Harold Paulk (Hal) Henderson, Sr. Oral History Collection
Series I: Ellis Arnall
OH ARN 06
Carl Sanders Interviewed by Harold Paulk (Hal) Henderson, Sr.
Date: June 11, 1981
CD: OH ARN 06, Tracks 1-4; 0:37:46 minutes
Cassette: OH ARN 06, 0:37:21 minutes, Side One

[CD: Track 1]
[Cassette: Side 1]

HENDERSON: Governor, if I could begin with a very obvious question. The state constitution prohibited you from succeeding yourself in 66 [1966]. Would you have liked to succeeded yourself?

SANDERS: Yes, I would have. I had a lot of programs that were underway, and I had some others that I would have liked to have inaugurated. Four years, which seems and sounds like a long time, passes very quickly when you are working as governor of the state and before you know it, your time is up. Programs that you are heavily involved with and all, you just never seem to have enough time to finish up everything youd like to do.

HENDERSON: While you were governor, did you make any efforts to have the constitution changed, where you could succeed yourself?

SANDERS: No, I did not. I didnt think at that time that the political climate would have permitted that and frankly, I was so involved with so many things, I tried to spend all the time that I could, all the time that I had, in pushing for positive accomplishments, which I think we had a great number of. And if I had gotten involved into the political thicket of trying to amend the constitution to succeed myself, I probably would have cost the state a lot of time and effort and would not have been able to accomplish as much in my administration.

HENDERSON: OK. Mr. [Samuel Ernest] Vandiver [Jr.], who was seeking another term, was considered by the media to be the leading candidate until he withdraws. Did you see him as the leading candidate up until May the eighteenth?

SANDERS: Well, I think because of his previous experience as governor and the fact the he a good administration that he was a strong candidate. Now, as to whether or not he was a leading candidate, you know thats a pretty iffy question. But he surely was one of the stronger candidates of the group that were vying for the governorship at that time.

HENDERSON: If he had stayed in the race, would you have supported him for the governorship?

SANDERS: I had pretty well adopted a position that I would stay neutral and stay out of the picking of any individual as among the Democrats. I, of course, had likewise made it clear that I would support the Democrat nominee, whoever that might be, against the Republican which at that point was [Howard Hollis] Bo Callaway, who was very heavily involved and appeared to be a very strong candidate. So, I would not have come out and endorsed Vandiver or anybody else, personally, in the primary.

HENDERSON: Would you mind if I close that door? Were going to pick up that typing, and Im not sure I can hear your voice over the typing.

SANDERS: No, go ahead.

HENDERSON: When I interviewed Senator [Herman Eugene] Talmadge in Lovejoy [Georgia], his cleaning lady was there and she was vacuuming so I. [SANDERS and HENDERSON chuckle] He said I couldnt get rid of her because thats the only time she can come. I said, I understand that, Senator. So we just talked through with the vacuum. Lets see, did Mr. Vandiver discuss with you at any time prior to May the eighteenth his withdrawal from the race?

SANDERS: He did not. Not to my knowledge and I dont recall it. In fact, I was trying to think--dredging all that back up--didnt he withdrawal because of some medical report or something like that?

HENDERSON: Yes.

SANDERS: He had a heart condition; I knew he had a heart condition.

HENDERSON: Right.

SANDERS: And apparently he went to the doctor or something and found out that the doctor said he probably shouldnt try to make a race that summer.

HENDERSON: Thats right, yes, because of his heart condition. Mr. Vandiver withdraws on May the eighteenth; Senator Talmadge announces on the same day that he is considering entering the race. Do you think he was seriously considering running for the Senate?

SANDERS: Yes, I think he was. I think he was very serious about it, and I think he was determined to do it--up until the time that some of the people who had always been his strongest financial supporters and backers and who felt like his seniority in his position in the United States Senate was far more valuable to the state and to them and everybody in general, rather than him coming back down here and serving another term as governor. I think when they finally got the word directly to him that he wanted to run for governor, he was going to run without their support. I just think he decided that, you know, perhaps his desire to come back and serve in the governors office was not as practical as he had thought it was when first thought about it.

HENDERSON: During this period of time from May the eighteenth until he finally decides he will not run on May the twenty-third, or announces he will not run, did he discuss this matter with you at all?

