Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526271
label
House Floor Speech Impeach Justice Douglas, April 15, 1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526271
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
House Floor Speech Impeach Justice Douglas, April 15, 1970
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Supreme Court of the United States. 2/2/1790-
Ethics
Judicial impeachment
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526271
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1970-04-30
month
4
year
1970
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1970-04-01
month
4
year
1970
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
2cc1609361fe2bec
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D29, folder "House Floor Speech Impeach
Justice Douglas, April 15, 1970" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D29 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
HOLD FOR RELEASE -- EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.), Republican Leader, prepared for
delivery on the Floor of the U. S. House of Representatives on April 15, 1970
Mr. Speaker:
Last May 8 (1969) I joined with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Taft, in
introducing H.R. 11109, a bill requiring financial disclosure by members of
the Federal Judiciary. This was amid the allegations swirling around Mr. Justice
Fortas. Before and since, other members of this body have proposed legislation
of similar intent. To the best of my knowledge, all of them lie dormant in the
Committee on the Judiciary where they were referred.
On March 19 the U. S. Judicial Conference announced the adoption of
new ethical standards on outside earnings and conflict of interest. They were
described as somewhat watered down from the strict proposals of former Chief
Justice Warren at the time of the Fortas affair. In any event, they are not
binding upon the Supreme Court.
Neither are the 36-year-old Canons of Judicial Ethics of the American
Bar Association, among which are these:
"Canon 4. Avoidance of Impropriety. A judge's official conduct should
be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; he should avoid
infractions of law; and his personal behavior, not only upon the Bench and in
the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be
beyond reproach."
"Canon 24. Inconsistent Obligations. A judge should not accept inconsis-
tent duties; nor incur obligations, pecuniary or otherwise, which will in any
way interfere or appear to interfere with his devotion to the expeditious and
proper administration of his official function."
"Canon 31. Private Law Practice. In many states the practice of law by
one holding judicial position is forbidden
If forbidden to practice law,
he should refrain from accepting any professional employment while in office."
Following the public disclosure last year of the extrajudicial activities
and moonlighting employment of Justices Fortas and Douglas, which resulted in
the resignation from the Supreme bench of Mr. Justice Fortas but not of
(more)
- 2 -
Mr. Justice Douglas, I received literally hundreds of inquiries and protests
from concerned citizens and colleagues.
In response to this evident interest I quietly undertook a study of
both the law of impeachment and the facts about the behavior of Mr. Justice
Douglas. I assured inquirers that I would make my findings known at the appro-
priate time. That preliminary report is now ready.
Let me say by way of preface that I am a lawyer, admitted to the bar of
the United States Supreme Court. I have the most profound respect for the
United States Supreme Court. I would never advocate action against a Member of
that court because of his political philosophy or the legal opinions which he
contributes to the decisions of the court. Mr. Justice Douglas has been criti-
cized for his liberal opinions and because he granted stays of execution to the
convicted spies, the Rosenbergs, who stole the atomic bomb for the Soviet Union.
Probably I would disagree, were I on the bench, with most of Mr. Justice Douglas'
views, such as his defense of the filthy film, "I Am Curious Yellow." But a
judge's right to his legal views, assuming they are not improperly influenced or
corrupted, is fundamental to our system of justice.
I should say also that I have no personal feeling toward Mr. Justice
Douglas. His private life, to the degree that it does not bring the Supreme
Court into disrepute, is his own business. One does not need to be an ardent
admirer of any judge or Justice, or an advocate of his life-style, to acknowledge
his right to be elevated to or remain on the bench.
We have heard a great deal of discussion recently about the qualifications
which a person should be required to possess to be elevated to the United States
Supreme Court. There has not been sufficient consideration given, in my judgment,
to the qualifications which a person should possess to remain upon the United
States Supreme Court.
For, contrary to a widespread misconception, Federal judges and the
justices of the Supreme Court are not appointed for life. The Founding Fathers
would have been the last to make such a mistake; the American Revolution was
waged against an hereditary monarchy in which the King always had a life term
and, as English history bloodily demonstrated, could only be removed from
office by the headsman's axe or the assassin's dagger.
No, the Constitution does not guarantee a lifetime of power and authority
to any public official. The terms of Members of the House are fixed at two years;
of the President and Vice President at four; of United States Senators at six.
(more)
- 3 -
Members of the Federal Judiciary hold their offices only "during good behaviour."
Let me read the first section of Article III of the Constitution in full:
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain
and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive
for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their
Continuance in Office."
The clause dealing with the compensation of Federal judges, which in-
cidentally we raised last year to $60,000 for Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court, suggests that their "continuance in office" is indeed limited. The pro-
vision that it may not be decreased prevents the Legislative or Executive Branches
from unduly influencing the Judiciary by cutting judges' pay, and suggests that
even in those bygone days the income of jurists was a highly sensitive matter.
To me the Constitution is perfectly clear about the tenure, or term of
office, of all Federal judges -- it is "during good behaviour." It is implicit
in this that when behaviour ceases to be good, the right to hold judicial office
ceases also. Thus, we come quickly to the central question: What constitutes
"good behaviour" or, conversely, un-good or disqualifying behaviour?
The words employed by the Framers of the Constitution were, as the pro-
ceedings of the convention detail, chosen with exceedingly great care and pre-
cision. Note, for example, the word "behaviour." It relates to action, not
merely to thoughts or opinions; further, it refers not to a single act but
to a pattern or continuing sequence of action. We cannot and should not remove
a Federal judge for the legal views he holds -- this would be as contemptible
as to exclude him from serving on the Supreme Court for his ideology or past
decisions. Nor should we remove him for a minor or isolated mistake -- this
does not constitute behaviour in the common meaning.
What we should scrutinize in sitting judges is their continuing pattern
of action, their behaviour. The Constitution does not demand that it be
"exemplary" or "perfect." But it does have to be "good."
Naturally, there must be orderly procedure for determining whether or not
a Federal judge's behaviour is good. The courts, arbiters in most such questions
of judgment, cannot judge themselves. So the Founding Fathers vested this ulti-
mate power where the ultimate sovereignty of our system is most directly reflected
-- in the Congress, in the elected representatives of the people and of the States.
(more)
- 4 -
In this seldom-used procedure, called Impeachment, the Legislative Branch
exercises both Executive and Judicial functions. The roles of the two bodies
differ dramatically. The House serves as prosecutor and grand jury; the Senate
serves as judge and trial jury.
Article One of the Constitution has this to say about the impeachment
process:
"The House of Representatives
shall have the sole power of Impeachment."
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting
for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of
the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall
be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present."
Article II, dealing with the Executive Branch, states in Section 4:
"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason,
Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
This has been the most controversial of the Constitutional references to
the impeachment process. No concensus exists as to whether, in the case of
Federal judges, impeachment must depend upon conviction of one of the two speci-
fied crimes of Treason or Bribery or be within the nebulous category of "other
high crimes and misdemeanors." There are pages upon pages of learned argument
whether the adjective "high" modifies "misdemeanors" as well as "crimes," and
over what, indeed, constitutes a "high misdemeanor."
In my view, one of the specific or general offenses cited in Article II is
required for removal of the indirectly-elected President and Vice President and
all appointed civil officers of the executive branch of the Federal government,
whatever their terms of office. But in the case of members of the Judicial
Branch, Federal judges and justices, I believe an additional and much stricter
requirement is imposed by Article II, namely, "good behaviour."
Finally, and this is a most significant provision, Article One of the
Constitution specifies:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal
from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, Trust
or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be
liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to
Law."
In other words, Impeachment resembles a regular criminal indictment
(more)
- 5 -
and trial but it is not the same thing. It relates solely to the accused's
right to hold civil office; not to the many other rights which are his as a
citizen and which protect him in a court of law. By pointedly voiding any
immunity an accused might claim under the double jeopardy principle, the Framers
of the Constitution clearly established that impeachment is a unique political
device; designed explicitly to dislodge from public office those who are patently
unfit for it, but cannot otherwise be promptly removed.
The distinction between impeachment and ordinary criminal prosecution is
again evident when impeachment is made the sole exception to the guarantee
of Article III, Section 3 that trial of all crimes shall be by jury perhaps
the most fundamental of all Constitutional protections.
We must continually remember that the writers of our Constitution did
their work with the experience of the British Crown and Parliament freshly in
mind. There is so much that resembles the British system in our Constitution
that we sometimes overlook the even sharper differences -- one of the sharpest
is our divergent view on impeachment.
In Great Britain the House of Lords sits as the court of highest appeal
in the land, and upon accusation by Commons the Lords can try, convict and
punish any impeached subject -- private person or official with any lawful
penalty for his crime -- including death.
Our Constitution, on the contrary, provides only the relatively mild
penalties of removal from Office, and disqualification for future office -- the
worst punishment the U. S. Senate can mete out is both removal and disqualification.
Moreover, to make sure impeachment would not be frivolously attempted
or easily abused, and further to protect officeholders against political re-
prisal, the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict.
With this brief review of the lav, of the Constitutional background
for impeachment, I have endeavored to correct two common misconceptions: first,
that Federal judges are appointed for life and, second, that they can be removed
only by being convicted, with all ordinary protections and presumptions of
innocence to which an accused is entitled, of violating the law.
This is not the case. Federal judges can be and have been impeached for
improper personal habits such as chronic intoxication on the bench, and one
of the charges brought against President Andrew Johnson was that he delivered
"intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues."
(more)
- 6 -
I have studied the principal impeachment actions that have been initiated
over the years and frankly, there are too few cases to make very good law. About
the only thing the authorities can agree upon in recent history, though it was
hotly argued up to President Johnson's impeachment and the trial of Judge Swayne,
is that an offense need not be indictable to be impeachable. In other words,
something less than a criminal act or criminal dereliction of duty may neverthe-
less be sufficient grounds for impeachment and removal from public office.
What, then, is an impeachable offense?
The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a
majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in
history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the
other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the
accused from office. Again, the historical context and political climate are
important; there are few fixed principles among the handful of precedents.
I think it is fair to come to one conclusion, however, from our history
of impeachments: a higher standard is expected of Federal judges than of any
other "civil Officers" of the United States. The President and Vice President,
and all persons holding office at the pleasure of the President, can be thrown
out of office by the voters at least every four years. To remove them in midterm
(it has been tried only twice and never done) would indeed require crimes of the
magnitude of treason and bribery. Other elective officials, such as Members of
the Congress, are so vulnerable to public displeasure that their removal by the
complicated impeachment route has not even been tried since 1798. But nine
Fereral judges, including one Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, have been
impeached by this House and tried by the Senate; four were acquitted; four
convicted and removed from office; and one resigned during trial and the impeach-
ment was dismissed.
In the most recent impeachment trial conducted by the other body, that
of U. S. Judge Halsted L. Ritter of the Southern District of Florida who was
removed in 1936, the point of judicial behaviour was paramount, since the criminal
charges were admittedly thin. This case was in the context of FDR's effort to
pack the Supreme Court with justices more to his liking; Judge Ritter was a
transplanted conservative Colorado Republican appointed to the Federal bench in
solidly Drmocratic Florida by President Coolidge. He was convicted by a coalition
of liberal Republicans, New Deal Democrats and Farmer-Labor and Progressive
Party Senators in what might be called the "Northwestern Strategy" of that era.
(more)
7
Nevertheless, their arguments were persuasive:
In a joint statement, Sens. Borah, La Follette, Frazier and Shipstead
said:
"We therefore did not, in passing upon the facts presented to us in the
matter of the impeachment proceedings against Judge Halsted L. Ritter, seck to
satisfy ourselves as to whether technically a crime or crimes had been committed,
or as to whether the acts charged and proved disclosed criminal intent or corrupt
motive; we sought only to ascertain from these facts whether his conduct had
been such as to amount to misbehavior, misconduct -- as to whether he had con-
ducted himself in a way that was calculated to undermine public confidence in
the courts and to create a sense of scandal.
"There are a great many things which one must readily admit would be
wholly unbecoming, wholly intolerable, in the conduct of a judge, and yet these
things might not amount to a crime."
Senator Elbert Thomas of Utah, citing the Jeffersonian and colonial
antecedents of the impeachment process, bluntedly declared:
"Tenure during good behavior
is in no sense a guaranty of a life job,
and misbehavior in the ordinary, dictionary sense of the term will cause it to
be cut short on the vote, under special oath, of two-thirds of the Senate, if
charges are first brought by the House of Representatives
To assume that
good behavior means anything but good behavior would be to cast a reflection
upon the ability of the fathers to express themselves in understandable language."
But the best summary, in my opinion, was that of Senator William G. McAdoo
of California, son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson and his Secretary of the Treasury.
"I approach this subject from the standpoint of the general conduct of
this judge while on the bench, as portrayed by the various counts in the impeach-
ment and the evidence submitted in the trial. The picture thus presented is, to
my mind, that of a man who is so lacking in any proper conception of professional
ethics and those high standards of judicial character and conduct as to consti-
tute misbehavior in its most serious aspects, and to render him unfit to hold a
judicial office
"Good behavior, as it is used in the Constitution, exacts of a judge the
highest standards of public and private rectitude. No judge can besmirch
the robes he wears by relaxing these standards, by compromising them through
conduct which brings reproach upon himself personally, or upon the great office
he holds. No more sacred trust is committed to the bench of the United States
(more)
- C -
than to keep shining with undinmed effulgence the brightest jewel in the crown
of democracy justice.
"However disagreeable the duty may be to those of us who constitute this
great body in determining the guilt of those who are entrusted under the Consti-
tution with the high responsibilities of judicial office, we must be as exacting
in our conception of the obligations of a judicial officer as Mr. Justice Cardozo
defined them when he said, in connection with fiduciaries, that they should
be held 'to something stricter than the morals of the market-place. Not honesty
alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive, is then the standard
of behavior.' (Meinhard V. Solmon, 249 N. Y. 450.)"
Let us now objectively examine certain aspects of the behavior of Mr.
Justice Douglas, and let us ask ourselves in the words of Mr. Justice Cardozo,
whether they represent "not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the
most sensitive."
Ralph Ginzburg is editor and publisher of a number of magazines not commonly
found on the family coffee table. For sending what was held to be an obscene
edition of one of them, "EROS", through the U. S. Mails, Mr. Ginzburg was con-
victed and sentenced to five years' imprisonment in 1963.
His conviction was appealed and, in 1966, was affirmed by the United States
Supreme Court in a close 5-4 decision. Mr. Justice Douglas dissented. His dis-
sent favored Mr. Ginzburg and the publication, "EROS".
During the 1964 Presidential campaign, another Ginzburg magazine, "FACT",
published an issue entitled "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue
on the Mind of Barry Goldwater."
