logical time to make a break. We had talked about the blight pretty often. And we had had light burglaries in that house. Some attempts; some pretty frightening. That whole Hollywood area is the center of all kinds of vice activities and it was just plain no fun to always have to go through it. My sister and brother-in-law are still there. But their lving circumstances are a little different. They live in a newer area which is designed in such a way that people can kind of watch out for one another. It's much more a normal street kind of an arrangement. We couldn't see our neighbors' houses and they couldn't see ours. Younger: I was very fond of the house that we had, as I'm sure Evelle was too, but in many respects it.no longer worked for us. The bathrooms were incredibly small.

Chall: You also had a rather difficult backyard, as I recall. It went way down and you had to do your gardening on a deep slope. Your swimming pool was down a flight of steps.

Younger: That's right, and it was an awful lot of gardening work, which I enjoyed, but it was hard work. The house couldn't be added onto anymore. We had done everything we could. It was built basically into the hillside and there was really nothing more that we could do to that house. We looked and looked and looked at it, trying to figure out if we could in any way get a decent size bathroom or something like that. But very small bathrooms, very small closets, and all of a sudden, we were inundated with all of these things we had accumulated. It just seemed like--

Chall: Did it mean something like a fresh start?

Younger: Yes, surely, of course. Psychologically it was important.

Chall: How has your life been?

Younger: This project here [remodeling the home -in Beverly Hills] has been just overwhelming and if we had been very smart about it, we certainly would not have taken it on, both because of the awful expense and just being a slave to it.

Chall: It's almost over.

Younger: I hope so, I hope so! But when I think in terms of the possibility of trying to entertain and that kind of thing, you know it is -not over because there are lots of things still that really are not to the point where we can use them to the best advantage.

Chall: It's ahousethatcertainlyonecouldentertaininnicely.

Younger: Yes, but we have to do more about the kitchen. It's very inadequate but we'll take it a step at a time.

Chall: What is your general intellectual and social life like now? In what way is it different from what it had been when you were in public off ice?

Younger: Of course, it has been infinitely less active--no more head tables for which I am extremely grateful.

Chall: That's a plus! Younger: [laughs] Yes, indeed it is! We've traveled some.

Chall: Was that on business or have you just had the time?

Younger: When we went to Eastern Europe and then when we went to China, each time it was a People-to-People group and Evelle was the leader who put it together, and that's been extremely interesting.

Chall: How did that come about, the People-to-People groups?

Younger: It was Eisenhower that started that program and a very dear friend of ours who is now deceased was I think, the second director of the program. [Lewis K. Gough] So we were more aware of it than a lot of people are. I have forgotten what it was that President Eisenhower [said] or the exact words, but the spirit of it was that if people know one another, there aren't going to be wars, and it's probably the most positive thing that individual citizens can do, is to try to know their peers in other countries.

Chall: Both of those were people-to-people--the trips to Eastern Europe and China?

Younger: Yes. China was, I thought, a very successful trip. It was a larger group than they liked to have and it was a larger group than we expected.

Chall: How large was it?

Younger: It was thirty-five and that's pretty much. Nobody dropped out and we kept thinking people would drop out! On the Eastern European trip a lot of people did drop out. It was planned for the Soviet Union and then, of course, the Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan and people dropped out like crazy. So we were down to a group of fifteen or so. I'm glad we went, but I would not choose that particular trip as a very exciting one. The Iron Curtain countries are pretty gray and oppressive. It's been interesting. On both trips, the guide that had gone with us throughout has been absolutely astounded at the number of American ambassadors, for instance, who meet with the group themselves. Ambassador [Mike] Mansfield, and this was before he was reappointed, spent an hour and forty-five minutes with us.

Chall: Was that because of your husband?

Younger: I think so, yes. He works a lot at it ahead of time. For instance, ?n Japan, former Prime Minister Miki arranged for the Japanese Bar Association to entertain this particular group. It's never entertained a group of judges and lawyers from the United States before and that was purely through a personal, mutual friend of my husband's and the prime minister's. Younger : In Peking, there we were in the government guest house. The director gave a banquet for us the first night. It is on an island on a man- made lake that was created over eight hundred years ago for an emperor to go fishing on. That means it's surrounded by water and has lovely planting and therefore, it is more pleasant as far as atmosphere is concerned than the rest of Peking which is very, very dusty and dry. It is a huge flat city with pretty extreme temepratures. But the director told me that we had the same suite in a building of the same design as President Nixon had had, for instance, and that was where Kissinger had written about--that compound with eighteen buildings. Our group was assigned to one of those buildings. That helps when you're on a very arduous trip, and the Chinese make you work at touring.

Chall: So there is some carry-over then from your public status?

Younger: Yes, very much so.

Chall: What about the rest of your private life? Is there any carry-over?

Younger: Oh, I suppose some. It's hard to tell how much and actually I don't know how Evelle would reply to that. I certainly don't have anything like as much as he does. I am looking forward to more volunteer- type activity. Although I feel that I've already covered an awfully lot of volunteer territory.

Chall: Has it been as hard on you as you thought it would be? You were so concerned about just--

Younger: Well, it's a hard adjustment.