SANDERS: I dont recall him discussing it with me at all, no. But I recall having enough contact with people who purportedly had discussed it with him and people that had always been his faithful political allies, who told me that he was dead serious about wanting to do it.

HENDERSON: When did you learn that he was going to announce that he might run for the Senate? He makes a statement on May the eighteenth.

SANDERS: I dont recall that. One thing I remember, either the time he announced or right after he announced, he was pretty hard to find, because he had a bad tooth or something.

HENDERSON: Yes.

SANDERS: And he went to the dentist, and he was sort of out of communication for two or three days. And people were speculating, you know, on what he was going to say. I think maybe he announced that he was going to have a press conference or something. It got delayed because of that, and then I think finally, you know, he got around to, as you pointed out there, in a period of a couple of weeks or so many days and announced that he was not really going to be a candidate. I think when the word was first sort of released up there that he was considering it, that he was pretty serious about it.

[CD: Track 2]

HENDERSON: Let me go ahead and ask this. I think youve answered it, but let me go ahead and ask the question. Did at any time you urge Senator Talmadge to come back home and run for the governorship?

SANDERS: I did not. I did not.

HENDERSON: Did at any time you urge him to stay in the Senate?

SANDERS: I did not. I had no discussion with him before or [unintelligible].

HENDERSON: When you find out that the senator would not be candidate, and would stay in the Senate, did you make any efforts to recruit a candidate to enter the governors election?

SANDERS: I did not.

HENDERSON: There was a series of articles by [Robert] Bob Cohn, I believe, in the Augusta Chronicle Herald [sic Augusta Chronicle, Augusta, Georgia] and he quotes you rather extensively and says that you were trying to recruit some candidates. Specifically, William [Redding (Bill)] R. Bowdoin [Sr.], that you had made several telephone calls on May the eighteenth and May the nineteenth.

SANDERS: Well, I think thats accurate. Bill Bowdoin had always been a very good friend of mine and was also a highly respected banker as well as a public official. And I do recall, at one point, talking and discussing with Bowdoin the possibility of him offering for the governorship. And he was flattered by it, and perhaps should have run, but decided pretty promptly that he couldnt and wouldnt. I think thats probably accurate, but I was not out actively trying to recruit any specific candidate. I felt like that Bowdoin was a good man, and he would make a good governor, and I so told him. But he declined to make the race.

HENDERSON: Did you attempt at any time to get Dr. Noah [Noel] Langdale [Jr.] to enter the campaign?

SANDERS: Not that I remember. Noah Langdale, of course, had talked in the past about running for governor. In fact, he was a reputed candidate when I ran the first time. But I dont recall talking, and I know I didnt write Noah Langdale any note or letter or anything about it. But, back in those days, he was pretty well considered to be possible gubernatorial timber, but no one else never saw fit to take the bait either.

HENDERSON: All right, I know its been fifteen years or more ago, but to the best of your recollection, the only candidate that you tried to entice into entering was William R. Bowdoin?

SANDERS: Only candidate to my recollection that I really talked with seriously about asking if he wouldnt consider it was Bowdoin and thats the only one I remember.

HENDERSON: OK. Now, Ellis [Gibbs] Arnall is already in the race. Was your effort an anti-Arnall effort?

SANDERS: Oh no, Ellis Arnall was a friend of mine and still is a friend of mine. Was he already in the race the time that I presumably talked to Bowdoin?

HENDERSON: Well, he had been running since 65. You remember [that] he and Vandiver had started early. And Arnall had been attacking Vandiver. Now, he didnt formally announce until May the twenty-fourth, but he was already in the race.

SANDERS: But he hadnt announced.

HENDERSON: No.

SANDERS: So, when I talked to Bowdoin, when was that? Back earlier? Prior to that?

HENDERSON: It was during this period up to May the twenty-fourth, prior to that.

SANDERS: Well, OK. You know, I was not a part of any anti-Ellis Arnall movement. I think Ellis Arnall was a fine governor, and I consider him to be a friend, always have. I didnt have any reason to be anti-Ellis Arnall. I think probably, at that time, it was feeling simply that I thought maybe Bowdoin, who had not run before and who was highly thought of in the state, and who was head of the Bowdoin Commission or Committee[he was] so intimately involved in my administration in governmental reform that he was probably more current with what needed to be done in the state, more, perhaps, better equipped and qualified, at that particular time, to do some of the things that I felt like needed to be done.