The thrust of the two main articles in Ginzburg's magazine was that Senator
Goldwater, the Republican nominee for President of the United States, had a
severely paranoid personality and was psychologically unfit to be President. This
was supported by a fraction of replies to an alleged poll which the magazine had
mailed to some 12,000 psychiatrists hardly a scientific diagnosis, but a potent
political hatchet job.
Naturally, Sen. Goldwater promptly sued Mr. Ginzburg and "FACT" Magazine
for libel. A Federal court jury in New York granted the Senator $1 in compensa-
tory damages and a total of $75,000 in punitive damages from Ginzburg and "FACT"
Magazine. "FACT" shortly was to be incorporated into another Ginzburg publication,
"AVANT GARDE". The U. S. Court of Appeals sustained this libel award. It held
that under the New York Times V. Sullivan decision a public figure could be
(more)
- 9 -
libelled if the publication was made with actual malice; that is, if the pub-
lisher knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false
or not.
So once again Ralph Ginzburg appealed to the Supreme Court which, in due
course, upheld the lower courts' judgment in favor of Sen. Goldwater and declined
to review the case. However, Mr. Justice Douglas again dissented on the side of
Mr. Ginzburg, along with Mr. Justice Black. Although the Court's majority did
not elaborate on its ruling, the dissenting minority decision was based on the
theory that the Constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press are abso-
lute.
This decision was handed down January 26, 1970.
Yet while Ginzburg's appeal was pending before his court, the highest
court in the land, Mr. Justice Douglas wrote an article for "AVANT GARDE", the
successor to "FACT" in the Ginzburg stable of magazines, and accepted payment
from Ginzburg for it.
The March 1969 issue of "AVANT GARDE", on its title page, shows Ralph
Ginzburg as Editor stating under oath that it incorporates the former magazine
"FACT".
The Table of Contents, lists on page 16 an article titled "Appeal of Folk
Singing: A Landmark Opinion" by Justice William O. Douglas. Even his judicial
title, conferred on only eight other Americans, is brazenly exploited.
Justice Douglas' contribution immediately follows one provocatively en-
titled "The Decline and Fall of the Female Breast." There are two other titles
in the Table of Contents so vulgarly playing on double meaning that I will not
repeat them aloud.
Ralph Ginzburg's magazine "AVANT GARDE" paid the Associate Justice of the
United States Supreme Court the sum of $350. for his article on folk-singing.
The article itself is not pornographic, although it praises the lusty, lurid and
risque along with the social protest of leftwing folk-singers. It is a matter
of editorial judgment whether it was worth the $350. Ginzburg claims he paid
Justice Douglas for writing it. I would think, however, that a by-line clear
across the page reading "By William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, United States
Supreme Court" and a full page picture would be worth something to a publisher
and a magazine with two appeals pending in the U. S. Courts.
However, Mr. Justice Douglas did not disqualify himself from taking part
in the Goldwater versus Ginzburg libel appeal. Had the decision been a close
(more)
- 10 -
5-4 split, as was the earlier one, Ginzburg might have won with Douglas' vote.
Actually, neither the quantity of the sum that changed hands nor the posi-
tion taken by the Court's majority or the size of the majority makes a bit of
difference in the gross impropriety involved.
Title 28, United States Code, Section 455 states as follows: "Any justice
or judge of the United States should disqualify himself in any case in which he
has a substantial interest, has been of counsel, is or has been a material wit-
ness, or is so related to or connected with any party or his attorney as to render
it improper, in his opinion, for him to sit on the trial, appeal or other proceed-
ing therein."
Let me ask each one of you: Is this what the Constitution means by "good
behaviour"? Should such a person sit on our Supreme Court?
Writing signed articles for notorious publications of a convicted pornog-
rapher is bad enough. Taking money for them is worse. Declining to disqualify
one's self in this case is inexcusable.
But this is only the beginning of the insolence by which Mr. Justice
Douglas has evidently decided to sully the high standards of his profession and
defy the conventions and convictions of decent Americans.
Recently, there has appeared on the stands a little black book with the
autograph, "William 0. Douglas," scrawled on the cover in red. Its title is
"Points of Rebellion" and its thesis is that violence may be justified and perhaps
only revolutionary overthrow of "the Establishment" can save the country.
The kindest thing I can say about this 97-page tome is that it is quick
reading. Had it been written by a militant sophomore, as it easily could, it
would of course have never found a prestige publisher like Random House. It is
a fuzzy harangue evidently intended to give historic legitimacy to the militant
hippie-yippie movement and to bear testimony that a 71-year-old Justice of the
Supreme Bench is one in spirit with them.
Now, it is perfectly clear to me that the First Amendment protects the
right of Mr. Justice Douglas and his publishers to write and print this drivel if
they please.
Mr. Justice Douglas is Constitutionally and otherwise entitled to believe,
though it is difficult to understand how a grown man can, that "a black silence
of fear possesses the nation," and that "every conference room in government
buildings is assumed to be bugged."
(more)
- 11 -
One wonders how this enthusiastic traveller inside the Iron Curtain is
able to warn seriously against alleged Washington hotel rooms equipped with two-
way mirrors and microphones, or accuse the "powers-that-be" of echoing Adolf
Hitler. This is nonsense, but certainly not the only nonsense being printed now-
adays.
But I wonder if it can be deemed "good behaviour" in the Constitutional
sense for such a distorted diatribe against the government of the United States
to be published, indeed publicly autographed and promoted, by an Associate Justice
of the Supreme Court.
There are, as the book says, two ways by which the grievances of citizens
can be redressed. One is lawful procedure and one is violent protest, riot and
revolution. Should a judge who sits at the pinnacle of the orderly system of
justice give sympathetic encouragement, on the side, to impressionable young
students and hard-core fanatics who espouse the militant method? I think not.
In other words, I concede that William O. Douglas has a right to write and
publish what he pleases; but I suggest that for Associate Justice Douglas to put
his name to such an inflammatory volume as "Points of Rebellion" -- at a critical
time in our history when peace and order is what we need -- is less than judicial
good behaviour. It is more serious than simply "a summation of conventional
liberal poppycock", as one columnist wrote.
Whatever Mr. Justice Douglas may have meant by his justification of anti-
Establishment activism, violent defiance of police and public authorities, and
even the revolutionary restructuring of American society -- does he not suppose
that these confrontations and those accused of unlawfully taking part in them
will not come soon before the Supreme Court? By his own book, the Court surely
will have to rule on many such cases.
I ask you, will Mr. Justice Douglas then disqualify himself because of a
bias previously expressed, and published for profit? Will he step aside as did
a liberal jurist of the utmost personal integrity, Chief Justice Warren, whenever
any remote chance of conflict of interest arose? Not if we may judge by Mr.
Justice Douglas' action in the Ginzburg appeals, he will not.
When I first encountered the facts of Mr. Justice Douglas' involvement with
pornographic publications and espousal of hippie-yippie style revolution I was
inclined to dismiss his fractious behaviour as the first sign of senility. But
I believe I underestimated the justice.
(more)
- 12 -
In case there are any "square" Americans who were too stupid to get the
message Mr. Justice Douglas was trying to tell us, he has now removed all possible
misunderstanding.
Here is the (April 1970) current edition of a magazine innocently entitled
"Evergreen."
Perhaps the name has some secret erotic significance, because otherwise it
may be the only clean word in this publication. I am simply unable to describe
the prurient advertisements, the perverted suggestions, the downright filthy illus
trations and the shocking and execrable four-letter language it employs.
Alongside of "Evergreen" the old "AVANT GARDE" is a family publication.
Just for a sample, here is an article by Tom Hayden of the Chicago five.
It is titled "Repression and Rebellion." It possibly is somewhat more temperate
than the published views of Mr. Justice Douglas, but no matter. Next we come to
a seven page rotogravure section of 13 half-page photographs. It starts off with
a relatively unobjectionable arty nude. But the rest of the dozen poses are hard
core pornography of the kind the United States Supreme Court's recent decisions
now permit to be sold to your children and mine on almost every newsstand. There
are nude models of both sexes in poses that are perhaps more shocking than the
postcards that used to be sold only in the back alleys of Paris and Panama City.
Immediately following the most explicit of these photographs, on pages 40
and 41, we find a full page caricature of the President of the United States, made
to look like Britain's King George III and waiting, presumably, for the second
American Revolution to begin on Boston Common, or is it Berkeley?
This cartoon, while not very respectful towards Mr. Nixon, is no worse
than we see almost daily in a local newspaper and all alone might be legitimate
political parody. But it is there to illustrate an article on the opposite page
titled much like Tom Hayden's, "Redress and Revolution".
This article is authored "by the venerable Supreme Court Justice," William
O. Douglas. It consists of the most extreme excerpts from his book, given a scme-
what more seditious title. And it states plainly in the margin: "Copyright 1970
by William 0. Douglas
Reprinted by Permission."
Now you may be able to tell me that it is permissible for someone to write
such stuff, and this being a free country I agree. You may tell me that nude
couples cavorting in photographs are art, and that morals are a matter of opinion,
and that such stuff is lawful to publish and send through the U. S. mails at a
postage rate subsidized by the taxpayers. I disagree, but maybe I am old-fashioned.
(more)
- 13 -
But you cannot tell me that an Associate Justice of the United States is
compelled to give his permission to reprint his name and his title and his writings
in a pornographic magazine with a portfolio of obscene photographs on one side of
it and a literary admonition to get a gun and start shooting at the first white
face you see on the other. You cannot tell me that an Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court could not have prevented the publication of his writings in such a
place if he wanted to, especially after widespread criticism of his earlier con-
tributions to less objectionable magazines.
No, Mr. Justice Douglas has been telling us something and this time he
wanted to make it perfectly clear. His blunt message to the American people and
their representatives in the Congress of the United States is that he doesn't
give a tinker's damn what we think of him and his behaviour on the bench. He be-
lieves he sits there by some Divine Right and that he can do and say anything he
pleases without being questioned and with complete immunity.
Does he really believe this? Whatever else one may say, Mr. Justice
Douglas does know the Constitution, and he knows the law of impeachment. Would
it not, I ask you, be much more reasonable to suppose that Mr. Justice Douglas is
trying to shock and outrage us -- but for his own reasons.
Suppose his critics concentrate on his outrageous opinions, expressed off
the bench, in books and magazines that share, with their more reputable cousins,
the Constitutional protections of free speech and free press. Suppose his im-
peachment is predicated on these grounds alone --- will not the accusers of Mr.
Justice Douglas be instantly branded -- as we already are in his new book --- as
the modern Adolf Hitlers, the book burners, the defoliators of the tree of liberty
Let us not be caught in a trap. There is prima facie evidence against Mr.
Justice Douglas that is --- in my judgment --- far more grave. There is prima facie
evidence that he was for nearly a decade the well-paid moonlighter for an organi-
zation whose ties to the international gambling fraternity never have been suf-
ficiently explored. Are these longstanding connections, personal, professional
and profitable, the skeleton in the closet which Mr. Justice Douglas would like
to divert us from looking into? What would bring an Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court into any sort of relationship with some of the most unsavory and
notorious elements of American society? What, after some of this became public
knowledge, holds him still in truculent defiance bordering upon the irrational?
For example, there is the curious and profitable relationship which Mr.
Justice Douglas enjoyed, for nigh onto a decade, with Mr. Albert Parvin and a
(more)
- 14 -
mysterious entity known as the Parvin Foundation.
Albert Parvin was born in Chicago around the turn of the century, but
little is known of his life until he turns up as President and 30% owner of Hotel
Flamingo, Inc., which operated the hotel and gambling casino in Las Vegas, Nevada.
It was first opened by Bugsy Siegel in 1946, a year before he was murdered.
Bugsy's contract for decorations and furnishings of the Flamingo was with
Albert Parvin & Company. Between Siegle and Parvin there were three other heads,
or titular heads, of the Flamingo. After the gangland rub-out of Siegel in Los
Angeles, Sanford Adler -- who was a partner with Albert Parvin in another gambling
establishment, E1 Rancho, took over. He subsequently fled to Mexico to escape
income tax charges and the Flamingo passed into the hands of one Gus Greenbaum.
Greenbaum one day had a sudden urge to go to Cuba and was later murdered.
Next Albert Parvin teamed up with William Israel Alderman, (known as Ice Pick
Willie) to head the Flamingo. But Alderman soon was off to the Riviera and Parvin
took over.
On May 12, 1960, Parvin signed a contract with Meyer Lansky, one of the
country's top gangsters, paying Lansky what was purportedly a finder's fee of
$200,000 in the sale of the Flamingo. The agreement stipulated that payment
would be made to Lansky in quarterly installments of $6250 starting in 1961. If
kept, final payment of the $200,000 would have been in October 1968.
Parvin and the other owners sold the Flamingo for a reported $10,500,000
to a group including Florida hotelmen Morris Lansburgh, Samuel Cohen and Daniel
Lifter. His attorney in the deal was Edward Levinson, who has been
associated with Parvin in a number of enterprises. The Nevada Gaming Commission
approved the sale on June 1, 1960.
(more)
- 15 -
In November of 1960, Parvin set up the Albert Parvin Foundation. Accounts
vary as to whether it was funded with Flamingo Hotel stock or with a first
mortgage on the Flamingo taken under terms of the sale. At any rate the
Foundation was incorporated in New York and Mr. Justice Douglas assisted in
setting it up, according to Parvin. If the Justice did indeed draft the articles
of incorporation, it was in patent violation of Title 20, Section 454, United
States Code, which states that "any justice or judge appointed under the author-
ity of the United States who engages in the practice of law is guilty of a
high misdemeanor."
Please note that this offense is specifically stated in the Federal
statute to be a high misdemeanor, making it conform to one of the Constitutional
grounds for impeachment. There is additional evidence that Mr. Justice Douglas
later, while still on salary, gave legal advice to the Albert Parvin Foundation
on dealing with an Internal Revenue investigation.
The ostensible purpose of the Parvin Foundation was declared to be
educating the developing leadership in Latin America. This had not previously
been a known concern of Parvin or his Las Vegas associates, but Cuba, where
some of them had business connections, was then in the throes of Castro's
Communist revolution.
In 1961 Mr. Justice Douglas was named a life member of the Parvin
Foundation's Board, elected President and voted a salary of $12,000 per year
plus expenses. There is some conflict in testimony as to how long Douglas drew
his pay, but he did not put a stop to it until last May (1969), in the wake of
public revelations that forced the resignation of Mr. Justice Fortas.
The Parvin Foundation in 1961 undertook publication of Mr. Justice
Douglas' book, "America's Challenge," with costs borne by the Foundation but
royalties going to the author.
In April, 1962, the Parvin Foundation applied for tax-exempt status. And
thereafter some very interesting things happened.