Chall: You are painting, I noticed.

Younger: Not with any great regularity or any great discipline or direction. I hope that that's one of the things that I will do more of. I've taken a very few classes over the years and it's amazing how just the materials and the techniques have changed. Even the palette! Acrylic colors and oil colors are based on a different color wheel. Yellow and blue may make green with oil pigments--they make mud with acrylics. Yet other considerations certainly indicate that I'd better get busy and become better acquainted with acrylics if I intend to paint. I kind of keep trying to sneak up on it but my drawing is mediocre and rusty and my use of materials is archaic. And of course, gardening remains an infuriating passion. We've torn up the yard completely and I'm back to bullying the zinnias when I can bend down far enough.

Chall: What about the national board of the Heart Association? Are you still a lay member? Younger: No, that's a revolving thing and, of course, I'm no longer on the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. My appointment ran out. I kind of miss that, but not really very much. It was so terribly politicized in such a series of maneuvers with the executive director. He was well entrenched when I was appointed. I don't know the new director. I was still on the board when she was hired, but I hope that it becomes a much more constructive commission. It literally stood still for the five years I was a member because of the turmoil over the executive director. There is so much to be done to get libraries into the mainstream, doing a creative job of filling an urgent need that it was doubly frustrating to see so much time and talent wasted on such a superficiality.

Chall: Was she a Reagan appointee, the new director?

Younger: No, that's in the category of one of the highest levels of civil service. Isn't it called an executive--there is a name for the category; it's a good job. But it was a bad time for us to expect a great many applications because, of course, nobody knew what the future would be for the commission, and President Carter had politicized his appointments very, very heavily which was too bad. The chairman is appointed. He is not a member elected by the co~~lmission.He is appointed as chairman. There were a lot of things that could have been done if the chairman, whom I'm fond of, had not felt his mission to be primarily political. For instance, he was determined that there would not be a real effort to involve the private sector in a good many library functions that could probably be better done by the private sector simply because of the economy. Everybody supports the idea of libraries but costs are escalating much faster than the perceived literary needs of the population. We got to the point, for instance, where the concept was almostdictated to the White House Conference on Libraries and Information Science that libraries existed because people needed sources of information about government. This, to me, is a very limited kind of an outlook on libraries, and yet that was a preconceived idea, that you go to the library in order to read government publications and where to get government services. I have no use for that concept at all. But that's what we were coming to.

Evelle and I talked about what the president had a right to expect from his chairman and Evelle saw the answer much more clearly than I did, possibly because he wasn't burdened with knowing the personalities so well. The chairman appointed by Carter simply couldn't work with the director and the director defied him. I voted with the chairman on the executive director. If the president can't use his appointees to shape the administration he heads then the whole government should be run by civil service. And sometimes it comes close to it. But that's not why we make political decisions. We elect a president because we endorse his philosophy. Clearly both Younger: he and the electorate are entitled to expect that his appointees at all levels will reflect that philosophy in their particular . spheres of interest.

This sounds like I'm being pretty inconsistent but this is a commission appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The terms are staggered. I can abhor the politicizing of appointments to the other fourteen members as their vacancies occur--although they are bound to be political to some extent--but the president really should be able to appoint a chairman for whatever reasons he wishes. Interestingly, President Nixon's appointments to this commission appear to have been very objective. I doubt that political affiliation influenced them at all. His appointments were almost all Democrats, but well qualified individuals.

Chall: So right now, except for the Rose Institute, and you were on that board before, you don't have any major board activities?

Younger: That's right, and that is not a very active board, and of course Mrs. Rose is very ill. I don't think that that board meets more than four times a year. I think I've missed a couple of things. I'm one of the delegates to the Commission of the Californias that Lieutenant Governor Curb heads, but again, that's not a very active thing and I really don't feel a strong urge to get active in any of fhese things. I kind of feel like I've done that!

Chall: Soyou'rekindof inlimbonow?

Younger: Yes.

[This summary was added by Mrs. Younger when she reviewed the transcript. ]

There is one kind of unusual activity which I feel both compelled to do and--at the same time--I find very depressing. A surprising number of people who have speech problems--or who have loved ones with speech problems--feel a great need to talk to someone who's been through the experience. Some of them are heart breaking. I find it very difficult to talk with them but, of course, I must. I'm on the board of a support group which has been established to support research on the problem of spastic dysph0nia.h I kind of wish that one of the copious questionnaires hadn't asked me to donate my brain stem. Presumably, they're willing to wait a while. I'm very pleased that the small book the surgeon [Herbert Dedo, M.D.] wrote about the problem and the procedure is dedicated to me.

But do remember that while we've certainly had some dynamic changes in direction since we talked I haven't really been idle. We didn't believe the multitude of people who warned us against

*Mrs. Younger writes that, by January 1983, 1000 such operations had been performed in medical centers across the United States. [M.C.] Younger: remodeling our new home and went ahead and added a second floor to a house we both fell in love with at first sight. We had workmen in the house every day for fourteen months during which time we literally couldn't cook a meal. The refrigerator was in the den and we shared it with everybody who worked here. We moved in before the workmen did and I learned much more about construction than I wanted to.