HENDERSON: OK. Talmadge, during this period of time--May the eighteenth through the twenty-third--he says that if he decided to run for the governorship, he would also retain his Senate seat. If elected governor, then he would appoint his successor. There was a lot of criticism about that. And my question is did he approach you at any time about if you would support his candidacy for governor that he would appoint you to that Senate position?

SANDERS: [He] did not.

HENDERSON: Let me go through the five candidates that did enter, and if you would just talk about what you think their liabilities were and what their strengths were. Lets start with Ellis Arnall.

SANDERS: Well, I think Governor Arnalls liabilities were was that he had been out of government for a long time. After having left the office, if you put yourself back in fifteen years ago into the environment/political climate that existed then, he had written a book, you know, The Shore Dimly Seen, and he had pretty well adopted an attitude--at least a lot of the political pundits in the state adopted an attitude--that his philosophy about government and his philosophy about politics was just more akin to maybe something up north that it was in Georgia. And they painted him with that brush for twenty years. And I think that was probably his greatest liability, other than the fact that he was not, although hes a very, very aggressive, attractive guy, he was not a young guy on white horse charging into the governors office for the first time. And thats always more of an advantage. Its pretty hard for a former governor to resurrect himself after fifteen, twenty years and say, You know, Id ought to be reelected.

HENDERSON: What do you see as his major strength?

SANDERS: Well, hes probably one of the smartest guys around. Hes got plenty intelligence. Hes progressive. He obviously is an able administrator. He had a good administration. He had a good track record, and he would have made a good governor.

HENDERSON: How about Mr. Lester [Garfield] Maddox, his liabilities?

SANDERS: At that point, he was totally--had never been elected to any political office of any kind, and his main notoriety had come about from his strong anti-segregationist or strong segregationist stand, I guess you would say. I think that those were his primary liabilities.

HENDERSON: Did you see him having any strength thats going to appeal to the electorate?

SANDERS: Well, sure. He would have had the strength of the vote that historically voted with those who professed to be strong segregationists. He had that sort of a hardcore, very far right, conservative group that would vote for Lester because of that single issue alone. Most of those people are single-issue voters.

HENDERSON: How about Mr. James [Harrison (Jimmy)] Gray [Sr.]?

SANDERS: Well, his primary liabilities were that he was still considered to be, in the common vernacular, a carpetbagger, because he was born and raised up north and he had made his home in Albany, but people down there considered him still to be somewhat of a stranger among their midst. However, from the standpoint of the fellow whos capable of running the state, and whose has got plenty of sense and very articulate and would have made a good impression as the governor of this state, Jimmy Gray would have been a good governor.

[CD: Track 3]

HENDERSON: How about Garland [Turk] Byrd?

SANDERS: Garland, I think greatest liability was that he had previously dropped out of the governors race when I was running against [Samuel] Marvin Griffin [Sr.] and he had sort of dropped out of that race because of a health problem. And he had, I believe by that time, he had run a couple of other races and hadnt succeeded after he got out of the lieutenant governors office. And he just had the problem of sort of being, heres another race with Garland Byrd in it, and I think he had lost a lot of his charisma in the process of those years. Hes an able fellow, smart, capable, and I think if he had been elected, I think he could have been a good governor. Thats his assets.

HENDERSON: And Mr. [James Earl] Jimmy Carter [Jr.]?

SANDERS: Jimmy Carter, at that point, was a very relatively unknown factor in the state political picture. Jimmy having served, I think, what, only one term, four years or something like that in the Senate

HENDERSON: Two terms.

SANDERS: --two terms. And he had never made a statewide race. And his liability was that people just didnt know who Jimmy Carter was; they [had] hardly ever heard of him. I guess his greatest asset was what he later proved to be and parlayed into the office of president of this country was the fact that he obviously, and was then, and I think continued to be, a indefatigable campaigner. He worked probably as hard and organized his campaign efforts to a greater extent than most any of the other candidates. Thats the thing that I think always gave Jimmy Carter somewhat of an edge. He worked at it twenty-four hours a day. And he had a knack of appearing to the average voter, that first impression, of being, you know, Im just a nice guy, sort of like you, and you ought to sort of vote for me because we are so much alike. And thats a great asset. He was able to relate to the average voter as being the guy who was just like him, who was offering for office, and I think was another one of his strengths.