On October 22, 1962, Bobby Baker turned up in Las Vegas for a three-day
stay. His hotel bill was paid by Ed Levinson, Parvin's associate and sometime
attorney. On Baker's registration card a hotel employee had noted -- "is with
Douglas."
Bobby was then, of course, Majority Secretary of the Senate and widely
regarded as the right-hand of the then Vice President of the United States. So
it is unclear whether the note meant literally that Mr. Justice Douglas was also
(more)
- 16 -
visiting Las Vegas at that time or whether it meant only to identify Baker as a
Douglas associate.
In December, 1962, I have learned, Bobby Baker met with Juan Bosch,
soon-to-be President of the Dominican Republic, in New York City.
In January 1963 the Albert Parvin Foundation decided to drop all its
Latin American projects and to concentrate on the Dominican Republic. Douglas
described President-elect Bosch as an old friend.
On February 26, 1963, however, we find Bobby Baker and Ed Levinson
together again -- this time on the other side of the continent in Florida --
buying round-trip tickets on the same plane for the Dominican Republic.
Since the Parvin Foundation was set up to develop leadership in Latin
America, Trujillo has been toppled from power in a bloody uprising, and Juan
Bosch was about to be inaugurated as the new, liberal President. Officially
representing the United States at the ceremonies February 27 were the Vice
President and Mrs. Johnson. But their Air Force plane was loaded with such
celebrities as Sen. and Mrs. Humphrey, two assistant secretaries of State,
Mr. and Mrs. Valenti and Mrs. Elizabeth Carpenter. Bobby Baker and Eddie
Levinson went commercial.
Also on hand in Santo Domingo to celebrate Bosch's taking up the reins
of power were Mr. Albert Parvin, President of the Parvin-Dohrmann Co., and
the President of the Albert Parvin Foundation, Mr. Justice William O. Douglas
of the United States Supreme Court.
Again there is conflicting testimony as to the reason for Mr. Justice
Douglas' presence in the Dominican Republic at this juncture, along with Parvin,
Levinson and Bobby Baker. Obviously he was not there as an official representa-
tive of the United States, as he was not in the Vice President's party.
One story is that the Parvin Foundation was offering to finance an
educational television project for the Dominican Republic. Another is that
Mr. Justice Douglas was there to advise President Bosch on writing a new Consti-
tution for the Dominican Republic.
There is little doubt about the reasons behind the presence of a singularly
large contingent of known gambling figures and Mafia types in Santo Domingo,
however. With the change of political regimes the rich gambling concessions of
the Dominican Republic were up for grabs. These were generally not owned and
operated by the hotels, but were granted to concessionaires by the government --
specifically by the President. It was one of the country's most lucrative sources
of revenue as well as private corruption. This brought such known gambling
(more)
- 17 -
figures as Parvin and Levinson, Angelo Bruno and John Simone, Joseph Sicarelli,
Eugene Pozo, Santa Trafficante Jr., Louis Levinson, Leslie Earl Kruse and
Sam Giancanno to the island in the Spring of 1963.
Bobby Baker, in addition to serving as go-between for his Las Vegas
friends such as Ed Levinson, was personally interested in concessions for vending
machines of his Serv-U Corporation, then represented by Washington Attorney
Abe Fortas. Baker has described Levinson as a former partner.
(Mrs. Fortas, also an attorney, was subsequently to be retained as tax
counsel by the Parvin Foundation. Her fee is not exactly known but that year
the Foundation spent $16,050. for professional services.)
There are reports that Douglas met with Bosch and other officials of the
new government in February or early March of 1963, and also that he met with
Bobby Baker and with Albert Parvin. In April 1963 Baker and Ed Levinson returned
to the Dominican Republic and in that same month the Albert Parvin Foundation
was granted its tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service.
In June, I believe it was June 20, Bobby Baker and Ed Levinson travelled
to New York where Baker introduced Levinson to Mr. John Gates of the Inter-
continental Hotel Corp. Mr. Gates has testified that Levinson was interested in
the casino concession in the Ambassador (El Embajador) Hotel in Santo Domingo.
My information is that Baker and Levinson made at least one more trip to the
Dominican Republic about this time but that, despite all this influence
peddling, the gambling franchise was not granted to the Parvin-Levinson-Lansky
interests after all.
In August President Bosch awarded the concession to Cliff Jones, former
Lieutenant Governor of Nevada who, incidentally, also was an associate of Bobby
Baker's.
When this happened, the further interest of the Albert Parvin Foundation
in the Dominican Republic abruptly ceased. I am told that some of the educational
television equipment already delivered was simply abandoned in its original crates.
On September 25, 1963, President Bosch was ousted and all deals were off.
He was later to lead a comeback effort with Communist support which resulted in
President Johnson's dispatch of U. S. Marines to the Dominican Republic.
Meanwhile, through the Parvin-Dohrmann Co. which he had acquired, Albert
Parvin bought the Freemont Hotel in Las Vegas in 1966 from Edward Levinson and
Edward Torres, for some $16 million. In 1960 Parvin-Dohrmann acquired the
Aladdin Hotel and Casino in the same Nevada city, and in 1969 was denied per-
- 10 -
mission by Nevada to buy the Riviera Hotel and took over operation of the
Stardust Hotel. This brought an investigation which led to the suspension of
trading in Parvin-Dohrmann stock by the SEC, which led further to the campany's
employment of Nathan Voloshen. But in the interim Albert Parvin is said to
have been bought out of the company and to have retired to concentrate on his
Foundation, from which Mr. Justice Douglas had been driven to resign by relent-
less publicity.
On May 12, 1969, Mr. Justice Douglas reportedly wrote a letter to
Albert Parvin in which he discussed the pending action by the Internal Revenue
Service to revoke the Foundation's tax-exempt status as a "manufactured case"
designed to pressure him off the Supreme Court. In this letter, as its contents
were paraphrased by the New York Times, Mr. Justice Douglas apparently offered
legal advice to Mr. Parvin as to how to avoid future difficulties with the
Internal Revenue Service, and this whole episode demands further examination
under oath by a committee with subpoena powers.
When things got too hot on the Supreme Court for justices accepting large
sums of money from private foundations for ill-defined services, Mr. Justice
Douglas finally gave up his open ties with the Albert Parvin Foundation. A1-
though resigning as its President and giving up his $12,000 a year salary, Mr.
Justice Douglas moved immediately into closer connection with the leftish
"Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions" which is run by Dr. Robert M.
Hutchins, former head of the University of Chicago, in Santa Barbara, California.
A longtime "Consultant" and member of the Board of Directors of the
Center, Mr. Justice Douglas was elevated last December to the post of Chairman
of the Executive Committee. It should be noted that the Santa Barbara Center
was a beneficiary of Parvin Foundation funds during the same period that Mr.
Justice Douglas was receiving $1000 a month salary from it and Mobster Meyer
Lansky was drawing down installment payments of $25,000 a year. In addition to
Douglas, there are several others who serve on both the Parvin Foundation and
Center for Democratic Studies boards, so the break was not a very sharp one.
The gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Wyman, has investigated Mr. Justice
Douglas' connections with the Center and discovered that the Associate Justice
has been receiving money from it, both during the time he was being paid by
Parvin and even larger sums since.
The gentleman, who served as Attorney General of his State and chairman
of the American Bar Association's committee on jurisprudence before coming to
(more)
- 19 -
the House, will detail his findings later. But one activity of the Center
requires inclusion here because it provides some explanation for Mr. Justice
Douglas' curious obsession with the current wave of violent youthful rebellion.
In 1965 the Santa Barbara Center, which is tax-exempt and ostensibly
serves as a scholarly retreat, sponsored and financed the National Conference
for New Politics which was, in effect, the birth of the New Left as a political
movement. Two years later, in August 1967, the Center was the site of a very
significant conference of militant student leaders. Here plans were laid for
the violent campus disruptions of the past few years, and the students vere
exhorted by at least one member of the Center's staff to sabotage American
society, block defense work by universities, immobilize computerized record
systems and discredit the R.O.T.C.
This session at Mr. Justice Douglas' second moonlighting base was thus
the birthplace for the very excesses which he applauds in his latest book in
these words:
"Where grievances pile high and most of the elected spokesmen represent
the Establishment, violence may be the only effective response."
Mr. Speaker, we are the elected spokesmen upon whom the Associate Justice
of the Supreme Court is attempting to place the blame for violent rebellion in
this country. What he means by representing the Establishment I do not know,
except that he and his young hothead revolutionaries regard it as evil. I
know very well who I represent, however, and if the patriotic and law abiding and
hardworking and Godfearing people of America are the Establishment, I am proud
to represent such an Establishment.
Perhaps it is appropriate to examine at this point who Mr. Justice Douglas
represents. On the basis of the facts available to me, and presented here,
Mr. Justice Douglas appears to represent Mr. Albert Parvin and his silent partners
of the international gambling fraternity, Mr. Ralph Ginzburg and his friends of
the pornographic publishing trade, Dr. Robert Ilutchins and his intellectual
incubators for the New Left and the S.D.S., and others of the same ill. Mr.
Justice Douglas does not find himself in this company suddenly or accidentally
or unknowingly, he has been working at it for years, profiting from it for
years, and flaunting it in the faces of decent Americans for years.
There have been many questions put to me in recent days. Let me un-
equivocally answer the most important of them for the record now.
Is this action on my part in response to, or retaliation for, the rejec-
(more)
- 20 -
tion by the other body of two nominees for the Supreme Court, Judge Haynsworth
and Judge Carswell. In a narrow sense, no. The judicial misbehaviour which I
believe Mr. Justice Douglas to be guilty of began long before anybody thought
about clevating Judges Haynsworth and Carswell.
But in a larger sense, I do not think there can be two standards for
membership on the Supreme Court, one for Mr. Justice Fortas, another for
Mr. Justice Douglas.
What is the ethical or moral distinction, I ask those arbiters of high
principle who have studied such matters, between the Parvin Foundation, Parvin-
Dohrmann's troubles with the SEC, and Parvin's $12,000 a year retainer to
Associate Justice Douglas -- on the one hand -- and the Volfson Family Foundation,
Louis Wolfson's troubles with the SEC and Wolfson's $20,000 a year retainer to
Associate Justice Fortas? Why, even the cast of characters in these two cases
is interchangeable.
Albert Parvin was named a co-conspirator but not a defendant in the stock
manipulation case that sent Louis Volfson to prison. Albert Parvin is again
under investigation in the stock manipulation action against Parvin-Dohrmann.
This generation has largely forgotten that William O. Douglas first rose to
national prominence as the New Deal's chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission. His former law pupil at Yale and fellow New Dealer in those days
was one Abc Fortas, and they remained the closest friends on and off the Supreme
Court. Mrs. Fortas was retained by the Parvin Foundation in its tax difficulties.
Abe Fortas was retained by Bobby Baker until he withdrew from the case because
of his close ties with the White House.
I will state that there is some difference between the two situations.
There is no evidence that Louis Wolfson had notorious underworld associations
in his financial enterprises. And more important, Mr. Justice Fortas had
enough respect for so-called Establishment and the personal decency to resign
when his behaviour brought reproach upon the United States Supreme Court. What-
ever he may have done privately, Mr. Justice Fortas did not consistently take
public positions that damaged and endangered the fabric of law and government.
Another question I have been asked is whether I, and others in this
House, want to set ourselves up as censors of books and magazines. This is,
of course, a stock liberal needle which will continue to be inserted at every
opportunity no matter now often it is plainly answered in the negative. But as
"censor" is an ancient Roman office, the supervisor of public morals, let me
(more)
- 21 -
substitute another Roman office, the tribune. It was the tribune who represented
and spoke up for the people. This is our role in the impeachment of unfit
judges and other Federal officials. We have not made ourselves consors; the
Constitution makes us tribunes.
A third question I am asked is whether the step we are taking will not di-
minish public confidence in the Supreme Court. That is the easiest to answer.
Public confidence in the United States Supreme Court diminishes every day that
Mr. Justice Douglas remains on it.
Finally, I have been asked, and I have asked myself, whether or not
I should stand here and impeach Mr. Justice Douglas on my own Constitutional
responsibility. I believe, on the basis of my own investigation and the facts
I have set before you, that he is unfit and should be removed. I would vote to
impeach him right now.
But we are dealing here with a solemn Constitutional duty. Only
the House has this power; only here can the people obtain redress from the mis-
behaviour of appointed judges. I would not impose my judgment in such a matter
upon any other Member; each should examine his own conscience after the full
facts have been spread before him.
I can't see how, on the prima facie case I have made, it is possible to
object to a prompt but thoroughgoing investigation of Mr. Justice Douglas'
behaviour. I believe that investigation, giving both the Associate Justice
and his accusers the right to answer under oath, should be as non-partisan as
possible and should interfere as little as possible with the regular legislative
business of the House. For that reason I shall support, but not actively sponsor,
the creation of a select committee to recommend whether probable cause does lie,
as I believe it. does, for the impeachment and removal of Mr. Justice Douglas.
Once more, I remind you of lir. Justice Cardozo's guideline for any judge:
"Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive,
is then the standard of behavior."
Why should the American people demand such a high standard of their
judiciary? Because justice is the foundation of our free society. There has
never been a better answer than that of Daniel Webster, who said:
"There is no happiness, there is no liberty, there is no enjoyment of life,
unless a man can say when he rises in the morning, I shall be subject to the
decision of no unwise judge today."
##
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
April 15, 1970
MEMORANDUM:
On page 9 of the advance text of Rep. Gerald R. Ford's April 15th
Floor Speech regarding Justice Douglas, please substitute the following for
the third full paragraph:
"Yet, while the Ginzberg-Goldvater suit was pending in the Federal
courts, clearly headed for the highest court in the land, Mr. Justice
Douglas appeared as the author of an article in Avant Garde, the
successor to Fact in the Ginzberg stable of magazines, and reportedly
accepted payment from Ginzberg for it."
The foregoing is the way Rep. Ford actually delivered it and is more precise
than the advance version.
There is another minor stenographic error on page 7. In the third
from last paragraph Senator McAdoo of California should be identified as:
"
son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson and his Secretary of the Treasury."
where
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
April 15, 1970
MEMORANDUM:
On page 9 of the advance text of Rep. Gerald R. Ford's April 15th
Floor Speech regarding Justice Douglas, please substitute the following for
the third full paragraph:
"Yet, while the Ginzberg-Goldwater suit was pending in the Federal
courts, clearly headed for the highest court in the land, Mr. Justice
Douglas appeared as the author of an article in Avant Garde, the
successor to Fact in the Ginzberg stable of magazines, and reportedly
accepted payment from Ginzberg for it."
The foregoing is the way Rep. Ford actually delivered it and is more precise
than the advance version.