They had no sooner dumped the old roof into the house than it became obvious I had to have the back surgery. And spinal surgery of any kind is limiting. I'm in remarkably good shape now but recovery is slow and there is residual stiffness and limitation of movement which is frustrating.

But the house was a full-time job for months! It's not really finished but we are. Evelle really hates work around the house-- I always kidded him that that's why he ran for public office! But we've finished the bookcases ourselves and he's painted our bedroom and the long hallway. He's very proud of the good job he did but between costs and lack of available competent labor we didn't really have much choice.

We've traveled a good deal, really, and trips like the Reagan inauguration were exciting. I was asked to be president-elect for the Los Angeles County chapter of the American Heart Association. They needed a replacement fast and I, very foolishly, agreed. I wasn't in physical condition to do the job and, as is so often with a married woman's lifestyle, I simply didn't have anyone to take any part of either the full-time job here or the volunteer respon- sibility. Even if a secretary had been available I could not have justified paying one and I don't know where she would have worked with the construction turmoil we had. The Heart Association and I were both disappointed but it was clear that I couldn't do the job. And really didn't want to. I've also developed high blood pressure and find the medication enervating which doesn't help.

Our son was elected to the superior court and we're very proud of that but I'm very disappointed to have to add that he and Nina didn't succeed with what looked like a very stable marriage to us. They tried hard but it didn't work. [end of insert]

Chall: I think, too, that it's twenty to five and though I hate to break this up, I know you have an appointment to meet your husband at five.

Younger: That's going to be the plumber. [doorbell rings]

Chall: How far do you have to go to get to the doctor?

Younger: Well, if that's the plumber, I'm here to stay.

Transcribers: Pat Raymond, Lee Steinbach, Michelle Stafford Final Typist: Reiko Sugimo to TAPE GUIDE -- Mildred Younger

Interview 1: March 8, 1976 tape 1, side A* tape 1, side B tape 2, side A tape 2, side B

Interview 2: April 7, 1976 tape 3, side A tape 3, side B tape 4, side A tape 4, side B

Interview 3: August 2, 1976 tape 5, side l* tape 5, side 2

Interview 4: September 19, 1976 tape 6, side 1 tape 6, side 2

Interview 5: September 29, 1976 tape 7, side 1 tape 7, side 2

Interview 6: November 8, 1976 tape 8, side 1 tape 8, side 2

Interview 7: March 8, 1977 tape 9, side 1 tape 9, side 2 insert from tape 12, side B [5/26/77] insert from tape 13, side A [5/26/77] insert from tape 9, side 1 [3/8/77] insert from tape 14, side B [2/13/78] insert from tape 11, side 1 [5/9/77]

Interview 8: May 9, 1977 tape 10, side 1 tape 10, side 2

*Sides A and B refer to cassettes; sides 1 and 2 to 5" reel to reel tapes. Interview 9 : May 26, 1977 tape 12, side A tape 12, side B

Interview 10: February 13, 1978 insert from tape 14, side B [2/13/78] insert from tape 15, side A [2/13/78] insert from tape 14, side A [2/13/78] insert from tape 13, side B [5/26/77] insert from tape 8, side 2 [11/8/76] insert from tape 1, side B [3/8/76] insert from tape 13, side A [5/26/77] insert from tape 13, side B [5/26/77] insert from tape 14, side A [2/13/78] insert from tape 14, side B [2/13/78] tape 15, side A [2/13/78] tape 15, side B [2/13/78]

Interview 11: July 7, 1981 tape 16, side A tape 16, side B tape 17, side A [side B not recorded] APPENDICES

APPENDIX A -- Republican State and National Officers

19311 I 940 1942 1944 IYf.6 1948 1950 1952 Wm Knwland Raymond Hall(11t ( 1'140-47) HcIntyr* Y~~rlca (d1.d in offlce) (1947-52)

Edlth Vmdervmter Jesrie Uilliarmon FbrJorlc Bc~~rJlct (1932-LC) (1944-08) (1948-60)

Star* Chairman Tholpsn Kuch.1 Ldusrd H. Tickle Leo Andmraon A.W. Carlbon Edw. Sllattuck T I1 Dr Lap Lruyhlln Uatrra (LA.) (Carrnal) (L.A.) (Oakland) (I..A.)-1950 (Ri~hmond) (L.A.) Yl~lllpBoyd stat* Vice- Ldw. Plattuck UIII. 1'. Hkh Laughlln UaCera T. Caldccott (LA.) (~ubaCity) (L.A.) (Oakland) Chalrmn NIS 2nd-YuIt. (VenturaY"' Stare Trearurlr Poul Helm A. Ronald Button A. ~onaldButton (L.A.) (1101 lyuood) (Hollyuood) YIl11am Arthur Dolan, Jr. Arthur Dolan.Jr.. O'Brlen ..at. (S.F. ) aart. (S.T.) (S.F.)