HENDERSON: Did any of these candidates or any of their representatives approach you about endorsing their candidate?

SANDERS: I cant remember, I really cant, to be honest about it. I dont have any fresh recollection now of anybody. Im sure there must have been candidates trying, either through their embraceries or otherwise that had indirectly or otherwise come to me and asked about endorsing or supporting them. But, I had pretty well made my position clear after they all got in the race, and I maintained that position through the primary. I dont deny, I just dont remember.

HENDERSON: So you did not support any candidate in the primary.

SANDERS: Not in the primary.

HENDERSON: OK. The election code was changed during your administration.

SANDERS: Yes, it was.

HENDERSON: It went from in the primary, the plurality to the majority vote. Why? Why was it changed?

SANDERS: That was a recommendation. We had legislated committees that had worked on reforming and changing the election laws and that was one of the recommendations of that committee. Also, I think it was probably pretty well established in the past. I remember when Marvin Griffin was first elected governor. He got elected with a plurality of about twenty something percent of the total votes. A lot of people just felt like that was fundamentally not good to have for anybody serve as governor of the state who had not at least received a majority of the votes of the electorate. There wasnt any evil or specific reason other than those general reasons. It was not designed to help or hurt any particular candidate. In fact, when was it, in 65, I think it was, summer of 65 when we had the special session to rewrite the election laws and rewrite the constitution. And thats when the federal court came down with one of the funniest rulings I have ever seen of heard of, where they said that legislature was malapportioned, but that wouldnt prevent them from ratifying the election laws. At the same time that would prevent them from ratifying the constitution. But, anyway there was no reason Ellis Arnall has reminded me of that many times since, and said you know if I hadnt changed the law he would have been the governor and Jimmy Carter would never have been the president.

HENDERSON: [laughs] He brought that up when I interviewed him.

SANDERS: Im sure he did.

HENDERSON: He said Now, Carls a good friend of mine, but he cost me that election. So I had to ask you that question. Mr. Maddox, in an upset victory, defeats Arnall in the runoff. Why? Why do you think; what would you say?

SANDERS: Well, I think its basically what Ive said earlier. I think that Maddox was running as a segregationist. Segregation was still a very hot, vital, emotional issue. We were still in this period of transition in the 60s of trying to change to more moderate, progressive philosophy about government and about the races. Governor Arnall was pretty well tabbed, like I got tabbed as a big, rich, corporate lawyer in 1970 by Jimmy Carter who said he was peanut farmer. And Arnall was pretty well tabbed as a rich, Atlanta lawyer, who had [was] very liberal and had some very liberal ideas. And I think the political climate in the state of Georgia at that time just would not, did not, favor that type of candidacy, and Maddox defeated him.

HENDERSON: There is a lot of talk and Mr. Arnall, puts forth this argument, that a lot of the Republicans crossed over and voted in the runoff to defeat him.

SANDERS: I think thats probably right. I think that was true, my recollection was that I dont know how many, but my recollection was that the effort was made pretty strongly by the Republican hierarchy to try and educate the Republican voter on the fact that he could go into the Democratic primary and vote for the weakest, whatever they thought would be the candidate that they would have the best chance of beating, which I think in this case they thought they would have the best chance of beating Lester Maddox, and I think thats right. I think that was a real effort by the Republican Party in Georgia at that time.

HENDERSON: Do you think if we had a closed primary Arnall may have won or the results wouldnt make a difference?

SANDERS: I dont know. Thats a iffy question, but I think if we had a closed primary there would have been a substantial number of people who would not have voted in the Democratic primary if they would have been deprived from voting as a Republican, or if they had to identified as a Democrat in order to do so.

HENDERSON: Did you support Mr. Arnall in the runoff campaign?

SANDERS: Yes, I did. I supported Mr. Arnall as a nominee of the party. I sure did.

HENDERSON: Now, when you say support, how big of support did you give?

SANDERS: I gave as much support, I guess--I didnt go out and campaign and make speeches and things, but I think I made it pretty clear to the public and anybody who talked with me or anybody that I talked to that I was one hundred percent, whole-heartedly in favor of the nominee of the Democratic primary and that was Ellis Arnall.