There is another minor stenographic error on page 7. In the third
from last paragraph Senator McAdoo of California should be identified as:
11 son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson and his Secretary of the Treasury."
2020
was
(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
Congressional Record
United States
of America
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Vol. 116
WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1970
No. 60
House of Representatives
CONDUCT OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DOUGLAS
Speech in the House of Representatives by Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford of Michigan
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker.
His private life, to the degree that it does
should we remove him for a minor or
last May 8 I joined with the gentleman
not bring the Supreme Court into disre-
isolated mistake-this does not consti-
from Ohio (Mr. TAFT) in introducing
pute, is his own business. One does not
tute behaviour in the common meaning.
H.R. 11109, a bill requiring financial dis-
need to be an ardent admirer of any
What we should scrutinize in sitting
closure by members of the Federal ju-
judge or justice, or an advocate of his
Judges is their continuing pattern of
diciary. This was amid the allegations
life style, to acknowledge his right to be
action, their behaviour. The Constitution
swirling around Mr. Justice Fortas. Be-
elevated to or remain on the bench.
does not demand that it be "exemplary"
fore and since, other Members of this
We have heard a great deal of dis-
or "perfect." But it does have to be
body have proposed legislation of similar
cussion recently about the qualifications
"good."
intent. To the best of my knowledge, all
which a person should be required to
Naturally, there must be orderly pro-
of them lie dormant in the Committee
possess to be elevated to the U.S. Su-
cedure for determining whether or not
on the Judiciary where they were re-
preme Court. There has not been
a Federal judge's behaviour is good. The
ferred.
sufficient consideration given, in my
courts, arbiters in most such questions of
On March 19 the U.S. Judicial Con-
judgment, to the qualifications which a
judgment, cannot judge themselves. So
ference announced the adoption of new
person should possess to remain upon
the Founding Fathers vested this ulti-
ethical standards on outside earnings and
the U.S. Supreme Court.
mate power where the ultimate sover-
conflict of interest. They were described
For, contrary to a widepsread miscon-
eignty of our system is most directly re-
as somewhat watered down from the
ception, Federal judges and the Justices
flected-in the Congress, in the elected
strict proposals of former Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court are not appointed
Representatives of the people and of the
Warren at the time of the Fortas affair.
for life. The Founding Fathers would
States.
In any event, they are not binding upon
have been the last to make such a mis-
In this seldom-used procedure, called
the Supreme Court.
take; the American Revolution was
impeachment. the legislative branch
Neither are the 36-year-old Canons of
waged against an hereditary monarchy
exercises both executive and judicial
Judicial Ethics of the American Bar As-
in which the King always had a life term
functions. The roles of the two bodies
sociation, among which are these:
and, as English history bloodily demon-
differ dramatically. The House serves as
Canon 4. Avoidance of Impropriety. A
strated, could only be removed from office
prosecutor and grand jury; the Senate
judge's official conduct should be free from
by the headsman's ax or the assassin's
serves as judge and trial jury.
impropriety and the appearance of impro-
dagger.
Article I of the Constitution has this
priety: he should avoid infractions of law;
and his personal behavior, not only upon the
No, the Constitution does not guaran-
to say about the impeachment process:
Bench and in the performance of judicial
tee a lifetime of power and authority to
The House of Representatives-shall have
duties, but also in his everyday life, should
any public official. The terms of Members
the sole power of Impeachment.
be beyond reproach.
of the House are fixed at 2 years; of
The Senate shall have the sole Power to
Canon 24. Inconsistent Obligations. A judge
the President and Vice President at 4;
try all Impeachments. When sitting for
should not accept inconsistent duties: nor
of U.S. Senators at 6. Members of the
that Purpose. they shall be on Oath or Af-
incur obligations, pecuniary or otherwise,
Federal judiciary hold their offices only
firmation. When the President of the United
which will in any way interfere or appear to
"during good behaviour."
States is tried, the Chief Justice shall
interfere with his devotion to the expe-
Let me read the first section of article
preside: And no Person shall be convicted
ditious and proper administration of his of-
without the Concurrence of two-thirds of
ficial function.
III of the Constitution in full:
the Members present.
Canon 31. Private Law Practice. In many
The judicial power of the United States
states the practice of law by one holding
shall be vested in one supreme Court, and
Article II. dealing with the executive
judicial position is forbidden If forbid-
in such inferior Courts as the Congress may
branch, states in section 4:
den to practice law, he should refrain from
from time to time ordain and establish. The
The President, Vice President, and all civil
accepting any professional employment while
Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Officers of the United States, shall be re-
in office.
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good
moved from office on impeachment for. and
Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive
conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high
Following the public disclosure last
for their Services, a Compensation, which
crimes and misdemeanors.
year of the extrajudicial activities and
shall not be diminished during their Con-
moonlighting employment of Justices
tinuance in Office.
This has been the most controversial
Fortas and Douglas, which resulted in
of the constitutional references to the
The clause dealing with the compen-
the resignation from the Supreme Bench
impeachment process. No concensus
sation of Federal judges, which inciden-
of Mr. Justice Fortas but not of Mr. Jus-
exists as to whether, in the case of Fed-
tally we raised last year to $60,000 for
tice Douglas, I received literally hundreds
eral judges, impeachment must depend
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
of inquiries and protests from concerned
suggests that their "continuance in of-
upon conviction of one of the two speci-
citizens and colleagues.
fice" is indeed limited. The provision
fied crimes of treason or bribery or be
In response to this evident interest I
within the nebulous category of "other
that it may not be decreased prevents
quietly undertook a study of both the
high crimes and misdemeanors." There
the legislative or executive branches
law of impeachment and the facts about
from unduly influencing the judiciary by
are pages upon pages of learned argu-
the behavior of Mr. Justice Douglas. I
cutting judges' pay, and suggests that
ment whether the adjective "high"
assured inquirers that I would make my
even in those bygone days the income of
modifies "misdmeanors" as well as
findings known at the appropriate time.
jurists was a highly sensitive matter.
"crimes," and over what, indeed, con-
That preliminary report is now ready.
To me the Constitution is perfectly
stitutes a "high misdemeanor.'
Let me say by way of preface that I am
clear about the tenure, or term of office,
In my view, one of the specific or gen-
a lawyer, admitted to the bar of the U.S.
of all Federal judges-it is "during good
eral offenses cited in article II is required
Supreme Court. I have the most profound
behaviour." It is implicit in this that
for removal of the indirectly elected
respect for the U.S. Supreme Court. I
when behaviour ceases to be good, the
President and Vice President and all ap-
would never advocate action against a
right to hold judicial office ceases also.
pointed civil officers of the executive
member of that Court because of his
Thus, we come quickly to the central
branch of the Federal Government,
political philosophy or the legal opinions
question: What constitutes "good be-
whatever their terms of office. But in the
which he contributes to the decisions of
haviour" or, conversely, ungood or dis-
case of members of the judicial branch,
the Court. Mr. Justice Douglas has been
qualifying behaviour?
Federal judges and Justices, I believe an
criticized for his liberal opinions and be-
The words employed by the Framers of
additional and much stricter requirement
cause he granted stays of execution to
the Constitution were, as the proceedings
is imposed by article II, namely, "good
the convicted spies, the Rosenbergs, who
of the Convention detail, chosen with
behaviour."
stole the atomic bomb for the Soviet
exceedingly great care and precision.
Finally, and this is a most significant
Union. Probably I would disagree, were
Note, for example, the word "behaviour."
provision, article I of the Constitution
I on the bench, with most of Mr. Justice
It relates to action, not merely to
specifies:
Douglas' views, such as his defense of the
thoughts or opinions; further, it refers
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall
filthy film, "I Am Curious (Yellow). But
not to a single act but to a pattern or
not extend further than to removal from
a judge's right to his legal views, as-
continuing sequence of action. We can-
Office, and disqualification to hold and en-
joy any office of honor, Trust or Profit under
suming they are not improperly influ-
not and should not remove a Federal
the United States: but the Party convicted
enced or corrupted, is fundamental to our
judge for the legal views he holds-this
shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
system of justice.
would be as contemptible as to exclude
Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punish-
I should say also that I have no per-
him from serving on the Supreme Court
ment, according to Law.
sonal feeling toward Mr. Justice Douglas.
for his ideology or past decisions. Nor
In other words, impeachment resem-
indeed require crimes of the magnitude
aspects of the behavior of Mr. Justice
bles a regular criminal indictment and
of treason and bribery. Other elective
Douglas, and let us ask ourselves in the
trial but it is not the same thing. It re-
officials, such as Members of the Con-
words of Mr. Justice Cardozo, whether
lates solely to the accused's right to hold
gress, are SO vulnerable to public dis-
they represent "not honesty alone, but
civil office; not to the many other rights
pleasure that their removal by the com-
the punctilio of an honor the most
which are his as a citizen and which pro-
plicated impeachment route has not even
sensitive."
tect him in a court of law. By pointedly
been tried since 1798. But nine Federal
Ralph Ginzburg is editor and pub-
voiding any immunity an accused might
judges, including one Associate Justice
lisher of a number of magazines not
claim under the double jeopardy princi-
of the Supreme Court, have been im-
commonly found on the family coffee
ple, the framers of the Constitution
peached by this House and tried by the
table. For sending what was held to be
clearly established that impeachment is
Senate; four were acquitted; four con-
an obscene edition of one of them, Eros,
a unique political device; designed ex-
victed and removed from office; and one
through the U.S. mails, Mr. Ginzburg
plicitly to dislodge from public office
resigned during trial and the impeach-
was convicted and sentenced to 5 years'
those who are patently unfit for it, but
ment was dismissed.
imprisonment in 1963.
cannot otherwise be promptly removed.
In the most recent impeachment trial
His conviction was appealed and, in
The distinction between impeachment
conducted by the other body, that of U.S.
1966, was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme
and ordinary criminal prosecution is
Judge Halsted L. Ritter of the southern
Court in a close 5-to-4 decision. Mr. Jus-
again evident when impeachment is
district of Florida who was removed in
tice Douglas dissented. His dissent fa-
made the sole exception to the guarantee
1936, the point of judicial behavior was
vored Mr. Ginzburg and the publication,
of article III, section 3 that trial of all
paramount, since the criminal charges
Eros.
crimes shall be by jury-perhaps the
were admittedly thin. This case was in
During the 1964 presidential campaign,
most fundamental of all constitutional
the context of F. D. R.'s effort to pack the
another Ginzburg magazine, Fact, pub-
protections.
Supreme Court with Justices more to his
lished an issue entitled "The Uncon-
We must continually remember that
liking; Judge Ritter was a transplanted
scious of a Conservative: A Special Issue
the writers of our Constitution did their
conservative Colorado Republican ap-
on the Mind of BARRY GOLDWATER."
work with the experience of the British
pointed to the Federal bench in solidly
Crown and Parliament freshly in mind.
Democratic Florida by President Coo-
The thrust of the two main articles
There is so much that resembles the
lidge. He was convicted by a coalition of
in Ginzburg's magazine was that Sena-
British system in our Constitution that
liberal Republicans, New Deal Demo-
tor GOLDWATER, the Republican nominee
we sometimes overlook the even sharper
crats, and Farmer-Labor and Progres-
for President of the United States, had a
differences-one of the sharpest is our
sive Party Senators in what might be
severely paranoid personality and was
divergent view on impeachment.
called the northwestern strategy of that
psychological unfit to be President.
In Great Britain the House of Lords
era. Nevertheless, thie arguments were
This was supported by a fraction of re-
sits as the court of highest appeal in the
persuasive:
plies to an alleged poll which the maga-
land, and upon accusation by Commons
In a joint statement, Senators Borah,
zine had mailed to some 12,000 psychia-
the Lords can try, convict, and punish
La Follette, Frazier, and Shipstead said:
trists-hardly a scientific diagnosis, but
any impeached subject-private person
a potent political hatchet job.
We therefore did not, in passing upon the
or official-with any lawful penalty for
Naturally, Senator GOLDWATER
facts presented to us in the matter of the
his crime-including death.
impeachment proceedings against Judge
promptly sued Mr. Ginzburg and Fact
Our Constitution. on the contrary, pro-
Halsted L. Ritter, seek to satisfy ourselves
magazine for libel. A Federal court jury
vides only the relatively mild penalties of
as to whether technically a crime or crimes
in New York granted the Senator a total
removal from office, and disqualification
had been committed, or as to whether the
of $75,000 in punitive damages from
for future office-the worst punishment
acts charged and proved disclosed criminal
Ginzburg and Fact magazine. Fact
intent or corrupt motive; we sought only to
the U.S. Senate can mete out is both re-
shortly was to be incorporated into an-
ascertain from these facts whether his con-
moval and disqualification.
other Ginzburg publication, Avant
duct had been such as to amount to mis-
Moreover, to make sure impeachment
behavior, misconduct-as to whether he had
Garde. The U.S. court of appeals sus-
conducted himself in a way that was cal-
tained this libel award. It held that un-
would not be frivolously attempted or
easily abused, and further to protect of
culated to undermine public confidence in
der the New York Times against Sullivan
ficeholders against political reprisal, the
the courts and to create a sense of scandal.
decision a public figure could be libelled
Constitution requires a two-thirds vote
There are a great many things which one
if the publication was made with actual
of the Senate to convict.
must readily admit would be wholly unbe-
malice; that is, if the publisher knew it
coming, wholly intolerable, in the conduct of
With this brief review of the law, of
was false or acted with reckless disregard
a judge, and yet these things might not
of whether it was false or not.
the constitutional background for im-
amount to a crime.
So once again Ralph Ginzburg ap-,
peachment, I have endeavored to correct
two common misconceptions: first, that
Senator Elbert Thomas of Utah, citing
pealed to the Supreme Court which, in
Federal judges are appointed for life and,
the Jeffersonian and colonial antecedents
due course, upheld the lower courts' judg-
second, that they can be removed only by
of the impeachment process, bluntly
ment in favor of Senator GOLDWATER and
declared:
declined to review the case.
being convicted, with all ordinary pro-
tections and presumptions of innocence
Tenure during good behavior
is
in
However, Mr. Justice Douglas again
no sense a guaranty of a life job, and mis-
dissented on the side of Mr. Ginzberg,
to which an accused is entitled, of vio-
behavior in the ordinary, dictionary sense of
along with Mr. Justice Black. Although
lating the law.
of the term will cause it to be cut short on
the Court's majority did not elaborate
This is not the case. Federal judges
the vote, under special oath, of two-thirds
on its ruling, the dissenting minority de-
can be and have been impeached for im-
of the Senate, if charges are first brought by
cision was based on the theory that the
proper personal habits such as chronic
the House of Representatives. To
as-
constitutional guarantees of free speech
intoxication on the bench, and one of the
sume that good behavior means anything but
charges brought against President An-
good behavior would be to cast a reflection
and free press are absolute.
drew Johnson was that he delivered "in-
upon the ability of the fathers to express
This decision was handed down Janu-
temperate, inflammatory. and scandal-
themselves in understandable language.
ary 26, 1970.