Stat* Secretary Herbert Scuddar Claranca Ward Urn. O'Brlrn bymond Bloaaer 1.loyd Alvin F. Derra (Sebaa tapol) (S.B.rbara) (S.P.) (S.P.) -Hnrnlah (S.F.) (Fresno) Zrmo Kcrrlgan. b.Wlllrm SLfford arsc. (whitti*$ ..at. Wrnruca! Vice Chairwn Kc4.A.H. brJorle Pat. Connich Patricia Connich Robertson Bened ic t (S.F. (S.F.1 Worth (Sacto) (Berkeley) Vice Chalrmn Aplwicf Ksth. Brwn Florence Doa Cantral (Freano) (Stockton) (via. 11.) vlce Chairman Geraldine Margaret Edith Lehman South Hadaell (L.A.) Brock (L.A.) (L .A. )

Senate Hlram Johnaon Ym. Knowland (3e.c A) (1916-45) (apptd. 1945-58)

Thomar Scorke (apptd.) )L.Nixon Kuchel (1952-68) Sheridan Dounay (1938-50) (1950-52) Warran appcrc)

Prea ldcnt Pro Jerrold L. Seavcll William P. Rich J.L. Seawell H.J. Pouera Tea (Seneca) (1939) (R) (1941) (R) (1943) (R) (1947) (R)

Speaker of Paul Peek (D) C.H.Carland C.Y. Lyon S.L. Colllna Aaa*mbly (1939) (1940) (3) (1943) (R) (1947) (R)

Governor Culberc Olson (1938-42) Earl Warren (1942-53) Warren Warran (Cov. F. Uerriam, (C. Olson. D) (R. Kenny, D) (J . Rooa eve lt. D) C. Hatfield, 8) .-. Pepubllcrn John Hamilton (Y.M.) Joe. U. tl~rLin, H~rriSOnE. Herbert Brwncll, Jr. Carroll Ruece Qly C.Cobrklscn Artl~~~rLSw,*ld Mat '1 Chirmn (1936-40) Jr. (Uasr) Spangler (N.Y.) (1944-46) (Tcnn) (N.J.) (1%%52) (?llch.)(l952-53) (1900-42) (lwa) (1946-48) C. Ura Icy okn9 (1942-44) (b113.)?195~) Leonard V. Hall (~.Y.)(L953-57)

F. Rooaavalt (1932-45) 1.Rooaevalt H. Truman D. EIaenhwer (1952-60) (V. VilUcl*, R) 0.Deuay , R) (1. Dcwr . R) (E. Warren, (H. Malice, IPP) 1. Uerdcl, R) (5 .-SLevf?!%n, hat ldrai Patricia Hitt (1960-6;) Ann Bou lrr ( 1465 -68) Com1t:erwasdn

St*[=' Cha1rr-n Toa Caldecott Alphonro Bell George Milias Jr. V.John Krehblel Caspar Yeinberger Dr. Caylord (OaklanC) (L.A.) (Gilroy) (Pasadena) (S.F.) Park~oson

State V:ce- Hovard Dona:CDoyle J.Krehbiel C. Yeinbcrger Gaylord Parkinson James Hailey Chrlrmin N/S Z.haansor. (C.C. Cty) (Pasadena) (S.F.) (El Cajon) (San Hatrcv) scareT ~ 1. Kelloz~ (S.F.). Ed. ~ Velentine~ Robert~ Pover~ ~ Robert Rouan, Robert Rovan Leland Kaiser (S.F.) Bruce Reagan, (L.A.) (Solano County) (Pasadena) Don Hulford, C. Deukmejian, asst., asst. (L.A.) Joseph Shell, Dm .Y.ulford, asst. (Long Reach) asst. (L.A.) asst. (Oakland)

Frances Ueinberger(S .F .) Joseph Shell John McCarthy Karl von Christierson (Saline.) State Secretary G1aCvs , C 'bocnell Larsen Jean Bates. Enily Pike. (Marin County) (Sen. Vernon Sturgeon (Paso (Lozg Beach) (L.A.) asst. (C.C. Cty) asst. (S.F.) Athalie Clark, Robles) 6 John collie^ (l..~.), aast.(Pasadena) assts.)

Vice Chrirman J~~~ Jane Ruth Watson Ruth Vatson Lee Sherry Lee Sherry North Zkaernan(S .F.) Zbaeman (Oakdale) (San Anselmo)

Vice Cbalrmn Ysabel Forker Ysabel Forker Olieve Horan Eleanor Erickscn Dorothy Wisenheimer Dorothy tisenheher Central (Eakessfield) (Odtdale) (Modesro) (Hanford)

Vice Cha:r-n Frances Larsen Arla Reedar Arla Reeder Gladys O'Donnell Gladys O'Donnell Ann Callagher South (Saz Marlno) (Long Beach) (Santa And

Srnate Rnouland korland Clair Engle (1958-196C) Engle George Hurphy(1964-70) (Seat A) (C. Knight, G. Christopher, R) (P.S~lin~cr,A. Cranscon, D)

Scnace Kuchel Kuchel Kuchel Kuchel Kuchel Kuchel (Seat B) (S. Yorty ,D) (R. Richards, (Lloyd Wright, S. Yorty, D) Hward Jarvls , R) (R. Richards, D)