[CD: Track 4]

HENDERSON: Do you think that there was anything that Mr. Arnall could have done differently in the runoff to turn the results around? Or was it just a situation, as you have indicated, that he just was caught in the crossfire; he could not do much?

SANDERS: You mean in the runoff?

HENDERSON: In the runoff, yes.

SANDERS: Between he and Lester Maddox?

HENDERSON: Right, right.

SANDERS: I dont know of anything he could have done any differently to turn it around. I think at that point, he probably thought, most people probably thought, that he was doing everything that he could have or should have been doing to win.

HENDERSON: Whats your reaction when you find out that Lester Maddox is the nominee of the party?

SANDERS: Well, Im somewhat astounded, somewhat amazed, and somewhat confused about how it occurred.

HENDERSON: Did you support Mr. Maddox in the general election?

SANDERS: As against Bo Callaway?

HENDERSON: Yes.

SANDERS: Yes, I supported to whatever extent. I did not go out and campaign for Lester Maddox, as such, but I did support him. I was a Democrat. I stood up in 64 for Lyndon [Baines] Johnson, again, when everybody else had gone for the hills and gone to foreign countries. And I continue to maintain my position as the titular head of the Democratic Party and supported the nominee.

HENDERSON: What do you think were the major liabilities of Bo Callaway, the Republican nominee?

SANDERS: Well, his major liabilities were, I think, that he was stubborn to the point that he wouldnt listen to anybody. I think that was pretty apparent to me. There was a first speech he made, I can remember, when he opened his campaign for the governorship. He criticized--he made it over here in Hurt Park, I think it was, downtown Atlanta--and his whole speech was a criticism of me for leaving one hundred and forty-something million dollars in surplus funds in the treasury. He said that I should have spent that money and should have left it bear, so to speak, and spent it on other governmental programs. When the truth and fact was I had spent far more money at that point than any governor had ever spent in the history of the state over a four year period and put it into all types of programs and into capital improvements for the colleges, and bricks and mortar, all types of programs and still was able to leave a surplus, which no governor had ever done. Immediately after having made that speech, I remember that some of his advisors and some of his friends who were my friends, people like John Sibley and some others that he had talked to--I wont say they were out and out supporters but they were people he admired and respected--they told him that he had to be crazy if he was running as a conservative Republican, for attacking the sitting governor for having a surplus. So, he came by the mansion and apologized to me for the speech that hed made. Because I had responded to it right after that and said that if that really was his serious attitude about government, if thats the way he felt, then I didnt think that he had a very good knowledge of how to run the government, and I didnt think he would make a very good governor. And he said, you know, I made a mistake, and I shouldnt have made that speech. And I just wanted to apologize. And I said Bo, I understand it. Im not running against you. Youre running against other people. If youre going to run against me, Im going to respond to whatever you say. So, I would suggest that you stick to some of the people that youre campaigning against. And he said yes, he would do that. So, I really think, he had an idea that he knew what he wanted to do and he had it pretty well implanted in his mind. And I dont think anybody much had an opportunity, or if they did, they could do anything with getting him to change his campaign plan. I think that probably was his greatest liability.

HENDERSON: Thats a common theme, and when I interviewed him, he said the same thing.

SANDERS: Really?

HENDERSON: [laughs] What do you see as his major strengths? Excuse me, governor, before you answer that let me flip this over.

[Cassette: Side 2]

SANDERS: attractive. He was at that point, of course, the Republicans had carried the state in 64 for Barry [Morris] Goldwater. And they had sort of been revived, and they were sort of enjoying somewhat of a resurgence of some strength that they hadnt enjoyed in many, many years. And Bo--lets see, in 66 he was still, what, in Congress?

HENDERSON: Congress, yes.

SANDERS: He was still in the Congress, and he had made a good name as a congressman. And you know he had good name recognition. He had good physical appearance. He had a good family name and background. He was riding pretty high on what appeared to be the political philosophy that people in this state, at that particular time, seemed to want. That was [that] they wanted some conservative government, and I think his style and brand at that time seemed to fill the bill. In fact, he should have, if he had just, I guess, listened to some folks and made some adjustments to his campaign, I think if had gone and taken a trip for about two or three months, I think he would have won the governorship.

HENDERSON: [laughs] Mr. Maddox and Mr. Callaway are both perceived as very conservative, very segregationist. Do you see any difference between the two?

SANDERS: Yeah. One was a Democrat and one was a Republican.