Yet, while the Ginzberg-Goldwater
ous harangues."
But the best summary, in my opinion,
suit was pending in the Federal courts,
I have studied the principal impeach-
was that of Senator William G. McAdoo
clearly headed for the highest court in
ment actions that have been initiated
of California, son-in-law of Woodrow
the land, Mr. Justice Douglas appeared
over the years and frankly. there are too
Wilson and Secretary of the Treasury:
as the author of an article in Avant
few cases to make very good law. About
I approach this subject from the stand-
Garde, the successor to Fact in the Ginz-
the only thing the authorities can agree
point of the general conduct of this judge
berg stable of magazines, and reportedly
upon in recent history, though it was
while on the bench, as portrayed by the
accepted payment from Ginzberg for it.
hotly argued up to President Johnson's
various counts in the impeachment and the
The March 1969 issue of Avant Garde, on
impeachment and the trial of Judge
evidence submitted in the trial. The picture
thus presented is, to my mind, that of a
its title page, shows Ralph Ginzburg as
Swayne, is that an offense need not be
indictable to be impeachable. In other
man who is SO lacking in any proper concep-
editor stating under oath that it incor-
words, something less than a criminal
tion of professional ethics and those high
porates the former magazine Fact.
act or criminal dereliction of duty may
standards of judicial character and conduct
The table of contents, lists on page
as to constitute misbehavior in its most seri-
16 an article titled "Appeal of Folk Sing-
nevertheless be sufficient grounds for im-
ous aspects, and to render him unfit to hold
ing: A Landmark Opinion" by Justice
peachment and removal from public
a judicial office
William O. Douglas. Even his judicial
office.
Good behavior, as it is used in the Con-
title, conferred on only eight other Amer-
What, then, is an impeachable offense?
stitution, exacts of a judge the highest
The only honest answer is that an im-
standards of public and private rectitude.
icans, is brazenly exploited.
No judge can besmirch the robes he wears
Justice Douglas' contribution imme-
peachable offense is whatever a majority
by relaxing these standards, by compromis-
diately follows one provocatively entitled
of the House of Representatives considers
ing them through conduct which brings re-
"The Decline and Fall of the Female
to be at a given moment in history; con-
proach upon himself personally, or upon the
Breast.' There are two other titles in the
viction results from whatever offense or
great office he holds. No more sacred trust
table of contents so vulgarly playing on
offenses two-thirds of the other body
is committed to the bench of the United
double meaning that I will not repeat
considers to be sufficiently serious to re-
States than to keep shining with undimmed
them aloud.
quire removal of the accused from office.
effulgence the brightest jewel in the crown
of democracy-justice.
Ralph Ginzburg's magazine Avant
Again, the historical context and politi-
However disagreeable the duty may be to
Garde paid the Associate Justice of the
cal climate are important: there are few
those of us who constitute this great body
U.S. Supreme Court the sum of $350 for
fixed principles among the handful of
in determining the guilt of those who are
his article on folk singing. The article
precedents.
entrusted under the Constitution with the
itself is not pornographic, although it
I think it is fair to come to one con-
high responsibilities of judicial office, we
praises the lusty, lurid, and risque along
clusion, however, from our history of
must be as exacting in our conception of the
with the social protest of leftwing folk
impeachments: a higher standard is ex-
obligations of a judicial officer as Mr. Justice
singers. It is a matter of editorial judg-
pected of Federal judges than of any
Cardozo defined them when he said, in con-
ment whether it was worth the $350.
other "civil officers" of the United States.
nection with fiduciaries, that they should
be held "to something stricter than the
Ginzburg claims he paid Justice Douglas
The President and Vice President, and
morals of the market-place. Not honesty
for writing it. I would think, however,
all persons holding office at the pleasure
alone, but the punctilio of an honor the
that a byline clear across the page read-
of the President, can be thrown out of
most sensitive, is then the standard of be-
ing "By William O. Douglas, Associate
office by the voters at least every 4 years.
havior." (Meinhard V. Solmon, 249 N.Y.
Justice, U.S. Supreme Court" and a full
To remove them in midterm-it has been
458.)
page picture would be worth something
tried only twice and never done-would
Let us now objectively examine certain
to a publisher and a magazine with two
appeals pending in the U.S. courts.
establishment activism, violent defiance
not have prevented the publication of
However, Mr. Justice Douglas did not
of police and public authorities, and
his writings in such a place if he wanted
disqualify himself from taking part in
even the revolutionary restructuring of
to, especially after widespread criticism
the Goldwater against Ginzburg libel
American society-does he not suppose
of his earlier contributions to less ob-
appeal. Had the decision been a close
that these confrontations and those ac-
jectionable magazines.
5-to-4 split, as was the earlier one, Ginz-
cused of unlawfully taking part in them
No, Mr. Justice Douglas has been tell-
burg might have won with Douglas' vote.
will not come soon before the Supreme
ing us something and this time he wanted
Actually, neither the quantity of the
Court? By his own book, the Court surely
to make it perfectly clear. His blunt mes-
sum that changed hands nor the position
will have to rule on many such cases.
sage to the American people and their
taken by the Court's majority or the size
I ask you, will Mr. Justice Douglas
Representatives in the Congress of the
of the majority makes a bit of difference
then disqualify himself because of a bias
United States is that he does not give a
in the gross impropriety involved.
previously expressed, and published for
tinker's damn what we think of him and
Title 28, United States Code, section
profit? Will he step aside as did a liberal
his behaviour on the Bench. He believes
jurist of the utmost personal integrity,
he sits there by some divine right and
455 states as follows:
Any justice or judge of the United States
Chief Justice Warren, whenever any re-
that he can do and say anything he
should disqualify himself in any case in
mote chance of conflict of interest arose?
pleases without being questioned and
which he has a substantial interest, has been
Not if we may judge by Mr. Justice Doug-
with complete immunity.
of counsel, is or has been a material witness,
las' action in the Ginzburg appeals, he
Does he really believe this? Whatever
or is SO related to or connected with any
will not.
else one may say, Mr. Justice Douglas
party or his attorney as to render it improper,
When I first encountered the facts of
does know the Constitution, and he
in his opinion, for him to sit on the trial, ap-
Mr. Justice Douglas' involvement with
knows the law of impeachment. Would
peal or other proceeding therein.
pornographic publications and espousal
it not, I ask you, be much more reason-
Let me ask each one of you: Is this
of hippie-yippie style revolution, I was
able to suppose that Mr. Justice Douglas
what the Constitution means by "good
inclined to dismiss his fractious behavior
is trying to shock and outrage us-but
behaviour"? Should such a person sit on
as the first sign of senility. But I believe
for his own reasons.
our Supreme Court?
I underestimated the Justice.
Suppose his critics concentrate on his
Writing signed articles for notorious
In case there are any "square" Amer-
outrageous opinions, expressed off the
publications of a convicted pornographer
icans who were too stupid to get the mes-
Bench, in books and magazines that
is bad enough. Taking money from them
sage Mr. Justice Douglas was trying to
share, with their more reputable cousins,
is worse. Declining to disqualify one's
tell us, he has now removed all possible
the constitutional protections of free
self in this case is inexcusable.
misunderstanding.
speech and free press. Suppose his im-
But this is only the beginning of the
Here is the April 1970 current edition
peachment is predicated on these
insolence by which Mr. Justice Douglas
of a magazine innocently entitled "Ever-
grounds alone-will not the accusers of
has evidently decided to sully the high
green."
Mr. Justice Douglas be instantly branded,
standards of his profession and defy the
Perhaps the name has some secret
as we already are in his new book-as
erotic significance, because otherwise it
the modern Adolf Hitlers, the book-
conventions and convictions of decent
may be the only clean word in this pub-
burners, the defoliators of the tree of
Americans.
lication. I am simply unable to describe
liberty.
Recently, there has appeared on the
the prurient advertisements, the per-
Let us not be caught in a trap. There
stands a little black book with the auto-
verted suggestions, the downright filthy
is a prima facie case against Mr. Justice
graph, "William O. Douglas," scrawled on
illustrations and the shocking and exe-
Douglas that is-in my judgment-far
the cover in red. Its title is "Points of
crable four-letter language it employs.
more grave. There is prima facie evidence
Rebellion" and its thesis is that violence
Alongside of Evergreen the old Avant
that he was for nearly a decade the well-
may be justified and perhaps only revo-
Garde is a family publication.
paid moonlighter for an organization
lutionary overthrow of "the establish-
Just for a sample, here is an article by
whose ties to the international gambling
ment" can save the country.
Tom Hayden of the "Chicago 5." It is
fraternity never have been sufficiently
The kindest thing I can say about this
titled "Repression and Rebellion." It pos-
explored.
97-page tome is that it is quick reading.
sibly is somewhat more temperate than
Are these longstanding connections,
Had it been written by a militant sopho-
the published views of Mr. Justice Doug-
personal, professional, and profitable, the
more, as it easily could, it would of course
las, but no matter.
skeleton in the closet which Mr. Justice
have never found a prestige publisher
Next we come to a 7-page rotogravure
Douglas would like to divert us from
like Random House. It is a fuzzy haran-
section of 13 half-page photographs. It
gue evidently intended to give historic
looking into? What would bring an As-
starts off with a relatively unobjection-
sociate Justice of the Supreme Court
legitimacy to the militant hippie-yippie
able arty nude. But the rest of the dozen
movement and to bear testimony that a
into any sort of relationship with some
poses are hard-core pornography of the
71-year-old Justice of the Supreme
of the most unsavory and notorious ele-
kind the U.S. Supreme Court's recent de-
ments of American society? What, after
Court is one in spirit with them.
cisions now permit to be sold to your
some of this became public knowledge,
Now, it is perfectly clear to me that
children and mine on almost every news-
holds him still in truculent defiance
the first amendment protects the right
stand. There are nude models of both
bordering upon the irrational?
of Mr. Justice Douglas and his publishers
sexes in poses that are perhaps more
to write and print this drivel if they
For example, there is the curious and
shocking than the postcards that used to
please.
profitable relationship which Mr. Justice
be sold only in the back alleys of Paris
Douglas enjoyed, for nigh onto a decade,
Mr. Justice Douglas is constitutionally
and Panama City, Panama.
and otherwise entitled to believe, though
Immediately following the most ex-
with Mr. Albert Parvin and a mysteri-
it is difficult to understand how a grown
plicit of these photographs, on pages 40
ous entity known as the Parvin Founda-
man can, that "a black silence of fear
and 41, we find a full-page caricature of
tion.
possesses the Nation," and that "every
the President of the United States, made
Albert Parvin was born in Chicago
conference room in Government build-
to look like Britain's King George III and
around the turn of the century, but little
ings is assumed to be bugged."
waiting, presumably, for the second
is known of his life until he turns up as
One wonders how this enthusiastic
American Revolution to begin on Boston
president and 30-percent owner of Hotel
traveler inside the Iron Curtain is able
Common, or is it Berkeley?
Flamingo, Inc., which operated the hotel
to warn seriously against alleged Wash-
This cartoon, while not very respectful
and gambling casino in Las Vegas, Nev.
ington hotel rooms equipped with two-
toward Mr. Nixon, is no worse than we
It was first opened by Bugsy Siegel in
way mirrors and microphones, or accuse
see almost daily in a local newspaper and
1946, a year before he was murdered.
the "powers that be" of echoing Adolf
all alone might be legitimate political
Bugsy's contract for decorations and
Hilter. Frankly, this is nonsense, but cer-
parody. But it is there to illustrate an
furnishings of the Flamingo was with
tainly not the only nonsense being print-
article on the opposite page titled much
Albert Parvin & Co. Between Siegel and
ed nowadays.
like Tom Hayden's "Redress and Revolu-
Parvin there were three other heads, or
But I wonder if it can be deemed "good
tion."
titular heads, of the Flamingo. After the
behaviour" in the constitutional sense
This article is authored "by the vener-
gangland rubout of Siegel in Los
for such a distorted diatribe against the
able Supreme Court Justice," William O.
Angeles, Sanford Adler-who was a
Government of the United States to be
Douglas. It consists of the most extreme
partner with Albert Parvin in another
published, indeed publicly autographed
excerpts from this book, given a some-
gambling establishment, El Rancho,
and promoted, by an Associate Justice
what more seditious title. And it states
took over. He subsequently fled to Mex-
of the Supreme Court.
plainly in the margin:
ico to escape income tax charges and
the Flamingo passed into the hands of
There are, as the book says, two ways
Copyright 1970 by William O. Douglas
one Gus Greenbaum.
by which the grievances of citizens can
Reprinted by permission.
Greenbaum one day had a sudden
be redressed. One is lawful procedure and
Now you may be able to tell me that it
urge to go to Cuba and was later mur-
one is violent protest, riot, and revolu-
is permissible for someone to write such
tion. Should a judge who sits at the
dered. Next Albert Parvin teamed up
stuff, and this being a free country I
with William Israel Alderman-known
pinnacle of the orderly system of justice
agree. You may tell me that nude couples
as Ice Pick Willie-to head the Fla-
give sympathetic encouragement, on the
side, to impressionable young students
cavorting in photographs are art, and
mingo. But Alderman soon was off to
and hard-core fanatics who espouse the
that morals are a matter of opinion, and
the Riviera and Parvin took over.
militant method? I think not.
that such stuff is lawful to publish and
On May 12, 1960, Parvin signed a
send through the U.S. mails at a postage
contract with Meyer Lansky, one of the
In other words, I concede that William
rate subsidized by the taxpayers. I dis-
country's top gangsters, paying Lansky
O. Douglas has a right to write and pub-
agree, but maybe I am old fashioned.
what was purportedly a finder's fee of
lish what he pleases; but I suggest that
But you cannot tell me that an Asso-
$200,000 in the sale of the Flamingo.
for Associate Justice Douglas to put his
ciate Justice of the United States is
The agreement stipulated that payment
name to such an inflammatory volume as
compelled to give his permission to re-
would be made to Lansky in quarterly
"Points of Rebellion"-at a critical time
print his name and his title and his
installments of $6,250 starting in 1961.
in our history when peace and order is
writings in a pornographic magazine
If kept, final payment of the $200,000
what we need-is less than judicial good
with a portfolio of obscene photographs
would have been in October 1968.
behavior. It is more serious than simply
on one side of it and a literary admoni-
Parvin and the other owners sold the
"a summation of conventional liberal
tion to get a gun and start shooting at
Flamingo for a reported $10,500,000 to
poppycock," as one columnist wrote.
the first white face you see on the other.
a group including Florida hotelmen
Whatever Mr. Justice Douglas may
You cannot tell me that an Associate
Morris Lansburgh, Samuel Cohen, and
have meant by his justification of anti-
Justice of the U.S. Supreme
Daniel Lifter. His attorney in the deal
was Edward Levinson, who has been
Also on hand in Santo Domingo to
Nevada city, and in 1969 was denied per-
associated with Parvin in a number of
celebrate Bosch's taking up the reins of
mission by Nevada to buy the Riviera
enterprises. The Nevada Gaming Com-
power were Mr. Albert Parvin, President
Hotel and took over operation of the
mission approved the sale on June 1.
of the Parvin-Dohrmann Co., and the
Stardust Hotel. This brought an investi-
1960.