Pres ldent Pro Clarencr C. Ben Hulse (R) Hugh W. Burns Burns Burns Tern (Senate) Kard(Q (1954-5) 4955-6) 0)(1957-65)

Speaker of J.K. Sillfman L.H.Lincoln(~) Lincoln Ralph M. Brovn Jesse M. Unruh (Dl Aa~embly (R) (1953-4) (1955-58) (D) (1959-61) (1962-69)

Governor C.Knighc EZmund C. (Pat) Brown. Sr. (D) Pat Brovn (Groves, D) (Knowland, R) (R.Nixon. J.Shell , R) [LC. Gov. primary: m.Rouser, Silliman, R] P.epubl :car. made Alcorn (Corm.) Thruscon Morton h. E. Miller Nat'l Cblrrvn (1957-59) (Ky.)(1959-61) (~.~.)(1961-64)

Prer idenc Elsenhover J .Kennedy (1960-3) L.B. Johnson (1963-68) (Stevenson . Kefawer, D) (R. Kixon, R) 8.uUuK. N. Rockefeller, R) Jan. 1967 Thonas Reed Edward Uills Charles (San Rafael) (San Uarino)

Nat Ion4 1 Ann B~vler Eleanor Ring Eleanor Ring Janet Johnston 11s. Sanstrom ComLtLecuomn (1963-72) (1972-73) (1973-76)

Stace Chairman Jares Eailey Dennis Carpenter Paul Haerle

State Vice- Genois Carpenter Putnaz Llvermore Kichael Montgomery ch*irMn N/S (iievport Beach) (S.F.) (L.A.)

state ~rcaaurrr EZW. ?I.:LI~ (L.A.) Robert Beaver Uichael Donaldson(Torrance) (hch Ucnson (S.F.), (Deubnejian. asst.) Louis Johnsofi (Cardenel Deuknej ian, assts.)

state ~ecretary k. von Christierson Paul Haerle Truman Cmpbell (Fresno) (1. Reed (KarFn). Louise (Tiroo del junco(L.A.) Verna Hartox (Torrance), Butfor: (Orange), assts.1 brjorie Boynton, assts.) Weloo. Denner (S.F.)

Wanda Agostini (Redding) Jacqueline Keas Kcas Worth (Sacrac-eato)

Vice Chairan Jane Virginia Brock Elsie Bucheneau ().ladera) Ccntza 1 (HerceC) (Bakersfield)

Vice Chairman Eleaco? Ring Ann Bowler Hargaret Scott South (Coronzdo)

1926 Senate (J. fmney. 1. byden, D) (Seat A) Murphy Murphy Tunney (1970- ) (c. Brovn, K. Hahn, D) (C. Murphy, H. Sirnor., R) (S. Hayakwa, 1. Finch, A. Bell, R) Senace Kuchel Alan Cranstor.(l968- ) Cranston Cranston (1974) Cranston (Seat B) (A. Beileason, D) (Kuchel, M. Rafferty. R)

Premldenc Pro Eward Uay (R) Jack Schrade (R) T.ro (Senate) (Feb. 1970)

Speaker of Robert 1. nonagan Aamenbly (R)

Governor Ronald Reagan (1966-74) Ronald Reagan (1970) Jerry Brown (1974- ) (e~al.) (G. Christopher, R) (Jess Lnru!!. S. Yorty. D) (Mouston Flournoy. R) (eL 81.) (Pa: Brm, D)

Rcpubllcan Deac Burch Ray Bliss Sen. Robert Dole nary Louise Wat'l Chalrvn

Prea ldent ~b~~(1972) C. Ford (1974- ) (H. Huxphre ., D) (G . McCovern , (R. Reagan, R) (E. McCarrhy, R. Kennedy, D) 8. numphrey, D.) (3. Carter, F. Church, M. Udall. C. Broun, D.) APPENDIX B 34 6 A voice-after 17 silent years