HENDERSON: [laughs] Did Mr. Callaway ever approach you about getting your support?

SANDERS: Yes, indirectly. I can remember some of his friends and all trying very hard to get me vote, I think, during the general election and then, of course, after the thing got into the question of how the legislature was going to vote, there were efforts made to try and convince me that only practical thing that I could do would be to support him in preference to Lester Maddox.

HENDERSON: There was a write-in effort

SANDERS: For Governor Arnall.

HENDERSON: Yes.

SANDERS: I had nothing to do with that.

HENDERSON: [laughs] Did you approve of it?

SANDERS: Huh?

HENDERSON: Did you approve of it?

SANDERS: No, I didnt approve of it. I just, that was something that was totally inspired and carried out by some people, if I remember correctly, [DeJongh] Jon Franklin, a few othershe was a lawyer over here in the Smith, Cohen [now Smith, Gambrell, and Russell, LLP] firm. I believe he was heavily involved in it and several others here in town that were very much involved in it. I dont even know now, I cant remember now, how strongly Governor Arnall was involved in it, other than the fact I know he told the public that he was not going to have them remove his name from the ballot. I think after they got him on there. But no, I didnt approve of it nor did I participate in it.

HENDERSON: When the election is thrown into the legislature, there were some efforts to let the people have a chance to elect the governor.

SANDERS: [It] went to court, if I remember correctly.

HENDERSON: Yes, there were several lawsuits.

SANDERS: Yes.

HENDERSON: Do you think that there should have been some other alternative besides the legislature electing the governor?

SANDERS: Yes, I think they should have been. And it was subsequently to that we adopted the new amendment to the constitution making it possible for the people to have that vote. But that wasnt what the constitution provided for at that time. Of course, they took it to the court, and the court held that the constitution as it was written at that time still applied to that election.

HENDERSON: The Supreme Court makes a five to four decision that the Georgia Legislature could elect. There was some arguments that the legislature should not elect because it was still malapportioned.

SANDERS: Yes.

HENDERSON: And that a legislative election would violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

SANDERS: Yes, yes.

HENDERSON: How did you feel about the decision of the court?

SANDERS: Well, the court had spoken and that was the court of last resort as far as our state law is concerned. And I respected the court, and I accepted their decision. At one point, there was even a question which while it was being debated in the court that I might have to hold over as a governor because of the fact that the constitution says that the sitting governor shall hold office until his successor has been finally sworn into office. I mean, that question kept coming up. That concerned me for the simple reason that I--if at that point--still had in the back of my head that I might want to run for governor again in four years. And the constitution also provided that you couldnt reoffer for the office of governor unless you had been out for a full term. And I was worried about the problem of finding myself holding over an office for a short period of time, and then finding somebody on the next go around disqualifying me for the reason that wouldnt be able to go to run in the next gubernatorial race. So, all that was sort of kicking around in those days and as far as the court was concerned, in what they finally decided, I believe I was down in, in fact I know I was, I was in New Orleans [Louisiana] making an argument for the southern governors against the northern railroads on the equal money-equal freight rate cases that had been tried for years and years. And I was down there trying that case and making that argument. When I finished the argument, they called me out and told me that the court had come down with a decision, still that the legislature had the right to appoint the governor, or to elect the governor themselves.

HENDERSON: Governor, that goes through my list of questions. Am I leaving anything out that I should have asked?

SANDERS: No. I dont know of any. The only other thing I remember is that after the legislature had the vote and election, Lester Maddox and his supporters and all rushed immediately down into the governors office and asked that we have a swearing-in ceremony in the governors office, rather than wait until they had a public thing like you normally have. I guess they were, again, concerned about whether or not hed ever really get in there to serve.

HENDERSON: Yes. [HENDERSON and SANDERS laugh]

SANDERS: So, he was sworn in. I was trying to think who swore him in. Maybe it was Kelly Quillian? [sic Judge Harold Ward] Somebody swore him in right there in my office.

HENDERSON: Yes, I remember.

SANDERS: We got the Bible out and administered the oath. And he became the what, the seventy-fifth or?

HENDERSON: I think seventy-five rings a bell, yes.

SANDERS: I think was a seventy-fourth. But anyway, you are writing book?

HENDERSON: Dissertation, doctoral dissertation. I have entered.

[End of Interview]