President of the Albert Parvin Founda-
gation which led to the suspension of
In November of 1960, Parvin set up the
tion, Mr. Justice William O. Douglas of
trading in Parvin-Dohrmann stock by
Albert Parvin Foundation. Accounts vary
the U.S. Supreme Court.
the SEC, which led further to the com-
as to whether it was funded with Fla-
Again there is conflicting testimony as
pany's employment of Nathan Voloshen.
mingo Hotel stock or with a first mort-
But in the interim Albert Parvin is said
gage on the Flamingo taken under the
to the reason for Mr. Justice Douglas'
presence in the Dominican Republic at
to have been bought out of the company
terms of the sale. At any rate the foun-
and to have retired to concentrate on his
dation was incorporated in New York and
this juncture, along with Parvin, Levin-
son, and Bobby Baker. Obviously he was
foundation, from which Mr. Justice
Mr. Justice Douglas assisted in setting it
not there as an official representative of
Douglas had been driven to resign by re-
up, according to Parvin. If the Justice
the United States, as he was not in the
lentless publicity.
did indeed draft the articles of incorpo-
Vice President's party.
On May 12, 1969, Mr. Justice Douglas
ration, it was in patent violation of title
One story is that the Parvin Founda-
reportedly wrote a letter to Albert Par-
28, section 454. United States Code, which
vin in which he discussed the pending
tion was offering to finance an educa-
states that "any justice or judge ap-
tional television project for the Domini-
action by the Internal Revenue Service
pointed under the authority of the United
to revoke the foundation's tax-exempt
can Republic. Another is that Mr. Justice
States who engages in the practice of law
status as a "manufactured case" de-
Douglas was there to advise President
is guilty of a high misdemeanor."
signed to pressure him off the Supreme
Please note that this offense is spe-
Bosch on writing a new Constitution for
the Dominican Republic.
Court. In this letter, as its contents were
cifically stated in the Federal statute
There is little about the reasons be-
paraphrased by the New York Times,
to be a high misdemeanor, making it
hind the presence of a singularly large
Mr. Justice Douglas apparently offered
conform to one of the constitutional
contingent of known gambling figures
legal advice to Mr. Parvin as to how to
grounds for impeachment. There is ad-
avoid future difficulties with the Internal
and Mafia types in Santo Domingo, how-
ditional evidence that Mr. Justice Doug-
Revenue Service, and this whole episode
ever. With the change of political re-
las later, while still on salary, gave legal
demands further examination under
gimes the rich gambling concessions of
advice to the Albert Parvin Foundation
oath by a committee with subpena
the Dominican Republic were up for
on dealing with an Internal Revenue
grabs. These were generally not owned
powers.
investigation.
When things got too hot on the Su-
and operated by the hotels, but were
The ostensible purpose of the Parvin
preme Court for Justices accepting large
granted to concessionaires by the gov-
Foundation was declared to be educat-
sums of money from private foundations
ernment-specifically by the President
ing the developing leadership in Latin
for ill-defined services, Mr. Justice Doug-
It was one of the country's most lucra-
las finally gave up his open ties with the
America. This had not previously been
tive sources of revenue as well as private
Albert Parvin Foundation. Although re-
a known concern of Parvin or his Las
corruption. This brought such known
signing as its president and giving up his
Vegas associates, but Cuba, where some
gambling figures as Parvin and Levin-
$12,000-a-year salary, Mr. Justice Doug-
of them had business connections, was
son, Angelo Bruno and John Simone, Jo-
las moved immediately into closer con-
then in the throes of Castro's Commu-
seph Sicarelli, Eugene Pozo, Santa Traf-
nection with the leftish Center for the
nist revolution.
ficante Jr., Louis Levinson, Leslie Earl
Study of Democratic Institutions.
In 1961 Mr. Justice Douglas was named
Kruse, and Sam Giancanno to the island
a life member of the Parvin Foundation's
in the spring of 1963.
The center is located in Santa Barbara,
board, elected president and voted a sal-
Bobby Baker, in addition to serving as
Calif., and is run by Dr. Robert M. Hut-
ary of $12,000 per year plus expenses.
go-between for his Las Vegas friends such
chins, former head of the University of
There is some conflict in testimony as to
as Ed Levinson, was personally interested
Chicago.
how long Douglas drew his pay. but he
in concessions for vending machines of
A longtime "consultant" and member
did not put a stop to it until last May-
his Serv-U Corp., then represented by
of the board of directors of the center,
1969-in the wake of public revelations
Washington Attorney Abe Fortas. Baker
Mr. Justice Douglas was elevated last
that forced the resignation of Mr. Justice
has described Levinson as a former
December to the post of chairman of the
Fortas.
partner.
executive committee. It should be noted
The Parvin Foundation in 1961 under-
Mrs. Fortas, also an attorney, was sub-
that the Santa Barbara Center was a
took publication of Mr. Justice Douglas'
sequently to be retained as tax counsel
beneficiary of Parvin Foundation funds
book, "America's Challenge," with costs
by the Parvin Foundation Her fee is not
during the same period that Mr. Justice
borne by the foundation but royalties
exactly known but that year the founda-
Douglas was receiving $1,000 a month
going to the author.
tion spent $16,058 for professional serv-
salary from it and Mobster Meyer Lansky
In April 1962 the Parvin Foundation
ices.
was drawing down installment payments
applied for tax-exempt status. And
There are reports that Douglas met
of $25,000 a year. In addition to Douglas,
thereafter some very interesting things
with Bosch and other officials of the new
there are several others who serve on
happened.
government in February or early March
both the Parvin Foundation and Center
On October 22, 1962, Bobby Baker
of 1963, and also that he met with Bobby
for Democratic Studies boards, so the
turned up in Las Vegas for a 3-day stay.
Baker and with Albert Parvin. In April
break was not a very sharp one.
His hotel bill was paid by Ed Levinson,
1963, Baker and Ed Levinson returned to
The gentleman from New Hampshire
Parvin's associate and sometime at-
the Dominican Republic and in that same
(Mr. WYMAN) has investigated Mr. Jus-
torney. On Baker's registration card a
month the Albert Parvin Foundation was
tice Douglas' connections with the center
hotel employee had noted-"is with
granted its tax-exempt status by the In-
and discovered that the Associate Jus-
Douglas."
ternal Revenue Service.
tice has been receiving money from it,
Bobby was then, of course, majority
In June, I believe it was June 20, Bobby
both during the time he was being paid
secretary of the Senate and widely re-
Baker and Ed Levinson traveled to New
by Parvin and even larger sums since.
garded as the right hand of the then
York where Baker introduced Levinson
The distinguished gentleman, who
Vice President of the United States. So
to Mr. John Gates of the Intercontinental
served as attorney general of his State
it is unclear whether the note meant
Hotel Corp. Mr. Gates has testified that
and chairman of the American Bar As-
literally that Mr. Justice Douglas was
Levinson was interested in the casino
sociation's committee on jurisprudence
also visiting Las Vegas at that time or
concession in the Ambassador-El Em-
before coming to the House, will detail
whether it meant only to identify Baker
bajador-Hotel in Santo Domingo. My
his findings later. But one activity of the
as a Douglas associate.
information is that Baker and Levinson
center requires inclusion here because it
In December 1962, I have learned,
made at least one more trip to the Domin-
provides some explanation for Mr. Jus-
Bobby Baker met with Juan Bosch, soon
ican Republic about this time but that,
tice Douglas' curious obsession with the
to be President of the Dominican Re-
despite all this influence peddling, the
current wave of violent youthful rebel-
public, in New York City.
gambling franchise was not granted to
lion.
In January 1963 the Albert Parvin
the Parvin-Levinson-Lansky interests
In 1965 the Santa Barbara Center,
Foundation decided to drop all its Latin
after all.
which is tax exempt and ostensibly
American projects and to concentrate on
In August, President Bosch awarded
serves as a scholarly retreat, sponsored
the Dominican Republic. Douglas de-
the concession to Cliff Jones, former
and financed the National Conference
scribed President-elect Bosch as an old
Lieutenant Governor of Nevada who, in-
for New Politics which was, in effect, the
friend.
cidentally, also was an associate of Bobby
birth of the New Left as a political move-
On February 26, 1963, however, we find
Baker.
ment. Two years later, in August 1967,
Bobby Baker and Ed Levinson together
When this happened, the further in-
the Center was the site of a very signif-
again-this time on the other side of the
terest of the Albert Parvin Foundation
icant conference of militant student
continent in Florida-buying round-trip
in the Dominican Republic abruptly
leaders. Here plans were laid for the
tickets on the same plane for the Domin-
ceased. I am told that some of the edu-
violent campus disruptions of the past
ican Republic.
cational television equipment already de-
few years, and the students were ex-
Since the Parvin Foundation was set
livered was simply abandoned in its origi-
horted by at least one member of the
up to develop leadership in Latin Amer-
nal crates.
center's staff to sabotage American so-
ica, Trujillo had been toppled from
On September 25, 1963, President Bosch
ciety, block defense work by universities,
power in a bloody uprising, and Juan
was ousted and all deals were off. He was
immobilize computerized record systems
Bosch was about to be inaugurated as
later to lead a comeback effort with Com-
and discredit the ROTC.
the new, liberal President. Officially rep-
munist support which resulted in Presi-
This session at Mr. Justice Douglas'
resenting the United States at the cere-
dent Johnson's dispatch of U.S. Marines
second moonlighting base was thus the
monies February 27 were the Vice Presi-
to the Dominican Republic.
birthplace for the very excesses which he
dent and Mrs. Johnson. But their Air
Meanwhile, through the Parvin-Dohr-
applauds in his latest book in these
Force plane was loaded with such celeb-
mann Co. which he had acquired, Albert
words:
rities as Senator and Mrs. Humphrey,
Parvin bought the Fremont Hotel in Las
Where grievances pile high and most of
two Assistant Secretaries of State, Mr.
Vegas in 1966 from Edward Levinson
the elected spokesmen represent the Estab-
and Mrs. Valenti, and Mrs. Elizabeth
and Edward Torres, for some $16 million.
lishment, violence may be the only effective
Carpenter. Bobby Baker and Eddie
In 1968, Parvin-Dohrmann acquired the
response.
Levinson went commercial.
Aladdin Hotel and casino in the same
Mr. Speaker, we are the elected
spokesmen upon whom the Associate
and the Wolfson Family Foundation,
public confidence in the Supreme Court.
Justice of the Supreme Court is attempt-
Louis Wolfson's troubles with the SEC
That is the easiest to answer. Public con-
ing to place the blame for violent re-
and Wolfson's $20,000-a-year retainer to
fidence in the U.S. Supreme Court dimin-
bellion in this country. What he means
Associate Justice Fortas? Why, the cast
ishes every day that Mr. Justice Douglas
by representing the establishment I do
of characters in these two cases is vir-
remains on it.
not know, except that he and his young
tually interchangeable.
Finally, I have been asked, and I have
hothead revolutionaries regard it as evil.
Albert Parvin was named a coconspir-
asked myself, whether or not I should
I know very well who I represent, how-
ator but not a defendant in the stock
stand here and impeach Mr. Justice
ever, and if the patriotic and law abiding
manipulation case that sent Louis Wolf-
Douglas on my own constitutional re-
and hard-working and God-fearing peo-
son to prison. Albert Parvin was again
sponsibility. I believe, on the basis of
ple of America are the establishment, I
under investigation in the stock manipu-
my own investigation and the facts I
am proud to represent such an establish-
lation action against Parvin-Dohrmann.
have set before you, that he is unfit and
ment.
This generation has largely forgotten
should be removed. I would vote to im-
Perhaps it is appropriate to examine
that William O. Douglas first rose to na-
peach him right now.
at this point who Mr. Justice Douglas
tional prominence as Chairman of the
But we are dealing here with a solemn
represents. On the basis of the facts
Securities and Exchange Commission.
constitutional duty. Only the House has
available to me, and presented here, Mr.
His former law pupil at Yale and fellow
this power; only here can the people ob-
Justice Douglas appears to represent Mr.
New Dealer in those days was one Abe
tain redress from the misbehavior of
Albert Parvin and his silent partners of
Fortas, and they remained the closest
appointed judges. I would not try to im-
the international gambling fraternity,
friends on and off the Supreme Court.
pose my judgment in such a matter upon
Mr. Ralph Ginzburg, and his friends of
Mrs. Fortas was retained by the Parvin
any other Member; each one should
the pornographic publishing trade, Dr.
Foundation in its tax difficulties. Abe
examine his own conscience after the full
Robert Hutchins and his intellectual in-
Fortas was retained by Bobby Baker until
facts have been spread before him.
cubators for the New Left and the SDS,
he withdrew from the case because of his
I cannot see how, on the prima facie
and others of the same ilk. Mr. Justice
close ties with the White House.
Douglas does not find himself in this
I will state that there is some differ-
case I have made, it is possible to object
to a prompt but thoroughgoing investi-
company suddenly or accidentally or un-
ence between the two situations. There is
gation of Mr. Justice Douglas' behavior.
knowingly, he has been working at it for
no evidence that Louis Wolfson had no-
years, profiting from it for years, and
torious underworld associations in his
I believe that investigation, giving both
the Associate Justice and his accusers the
flaunting it in the faces of decent Amer-
financial enterprises. And more impor-
right to answer under oath, should be
icans for years.
tant, Mr. Justice Fortas had enough re-
as nonparisan as possible and should in-
There have been many questions put
spect for the so-called establishment
terfere as little as possible with the regu-
to me in recent days. Let me unequivo-
and the personal decency to resign when
his behavior brought reproach upon the
lar legislative business of the House. For
cally answer the most important of them
that reason I shall support, but not ac-
for the record now.
U.S. Supreme Court. Whatever he may
tively sponsor, the creation of a select
have done privately, Mr. Justice Fortas
Mr. Speaker, is this action on my
did not consistently take public positions
committee to recommend whether prob-
part in response to, or retaliation for,
able causes does lie, as I believe it does,
that damaged and endangered the fabric
the rejection by the other body of two
for the impeachment and removal of Mr.
nominees for the Supreme Court, Judge
of law and government.