, - By Mildred Hamilton After'the operation to try to reactivate vocal cords stilled for 17 years, the surgeon was too exclted to wait until the'patient was completely out of the anesthetic. "tle was shaking me and saylng. 'Say something. Say ~omethlng."' recalled Mlldred Younger. "If I hod no1 been so groggy. I would have said. 'Get last."'. Instea'd'she followed the doctor's instructions to repeat after him, "One, two, three." "By 'three' we both knew the surgery was successful." That was just one year ago. Today the vibrant. talkative wlfe of California Attorney General Evelle Younger ly a medlcal cqhlstory, somethlng of a vocal miracle. And she also has a couple of horror stories to lell. One involves a psychiatrist whose diagnosis of psychoneurares had been proved wrong listened to her speaking nalurally and said, "Oh, you still have your voice? It will be interesting to see how long it last^" That is the minority reaction of a few doctors "who can't admit they were wrong." Most have been joyous and a lot of post-surgery sessions "left groups of medical experts and friends In tears." Today her voice is strong and mellow and slightly husky-"an allergyw-and she speaks out thankfully eager to spread the word that spastic dysphonia. an affliction of the larynx. does. not have to mean permanent silence. 'Now I have a compulsion ao help anyone I can. People wilh spastie dysphonia are entitled to know they need not be disabled for life." Mildred Younger caUs herself "too darned stub born to give up during the 17 years a lot of psychiatrists nuttier than 1was kept telling me my spastlc dysphonia was psychosomatic." Her spirit and her sense of humor are undaunted --and certainly after rasping and gasping for all those years, she has 101s to say. She was talking 111 (he whitewalled apartmenl the Youngers keep In San Francisco, a soothing oasis on a hot day. "Our two grandchildren." she affectionally offered their photograph. "call Ihk one of our hotels. They can'l flgure out our lifestyle a9 we go from our hon~ein Los Angeles here or to the apartment in Sacramento, and sometimes 1 can't either." A slender, active woman, in pants and a scoop necked top that showed the small white scar in the hollow of her throat. she spoke candidly and in detall of the abrupt deterioration of hq volce and the end of a TV-radio commenlator career in 1958. Mildred Younger was restored to tull speech afler 17 years ot near-sllence: 'A lot ot psychiatrists An affliction making her a vocal cripple, whose nuttier than I was kept telllng me my spastic dysphonia was psychosomatlc' tense, choked efforts to talk were marked by grimaces and tlcs because they exhausted her, was- a tcrrlble blow. As Mildred Eberhard, she had been the outstanding woman graduate of her 1WZ USC class. After her marriage to the then FBI agent, she ran a small cran shop. developed a lecture bueinw, was a delegate to the 1852 Republican National Convention. and "came within 'a of 1 per cent of being elected in 19% lo the state Senale. "It k still an all.nla1c club." llcr irrltation showed. Bigotry, discrimination and prejudice caused her to enter that political race and still arouse the fighter in First-of-a-kind, '.-- her. In her early radieTV work "there was a big difference In treatment and pay for women. Still I was operation grateful for the job. Now it is so wonderful to see Barbara Walwgo to the top." Dr. Herbert Dedo (lett), an She was on the 1953CBS equivalenl of the 'Today" otolaryngologlst at UC medlcal show in Loa Angeles when the family was involved in a Center here, declded that minor traffic accident. "I had a slight whiplash. That Younger's conditlon was neu- was on Sunday. By Wednesday my voice was almost romuscular, and declded on an gone." operation that he had never trled betore: He paralyzed one vocal cord surglcally to allow the other one to work. The operation was a success, and San Francisco Examiner Dedo has now pertormed oth- ers like It. At rlght, a probe Sep ternber 15, 1976 suspends the recurrent laryn- geal nerve In an operatlon Ilke Younger's. Tbe dlagnosrs of her problem waa made. "hut has been the star of several medical meetings and has everybody snld It was paychosomat~cbecause that s dedicated herself to answpring stacks of letters of what the boob dd. I went all over the country belng persons with voice loss "to give any infornlatlon I can." treated. I never learned slgn language or used any elec~mnlcdevices and I sounded llke a person who had President Ford. an old friend, lktened to her new had a laryngectomy. It was difficult but you Boo? stop voice and asked her to talk to Illinois Rep. Thomas ihlnlung because you are physically impaired" Railsback, also suffering from spastic dysphonia. "He was out here at UC in a matter of weeks and he is doing A atpportlve husband and son kept her searchlog fine now wlth a whole new voice." The President also and one happy day she was referred to Dr. Herhert appolnted her to Commission on ~ihraries and Dedo, otolaryngoiogbt at UCSon Franclm. He studled Information Sciences to tap some of her considerable her and treated her for several months and decided her energy nod talent. Other future activities xe still spastic dysphonla could be an organic neummuscular unsettled "but 1 am quite busy Just being Mrs. f2~$c9;,;~,~'.~~~,:~~$j~~,'~,~:.7:;,;j,:i;;':;!:

~espltim af- fliction which drastically Im pairid her speaking, Mildred Young- er Id a public 1ue before the operation that cured her: At eft she watches as her husband (far left) Is sworn b as state attor- nay general by Supreme Court JusUce Stanley Mosk In 1975. At rlght, the ~oungersmeet wlth Vletnam- ese orphans Just months be fore her opera- tlon.

INDEX -- Mildred Younger

Ahmanson, Howard, 214-219 American Heart Association, 308-309, 337, 340 American Indians. See United States, Bureau of Indian Affairs American Legion, 7-4 American Red Cross, 67 anti-Semitism, 192, 197 Arbuthnot, Raymond (Ray), 190, 215-218 Amett, Dixon, 325

Bakaly, Charles Jr., 317-318 Baldridge, Lelia, 99 Barrett, Ross and Rita, 103-104, 173 Benedict, Marjorie, 106, 187, 246 Bird, Rose, 255-256 Boorstein, Daniel, 310 Bowker, Albert, 271, 311-312 ,Brennan, Bernard, 104-105, 173 Brock, Margaret, 170, 174, 246, 249-250 Brown, Edmund G. Jr. (Jerry), 255-256, 307, 316, 328 Brown, Edmund G. Sr. (Pat), 254 Burgeson, Samuel D., 197-198 Business and Professional Women, 191 Byrne, Matthew, 253