Another question I have been asked is
Justice Douglas.
Haynsworth and Judge Carswell. In a
whether I, and others in this House, want
Once more, I remind you of Mr. Justice
narrow sense, no. The judicial misbe-
to set ourselves up as censors of books
Cardozo's guidelines for any judge:
havior which I be lieve Mr. Justice
and magazines. This is, of course, a stock
Not honest alone, but the punctilio of
Douglas to be guilty of began long before
liberal needle which will continue to be
an honor the most sensitive, is then the
anybody thought about elevating Judges
standard of behavior.
inserted at every opportunity no matter
Haynsworth and Carswell.
how often it is plainly answered in the
Why should the American people de-
But in a larger sense, I do not think
negative. But as the "censor" was an
mand such a high standard of their ju-
there can be two standards for member-
ancient Roman office, the supervisor of
diciary? Because justice is the founda-
ship on the Supreme Court, one for Mr.
public morals, let me substitute, if I
tion of our free society. There has never
Justice Fortas, another for Mr. Justice
might, another Roman office, the tribune.
been a better answer than that of Daniel
Douglas.
It was the tribune who represented and
Webster, who said:
What is the ethical or moral distinc-
spoke up for the people. This is our role
There is no happiness, there is no liberty,
tion, Iask those arbiters of high principle
in the impeachment of unfit judges and
there is no enjoyment of life, unless a man
who have studied such matters, between
other Federal officials. We have not made
can say when he rises in the morning, I shall
the Parvin Foundation, Parvin-Dohr-
ourselves censors; the Constitution
be subject to the decision of no unwise judge
mann's troubles with the SEC, and Par-
makes us tribunes.
today.
vin's $12,000-a-year retainer to Associ-
A third question I am asked is whether
ate Justice Douglas-on the one hand-
the step we are taking will not diminish
(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
Congressional Record
United States
of America
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
Vol. 116
WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1970
No. 60
House of Representatives
CONDUCT OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DOUGLAS
Speech in the House of Representatives by Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford of Michigan
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker.
His private life, to the degree that it does
should we remove him for a minor or
last May 8 I joined with the gentleman
not bring the Supreme Court into disre-
isolated mistake-this does not consti-
from Ohio (Mr. TAFT) in introducing
pute, is his own business. One does not
tute behaviour in the common meaning.
H.R. 11109, a bill requiring financial dis-
need to be an ardent admirer of any
What we should scrutinize in sitting
closure by members of the Federal ju-
judge or justice, or an advocate of his
Judges is their continuing pattern of
diciary. This was amid the allegations
life style, to acknowledge his right to be
action. their behaviour. The Constitution
swirling around Mr. Justice Fortas. Be-
elevated to or remain on the bench.
does not demand that it be "exemplary"
fore and since, other Members of this
We have heard a great deal of dis-
or "perfect." But it does have to be
body have proposed legislation of similar
cussion recently about the qualifications
"good."
intent. To the best of my knowledge, all
which a person should be required to
Naturally, there must be orderly pro-
of them lie dormant in the Committee
possess to be elevated to the U.S. Su-
cedure for determining whether or not
on the Judiciary where they were re-
preme Court. There has not been
a Federal judge's behaviour is good. The
ferred.
sufficient consideration given, in my
courts, arbiters in most such questions of
On March 19 the U.S. Judicial Con-
judgment, to the qualifications which a
judgment, cannot judge themselves. So
ference announced the adoption of new
person should possess to remain upon
the Founding Fathers vested this ulti-
ethical standards on outside earnings and
the U.S. Supreme Court.
mate power where the ultimate sover-
conflict of interest. They were described
For, contrary to a widepsread miscon-
eignty of our system is most directly re-
as somewhat watered down from the
ception, Federal judges and the Justices
flected-in the Congress, in the elected
strict proposals of former Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court are not appointed
Representatives of the people and of the
Warren at the time of the Fortas affair.
for life. The Founding Fathers would
States.
In any event, they are not binding upon
have been the last to make such a mis-
In this seldom-used procedure, called
the Supreme Court.
take: the American Revolution was
impeachment. the legislative branch
Neither are the 36-year-old Canons of
waged against an hereditary monarchy
exercises both executive and judicial
Judicial Ethics of the American Bar As-
in which the King always had a life term
functions. The roles of the two bodies
sociation, among which are these:
and, as English history bloodily demon-
differ dramatically. The House serves as
Canon 4. Avoidance of Impropriety. A
strated, could only be removed from office
prosecutor and grand jury; the Senate
judge's official conduct should be free from
by the headsman's ax or the assassin's
serves as judge and trial jury.
impropriety and the appearance of impro-
dagger.
Article I of the Constitution has this
priety; he should avoid infractions of law;
and his personal behavior, not only upon the
No, the Constitution does not guaran-
to say about the impeachment process:
Bench and in the performance of judicial
tee a lifetime of power and authority to
The House of Representatives-shall have
duties, but also in his everyday life, should
any public official. The terms of Members
the sole power of Impeachment.
be beyond reproach.
of the House are fixed at 2 years; of
The Senate shall have the sole Power to
Canon 24. Inconsistent Obligations. A judge
the President and Vice President at 4;
try all Impeachments. When sitting for
should not accept inconsistent duties; nor
of U.S. Senators at 6. Members of the
that Purpose. they shall be on Oath or Af-
incur obligations, pecuniary or otherwise,
Federal judiciary hold their offices only
firmation. When the President of the United
which will in any way interfere or appear to
"during good behaviour."
States is tried, the Chief Justice shall
interfere with his devotion to the expe-
ditious and proper administration of his of-
Let me read the first section of article
preside: And no Person shall be convicted
without the Concurrence of two-thirds of
ficial function.
III of the Constitution in full:
the Members present.
Canon 31. Private Law Practice. In many
The judicial power of the United States
states the practice of law by one holding
shall be vested in one supreme Court, and
Article II. dealing with the executive
judicial position is forbidden If forbid-
in such inferior Courts as the Congress may
branch, states in section 4:
den to practice law, he should refrain from
from time to time ordain and establish. The
The President, Vice President. and all civil
accepting any professional employment while
Judges, both of the supreme and inferior
Officers of the United States, shall be re-
in office.
Courts, shall hold their Offices during good
moved from office on impeachment for, and
Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive
conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high
Following the public disclosure last
for their Services, a Compensation, which
crimes and misdemeanors.
year of the extrajudicial activities and
shall not be diminished during their Con-
moonlighting employment of Justices
tinuance in Office.
This has been the most controversial
Fortas and Douglas, which resulted in
of the constitutional references to the
The clause dealing with the compen-
the resignation from the Supreme Bench
impeachment process. No concensus
sation of Federal judges, which inciden-
of Mr. Justice Fortas but not of Mr. Jus-
exists as to whether, in the case of Fed-
tally we raised last year to $60,000 for
tice Douglas, I received literally hundreds
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
eral judges, impeachment must depend
of inquiries and protests from concerned
suggests that their "continuance in of-
upon conviction of one of the two speci-
citizens and colleagues.
fice" is indeed limited. The provision
fied crimes of treason or bribery or be
In response to this evident interest I
that it may not be decreased prevents
within the nebulous category of "other
quietly undertook a study of both the
high crimes and misdemeanors." There
the legislative or executive branches
law of impeachment and the facts about
from unduly influencing the judiciary by
are pages upon pages of learned argu-
the behavior of Mr. Justice Douglas. I
cutting judges' pay, and suggests that
ment whether the adjective "high"
assured inquirers that I would make my
modifies "misdmeanors" as well as
even in those bygone days the income of
findings known at the appropriate time.
jurists was a highly sensitive matter.
"crimes," and over what, indeed, con-
That preliminary report is now ready.
To me the Constitution is perfectly
stitutes a "high misdemeanor."
Let me say by way of preface that I am
clear about the tenure, or term of office,
In my view, one of the specific or gen-
a lawyer, admitted to the bar of the U.S.
of all Federal judges-it is "during good
eral offenses cited in article II is required
Supreme Court. I have the most profound
behaviour." It is implicit in this that
for removal of the indirectly elected
respect for the U.S. Supreme Court. I
when behaviour ceases to be good, the
President and Vice President and all ap-
would never advocate action against a
right to hold judicial office ceases also.
pointed civil officers of the executive
member of that Court because of his
Thus, we come quickly to the central
branch of the Federal Government,
political philosophy or the legal opinions
question: What constitutes "good be-
whatever their terms of office. But in the
which he contributes to the decisions of
haviour" or, conversely, ungood or dis-
case of members of the judicial branch,
the Court. Mr. Justice Douglas has been
qualifying behaviour?
Federal judges and Justices, I believe an
criticized for his liberal opinions and be-
The words employed by the Framers of
additional and much stricter requirement
cause he granted stays of execution to
the Constitution were, as the proceedings
is imposed by article II, namely, "good
the convicted spies, the Rosenbergs, who
of the Convention detail, chosen with
behaviour."
stole the atomic bomb for the Soviet
exceedingly great care and precision.
Finally, and this is a most significant
Union. Probably I would disagree, were
Note, for example, the word "behaviour."
provision, article I of the Constitution
I on the bench, with most of Mr. Justice
It relates to action, not merely to
specifies:
Douglas' views, such as his defense of the
thoughts or opinions; further, it refers
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall
filthy film, "I Am Curious (Yellow) But
not to a single act but to a pattern or
not extend further than to removal from
a judge's right to his legal views, as-
Office, and disqualification to hold and en-
continuing sequence of action. We can-
joy any office of honor, Trust or Profit under
suming they are not improperly influ-
not and should not remove a Federal
the United States: but the Party convicted
enced or corrupted, is fundamental to our
judge for the legal views he holds-this
shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
system of justice.
would be as contemptible as to exclude
Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punish-
I should say also that I have no per-
him from serving on the Supreme Court
ment, according to Law.
sonal feeling toward Mr. Justice Douglas.
for his ideology or past decisions. Nor
In other words, impeachment resem-
indeed require crimes of the magnitude
aspects of the behavior of Mr. Justice
bles a regular criminal indictment and
of treason and bribery. Other elective
Douglas, and let us ask ourselves in the
trial but it is not the same thing. It re-
officials, such as Members of the Con-
words of Mr. Justice Cardozo, whether
lates solely to the accused's right to hold
gress, are so vulnerable to public dis-
they represent "not honesty alone, but
civil office; not to the many other rights
pleasure that their removal by the com-
the punctilio of an honor the most
which are his as a citizen and which pro-
plicated impeachment route has not even
sensitive."
tect him in a court of law. By pointedly
been tried since 1798. But nine Federal
Ralph Ginzburg is editor and pub-
voiding any immunity an accused might
judges, including one Associate Justice
lisher of a number of magazines not
claim under the double jeopardy princi-
of the Supreme Court, have been im-
commonly found on the family coffee
ple, the framers of the Constitution
peached by this House and tried by the
table. For sending what was held to be
clearly established that impeachment is
Senate; four were acquitted; four con-
an obscene edition of one of them, Eros,
a unique political device; designed ex-
victed and removed from office; and one
through the U.S. mails, Mr. Ginzburg
plicitly to dislodge from public office
resigned during trial and the impeach-
was convicted and sentenced to 5 years'
those who are patently unfit for it, but
ment was dismissed.
imprisonment in 1963.
cannot otherwise be promptly removed.
In the most recent impeachment trial
His conviction was appealed and, in
The distinction between impeachment
conducted by the other body, that of U.S.
1966, was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme
and ordinary criminal prosecution is
Judge Halsted L. Ritter of the southern
Court in a close 5-to-4 decision. Mr. Jus-
again evident when impeachment is
district of Florida who was removed in
tice Douglas dissented. His dissent fa-
made the sole exception to the guarantee
1936, the point of judicial behavior was
vored Mr. Ginzburg and the publication,
of article III, section 3 that trial of all
paramount, since the criminal charges
Eros.
crimes shall be by jury-perhaps the
were admittedly thin. This case was in
During the 1964 presidential campaign,
most fundamental of all constitutional
the context of F. D. R.'s effort to pack the
another Ginzburg magazine, Fact, pub-
protections.
Supreme Court with Justices more to his
lished an issue entitled "The Uncon-
We must continually remember that
liking; Judge Ritter was a transplanted
scious of a Conservative: A Special Issue
the writers of our Constitution did their
conservative Colorado Republican ap-
on the Mind of BARRY GOLDWATER."
work with the experience of the British
pointed to the Federal bench in solidly
Crown and Parliament freshly in mind.
Democratic Florida by President Coo-
The thrust of the two main articles
There is so much that resembles the
lidge. He was convicted by a coalition of
in Ginzburg's magazine was that Sena-
British system in our Constitution that
liberal Republicans, New Deal Demo-
tor GOLDWATER, the Republican nominee
we sometimes overlook the even sharper
crats, and Farmer-Labor and Progres-
for President of the United States, had a
differences-one of the sharpest is our
sive Party Senators in what might be
severely paranoid personality and was
divergent view on impeachment.
called the northwestern strategy of that
psychological unfit to be President.
In Great Britain the House of Lords
era. Nevertheless, thie arguments were
This was supported by a fraction of re-
sits as the court of highest appeal in the
persuasive:
plies to an alleged poll which the maga-
land, and upon accusation by Commons
In a joint statement, Senators Borah,
zine had mailed to some 12,000 psychia-
the Lords can try, convict, and punish
trists-hardly a scientific diagnosis, but
La Follette, Frazier, and Shipstead said:
any impeached subject-private person
a potent political hatchet job.
We therefore did not, in passing upon the
or official-with any lawful penalty for
Naturally, Senator GOLDWATER
facts presented to us in the matter of the
his crime-including death.
impeachment proceedings against Judge
promptly sued Mr. Ginzburg and Fact
Our Constitution. on the contrary. pro-
Halsted L. Ritter, seek to satisfy ourselves
magazine for libel. A Federal court jury
vides only the relatively mild penalties of
as to whether technically a crime or crimes
in New York granted the Senator a total
removal from office, and disqualification
had been committed, or as to whether the
of $75,000 in punitive damages from
for future office-the vorst punishment
acts charged and proved disclosed criminal
Ginzburg and Fact magazine. Fact
intent or corrupt motive; we sought only to
the U.S. Senate can mete out is both re-
shortly was to be incorporated into an-
ascertain from these facts whether his con-
moval and disqualification.
other Ginzburg publication, Avant
duct had been such as to amount to mis-
Moreover, to make sure impeachment
behavior, misconduct-as to whether he had
Garde. The U.S. court of appeals sus-
conducted himself in a way that was cal-
tained this libel award. It held that un-
would not be frivolously attempted or
easily abused, and further to protect of-
culated to undermine public confidence in
der the New York Times against Sullivan
ficeholders against political reprisal, the
the courts and to create a sense of scandal.
decision a public figure could be libelled
Constitution requires a two-thirds vote
There are a great many things which one
if the publication was made with actual
must readily admit would be wholly unbe-
malice; that is, if the publisher knew it
of the Senate to convict.
coming, wholly intolerable, in the conduct of
With this brief review of the law, of
was false or acted with reckless disregard
a judge, and yet these things might not
of whether it was false or not.
the constitutional background for im-
amount to a crime.