Caldecott, Thomas, 252 California Club, 172-175, 179 California Journal, 314-316 California Republican Assembly [CRA], 72, 320, 327 California state: attorney general's office, 271-281, 283-286, 297-298, 302, 307, 317 budget, influence of, 277-278 legislature, reorganization of, 232-233, 262 Carter, Jimmy, 338 Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles, 90 Chapel, Charles, 119 civil rights, 129-138, 142 Clarke, Athalie, 249-250 Connich, Patricia, 246 our temanche, Jack, 325 Cowgill, Henrietta, 185 Curb, Mike, 317, 321-322, 328 Davis, Ed, 321 Dedoe, Herbert, M.D., 339 DeLap, T.H. (Tony), 105, 233 Democratic party, 176 Despol, John, 233 Dewey, Thomas E., 100-101 Doe, Florence, 120, 246 Drown, Jack, 185 Dymally, Mervyn, 328

Eberhard, Claire, 6-8 Eberhard, Ray. -See Younger, Mildred, family background, father Eisenhower, Dwight, 150, 183-185, 234-236, 336 election campaign finance, 103-104, 181-182, 192-194, 271, 292, 314-316, 321. See also United Republican Finance election campaign management, 102. See also campaign 1954, 1978 election campaigns, state and national 1948 (presidential), 100-101 1952 (presidential), 156-162, 184-186, 262 1954 (state senatorial), 187-214, 223-224, 243-244, 259-265, 276 1962 (gubernatorial), 144-146 1976 (presidential), 166-167, 176-177 1978 (gubernatorial), 281-331 environment California Coastal Zone Conservation Act [Proposition 201, 1972, 284-285 Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), 202-203, 267-270

Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC), 134-135, 138, 142 Faries, McIntyre, x-xii, 106, 112-113, 172-173, 183 Federation of Republican Women, vi, 92-100, 171, 179, 183, 240, 245-247 Ferraro, Rosemary, 239, 248 Finch, Robert, 129 Firestone, Leonard, 191 Ford, Betty, 25-26 Ford, Gerald, 19-20 Forker, Ysabel, 246 Fuller, Jean Wood, vi-.vii, 94, 173, 186

Gehres, Leslie, 119 Gilles, Ethel, 96 -Goldwater, Barry, Sr., 114 Goodknight, Dorothy, 94, 96 Gough, Louis, 73-74 Gray, William P., 185 Hadsell, Geraldine, 246 Haerle, Paul, 166-167 Hamlin, John, 103, 173, 175 handicapped, physical, prob1,ems of, 236 Hillings, Patrick, 176, 217-218 Hinshaw, Carol, 84-85 Hitt, Patricia, 250 Hoover, Herbert, 152-153 Hosmer, Lucile, 178

Irish, Mrs. Leland Atherton, 191

Jackson, Shirley and Donald, 86 Japanese-Americans and Pearl Harbor, 41-43 Japanese-American Student Peace Conferences, 33-43 Johnson, Gardiner, 105 judicial appointments, 252-256 Junior League, 72-73, 79, 91, 94, 103

Kenyon, Cecil, 99 Kesslar, Murray, 25, 29 Knight, Goodwin J., 214-218 Knowland, Helen, 82, 138-139, 140-141 Knowland, William, 82, 110-112, 135-136, 138-139, 142, 215, 218 Knudsen, Valerie (Valley), 184 Korean War, 77-88 Krehbiel, John, 262 Kuchel, Thomas, 139

Larson, Frances, 246 League of Women Voters, 177-178 legislature. -See California state Lehman, Edith, 120, 170, 246 libraries, 19, 338. See also United States, National Commission on Libraries and Information Science lobbying, 10, 13, 16-17 Los Angeles Times, 76, 194-195, 225, 315-316. See also media Luce, Clare Boothe, 121-122 Lytton, Sheldon, 317

Magnin, Cyril, 271-272, 296 MacArthur, General Douglas, 151-152, 196 March of Dimes, 75, 90 McCarthy, Joseph, 153-154 media, 140, 270 television, 133-134, 221, 225-232, 259-264, 290-292 newspapers, 146, 160-161, 193-196, 199, 206-207, 314-316, 319, 323 magazines, 207-208, 314-316 radio, 225-232, 256-259, 316 Mellinkoff , Sherman, 26 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 9 Milias, George, Jr., 116 Milliken, Eugene, 112, 134-138 Murphy, George, 216-217

Nixon, Richard, 81, 83, 125, 127-128, 142-146, 149, 154-157, 158-162, 163-166, 168, 173, 176, 217, 339

OtDonnell, Gladys, 94, 96-97 O'Melveny and Myers, 317-318 Oviatt, George, 197

Palevsky, Joan and Max, 251 Palmer, Kyle, 195 Percy, Charles,- 234 Prince, Mildred, 117-118 Pro America, 93, 177-179, 185

Reeder, Arla, 246 Reagan, Ronald, 114, 166-167, 222, 254 Red Cross. -See American Red Cross Republican National Conventions: delegate selection, 107-109, 125-127 1952, 92, 94, 106-158 1976, 147, 222 Republican party (California, 68-71, 77, 90, 185, 219-220, 241-245 financing, 179-183, 238, 249-251, 321, 323 platforms, 220-222 state central committee, 103-106, 183-186, 214-222, 237-249 women's division, 169-175, 239-240, 245-247 Reuther, Walter, 133 Richards, Richard, 201, 204 . Rietz, Kenneth, 317, 321-325 Rogers, William, 160-162 Rolph, James, Jr., 105 Rood, Rod, 185 Roosevelt , James, 243 Rose, Edessa, 250-251, 339 Rowan, Robert, 185 Rumbaugh, Stanley, 235-236 Scott, Hugh and Marian, 79 Shattuck, Edward, 69-71, 100, 103, 173 Shok, Bonnie, 323 Silberberg, Mendel, 151 Smith, Gerald L.K., .131,. 187, 189, 196 Smith, Margaret Chase, 121-122 Smith, Wil1.ia.m French, 200 Snyder, Elizabeth, 262 Stout, Peggy, 324, 327

Taft, Robert, 88, 113-115, 149-150 taxes, 283-284 Proposition 13 [I9791, 318, 329 Tenney, Jack B., 119, 187-214 passim Thomas, Charles, 103-104 Topper, Mary, 123

United Nations, 235-236 United Republican Finance, 104, 179 United States: Air Force, Strategic Air Command, 256-259 Bureau of Indian Affairs, 312 Federal Bureau of Investigation, 46-47, 51-54 Federal Women's Reformatory, 234 National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, 59, 234-235, 309-312; 338-339 United States Plywood Co., 62 Utt, Max Eddy, 233

Valdez, Joyce, 323 Van de Water, Edith, 95-96, 262-263

Warren, Earl, 110, 141, 163-166, 168, 215, 217, 253-254 Warschaw, Carmen, 250 Washington, Lela, 103 Waters, Carol, A., viii-ix, 324 Waters, Daniel, 324 Waters, Laughlin (Loc) , 173-174, 252 Werdel, Thomas, 82-83, 113, 115-120, 123-124 Williams, Paul, 236 Williams, Spencer, 253 Wirthlin, Richard, 324, 328 women as volunteers, 76, 251, 308 in media career, 225-232, 256-259, 323 women in politics and issues, 168, 171 as candidates, 201-214, 240-241, 252, 259-267, 269-271 as wife of a candidate, 281-332 as wife of a public official, 271-280, 303-306 in political parties, 92-100, 106-107, 120-123, 125-126, 169-175, 177-178, 186, 189, 191, 204-206, 216, 237-251 in public office, 204, 265-269 husband's support for, 206 women's movement, 202-204, 267, 270. See also Equal Rights Amendment Woolley , Mary, 120-121 World War 11, 40-59 Wright, Loyd, Sr., 118-119

Young Republicans, viii, 69, 94 Younger, Eric. -See Younger, Mildred, family background, son Younger, Evelle J., 7-8, 33, 44-56, 60-61, 65, 69, 73-75, 77-89, 94, 104-105, 176-178, 189, 206, 224-225, 239, 248, 252-254, 271-331, 333-337, 340 Younger, Mildred: family background: mother (Lucy Dorival) , 1-2, 10-16, 17-18, 24, 49-50; father (Ray Eberhard) , 2-19, 23, 45, 48, 59, 140; sister (Elisabeth Zeigler), 7, 19-20, 31-32, 49, 76, 83-84; son (Eric), 50, 58-59, 66, 76, 78-81, 86, 91, 202, 230, 254, 340; husband (Evelle Younger). See Younger, Evelle education: 10, 20-43; theories on, 74-75, 91 health: 75, 77, 236, 273, 332, 339 careers: Page in legislature, 12, 105; lecturing, 66-72, 90; merchandising, 22-23, 27-33, 56-58, 60-61; radio and television newswoman, 225-232, 256-259 volunteer civic activities: 74, 76 Advisory Commission for Federal Women's Reformatory, American Heart Association, American Legion, Chamber of Commerce, Junior League, National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Republican party, Rose Institute, United States Committee for the United Nations. -See specific items in index and table of contents

Zeigler, Elisabeth. See Younger, Mildred, family background, sister Zimmerman, Jane, 246- Malca Chall

Graduated from Reed College in 1942 with a B.A. degree, and from the State University of Iowa in 1943 with an M.A. degree in Political Science.

Wage Rate Analyst with the Twelfth Regional War Labor Board, 1943-1945, specializing in agricul- ture and services. Research and writing in the New York public relations firm of Edward L. Bernays, 1946-1947, and research and statistics for the Oakland Area Community Chest and Council of Social Agencies 1948-1951.

Active in community affairs as a director and past president of the League of Women Voters of the Hayward Area specializing in state and local government; on county-wide committees in the field of mental health; on election campaign committees for school tax and bond measures, and candidates for school board and state legislature.

Employed in 1967 by the Regional Oral History Office interviewing in fields of agriculture and water resources. Project director, Suffragists Project, California Women Political Leaders Project, and Land-Use Planning Project .