So once again Ralph Ginzburg ap-
peachment, I have endeavored to correct
two common misconceptions: first, that
Senator Elbert Thomas of Utah, citing
pealed to the Supreme Court which, in
Federal judges are appointed for life and.
the Jeffersonian and colonial antecedents
due course, upheld the lower courts' judg-
second. that they can be removed only by
of the impeachment process, bluntly
ment in favor of Senator GOLDWATER and
declared:
declined to review the case.
being convicted, with all ordinary pro-
tections and presumptions of innocence
Tenure during good behavior
is
in
However, Mr. Justice Douglas again
no sense a guaranty of a life job, and mis-
dissented on the side of Mr. Ginzberg,
to which an accused is entitled. of vio-
behavior in the ordinary, dictionary sense of
along with Mr. Justice Black. Although
lating the law.
of the term will cause it to be cut short on
the Court's majority did not elaborate
This is not the case. Federal judges
the vote, under special oath, of two-thirds
on its ruling, the dissenting minority de-
can be and have been impeached for im-
of the Senate, if charges are first brought by
cision was based on the theory that the
proper personal habits such as chronic
the House of Representatives.
To
as-
constitutional guarantees of free speech
intoxication on the bench, and one of the
sume that good behavior means anything but
charges brought against President An-
good behavior would be to cast a reflection
and free press are absolute.
drew Johnson was that he delivered "in-
upon the ability of the fathers to express
This decision was handed down Janu-
temperate, inflammatory. and scandal-
themselves in understandable language.
ary 26, 1970.
Yet, while the Ginzberg-Goldwater
ous harangues.'
But the best summary, in my opinion,
suit was pending in the Federal courts,
I have studied the principal impeach-
was that of Senator William G. McAdoo
clearly headed for the highest court in
ment actions that have been initiated
of California, son-in-law of Woodrow
the land, Mr. Justice Douglas appeared
over the years and frankly. there are too
Wilson and Secretary of the Treasury:
as the author of an article in Avant
few cases to make very good law. About
the only thing the authorities can agree
I approach this subject from the stand-
Garde, the successor to Fact in the Ginz-
point of the general conduct of this judge
berg stable of magazines, and reportedly
upon in recent history, though it was
while on the bench, as portrayed by the
accepted payment from Ginzberg for it.
hotly argued up to President Johnson's
various counts in the impeachment and the
The March 1969 issue of Avant Garde, on
impeachment and the trial of Judge
evidence submitted in the trial. The picture
thus presented is, to my mind, that of a
its title page, shows Ralph Ginzburg as
Swayne, is that an offense need not be
indictable to be impeachable. In other
man who is so lacking in any proper concep-
editor stating under oath that it incor-
words, something less than a criminal
tion of professional ethics and those high
porates the former magazine Fact.
act or criminal dereliction of duty may
standards of judicial character and conduct
The table of contents, lists on page
as to constitute misbehavior in its most seri-
16 an article titled "Appeal of Folk Sing-
nevertheless be sufficient grounds for im-
ous aspects, and to render him unfit to hold
ing: A Landmark Opinion" by Justice
peachment and removal from public
a judicial office
William O. Douglas. Even his judicial
office.
Good behavior, as it is used in the Con-
title, conferred on only eight other Amer-
What, then, is an impeachable offense?
stitution, exacts of a judge the highest
standards of public and private rectitude.
icans, is brazenly exploited.
The only honest answer is that an im-
No judge can besmirch the robes he wears
Justice Douglas' contribution imme-
peachable offense is whatever a majority
by relaxing these standards, by compromis-
diately follows one provocatively entitled
of the House of Representatives considers
ing them through conduct which brings re-
"The Decline and Fall of the Female
to be 1t a given moment in history; con-
proach upon himself personally, or upon the
Breast.' There are two other titles in the
viction results from whatever offense or
great office he holds. No more sacred trust
table of contents so vulgarly playing on
offenses two-thirds of the other body
is committed to the bench of the United
double meaning that I will not repeat
considers to be sufficiently serious to re-
States than to keep shining with undimmed
them aloud.
quire removal of the accused from office.
effulgence the brightest jewel in the crown
of democracy-justice.
Ralph Ginzburg's magazine Avant
Again, the historical context and politi-
However disagreeable the duty may be to
Garde paid the Associate Justice of the
cal climate are important; there are few
those of us who constitute this great body
U.S. Supreme Court the sum of $350 for
fixed principles among the handful of
in determining the guilt of those who are
his article on folk singing. The article
precedents.
entrusted under the Constitution with the
itself is not pornographic, although it
I think it is fair to come to one con-
high responsibilities of judicial office, we
praises the lusty, lurid, and risque along
clusion, however, from our history of
must be as exacting in our conception of the
with the social protest of leftwing folk
impeachments: a higher standard is ex-
obligations of a judicial officer as Mr. Justice
singers. It is a matter of editorial judg-
pected of Federal judges than of any
Cardozo defined them when he said, in con-
ment whether it was worth the $350.
nection with fiduciaries, that they should
other "civil officers" of the United States.
be held "to something stricter than the
Ginzburg claims he paid Justice Douglas
The President and Vice President, and
morals of the market-place. Not honesty
for writing it. I would think, however,
all persons holding office at the pleasure
alone, but the punctilio of an honor the
that a byline clear across the page read-
of the President, can be thrown out of
most sensitive, is then the standard of be-
ing "By William O. Douglas, Associate
office by the voters at least every 4 years.
havior." (Meinhard V. Solmon, 249 N.Y.
Justice, U.S. Supreme Court" and a full
To remove them in midterm-it has been
458.)
page picture would be worth something
tried only twice and never done-would
Let us now objectively examine certain
to a publisher and a magazine with two
appeals pending in the U.S. courts.
establishment activism, violent defiance
not have prevented the publication of
However, Mr. Justice Douglas did not
of police and public authorities, and
his writings in such a place if he wanted
disqualify himself from taking part in
even the revolutionary restructuring of
to, especially after widespread criticism
the Goldwater against Ginzburg libel
American society-does he not suppose
of his earlier contributions to less ob-
appeal. Had the decision been a close
that these confrontations and those ac-
jectionable magazines.
5-to-4 split, as was the earlier one, Ginz-
cused of unlawfully taking part in them
No, Mr. Justice Douglas has been tell-
burg might have won with Douglas' vote.
will not come soon before the Supreme
ing us something and this time he wanted
Actually, neither the quantity of the
Court? By his own book, the Court surely
to make it perfectly clear. His blunt mes-
sum that changed hands nor the position
will have to rule on many such cases.
sage to the American people and their
taken by the Court's majority or the size
I ask you, will Mr. Justice Douglas
Representatives in the Congress of the
of the majority makes a bit of difference
then disqualify himself because of a bias
United States is that he does not give a
in the gross impropriety involved.
previously expressed, and published for
tinker's damn what we think of him and
Title 28, United States Code, section
profit? Will he step aside as did a liberal
his behaviour on the Bench. He believes
jurist of the utmost personal integrity,
he sits there by some divine right and
455 states as follows:
Any justice or judge of the United States
Chief Justice Warren, whenever any re-
that he can do and say anything he
mote chance of conflict of interest arose?
pleases without being questioned and
should disqualify himself in any case in
which he has a substantial interest, has been
Not if we may judge by Mr. Justice Doug-
with complete immunity.
of counsel, is or has been a material witness,
las' action in the Ginzburg appeals, he
Does he really believe this? Whatever
or is so related to or connected with any
will not.
else one may say, Mr. Justice Douglas
party or his attorney as to render it improper,
When I first encountered the facts of
does know the Constitution, and he
in his opinion, for him to sit on the trial, ap-
Mr. Justice Douglas' involvement with
knows the law of impeachment. Would
peal or other proceeding therein.
pornographic publications and espousal
it not, I ask you, be much more reason-
Let me ask each one of you: Is this
of hippie-yippie style revolution, I was
able to suppose that Mr. Justice Douglas
what the Constitution means by "good
inclined to dismiss his fractious behavior
is trying to shock and outrage us-but
behaviour"? Should such a person sit on
as the first sign of senility. But I believe
for his own reasons.
our Supreme Court?
I underestimated the Justice.
Suppose his critics concentrate on his
Writing signed articles for notorious
In case there are any "square" Amer-
outrageous opinions, expressed off the
publications of a convicted pornographer
icans who were too stupid to get the mes-
Bench, in books and magazines that
is bad enough. Taking money from them
sage Mr. Justice Douglas was trying to
share, with their more reputable cousins,
is worse. Declining to disqualify one's
tell us, he has now removed all possible
the constitutional protections of free
self in this case is inexcusable.
misunderstanding.
speech and free press. Suppose his im-
But this is only the beginning of the
Here is the April 1970 current edition
peachment is predicated on these
insolence by which Mr. Justice Douglas
of a magazine innocently entitled "Ever-
grounds alone-will not the accusers of
has evidently decided to sully the high
green."
Mr. Justice Douglas be instantly branded,
standards of his profession and defy the
Perhaps the name has some secret
as we already are in his new book-as
erotic significance, because otherwise it
the modern Adolf Hitlers, the book-
conventions and convictions of decent
may be the only clean word in this pub-
burners, the defoliators of the tree of
Americans.
lication. I am simply unable to describe
liberty.
Recently, there has appeared on the
the prurient advertisements, the per-
Let us not be caught in a trap. There
stands a little black book with the auto-
verted suggestions, the downright filthy
is a prima facie case against Mr. Justice
graph, "William O. Douglas," scrawled on
illustrations and the shocking and exe-
Douglas that is-in my judgment-far
the cover in red. Its title is "Points of
crable four-letter language it employs.
more grave. There is prima facie evidence
Rebellion" and its thesis is that violence
Alongside of Evergreen the old Avant
that he was for nearly a decade the well-
may be justified and perhaps only revo-
Garde is a family publication.
paid moonlighter for an organization
lutionary overthrow of "the establish-
Just for a sample, here is an article by
whose ties to the international gambling
ment" can save the country.
Tom Hayden of the "Chicago 5." It is
fraternity never have been sufficiently
The kindest thing I can say about this
titled "Repression and Rebellion." It pos-
explored.
97-page tome is that it is quick reading.
sibly is somewhat more temperate than
Are these longstanding connections,
Had it been written by a militant sopho-
the published views of Mr. Justice Doug-
personal, professional, and profitable, the
more, as it easily could, it would of course
las, but no matter.
skeleton in the closet which Mr. Justice
have never found a prestige publisher
Next we come to a 7-page rotogravure
Douglas would like to divert us from
like Random House. It is a fuzzy haran-
section of 13 half-page photographs. It
looking into? What would bring an As-
gue evidently intended to give historic
starts off with a relatively unobjection-
sociate Justice of the Supreme Court
legitimacy to the militant hippie-yippie
able arty nude. But the rest of the dozen
into any sort of relationship with some
movement and to bear testimony that a
poses are hard-core pornography of the
of the most unsavory and notorious ele-
71-year-old Justice of the Supreme
kind the U.S. Supreme Court's recent de-
ments of American society? What, after
Court is one in spirit with them.
cisions now permit to be sold to your
some of this became public knowledge,
Now, it is perfectly clear to me that
children and mine on almost every news-
holds him still in truculent defiance
the first amendment protects the right
stand. There are nude models of both
bordering upon the irrational?
of Mr. Justice Douglas and his publishers
sexes in poses that are perhaps more
to write and print this drivel if they
For example, there is the curious and
shocking than the postcards that used to
profitable relationship which Mr. Justice
please.
be sold only in the back alleys of Paris
Douglas enjoyed, for nigh onto a decade,
Mr. Justice Douglas is constitutionally
and Panama City, Panama.
and otherwise entitled to believe, though
Immediately following the most ex-
with Mr. Albert Parvin and a mysteri-
it is difficult to understand how a grown
plicit of these photographs, on pages 40
ous entity known as the Parvin Founda-
man can, that "a black silence of fear
and 41, we find a full-page caricature of
tion.
possesses the Nation," and that "every
the President of the United States, made
Albert Parvin was born in Chicago
conference room in Government build-
to look like Britain's King George III and
around the turn of the century, but little
ings is assumed to be bugged."
waiting, presumably, for the second
is known of his life until he turns up as
One wonders how this enthusiastic
American Revolution to begin on Boston
president and 30-percent owner of Hotel
traveler inside the Iron Curtain is able
Common, or is it Berkeley?
Flamingo, Inc., which operated the hotel
to warn seriously against alleged Wash-
This cartoon, while not very respectful
and gambling casino in Las Vegas, Nev.
ington hotel rooms equipped with two-
toward Mr. Nixon, is no worse than we
It was first opened by Bugsy Siegel in
way mirrors and microphones, or accuse
see almost daily in a local newspaper and
1946, a year before he was murdered.
the "powers that be" of echoing Adolf
all alone might be legitimate political
Bugsy's contract for decorations and
Hilter. Frankly, this is nonsense, but cer-
parody. But it is there to illustrate an
furnishings of the Flamingo was with
tainly not the only nonsense being print-
article on the opposite page titled much
Albert Parvin & Co. Between Siegel and
ed nowadays.
like Tom Hayden's "Redress and Revolu-
Parvin there were three other heads, or
But I wonder if it can be deemed "good
tion."
titular heads, of the Flamingo. After the
behaviour" in the constitutional sense
This article is authored "by the vener-
gangland rubout of Siegel in Los
for such a distorted diatribe against the
able Supreme Court Justice," William O.
Angeles, Sanford Adler-who was a
Government of the United States to be
Douglas. It consists of the most extreme
partner with Albert Parvin in another
published, indeed publicly autographed
excerpts from this book, given a some-
gambling establishment, El Rancho,
and promoted, by an Associate Justice
what more seditious title. And it states
took over. He subsequently fled to Mex-
of the Supreme Court.
plainly in the margin:
ico to escape income tax charges and
the Flamingo passed into the hands of
There are, as the book says, two ways
Copyright 1970 by William O. Douglas
one Gus Greenbaum.
by which the grievances of citizens can
Reprinted by permission.
Greenbaum one day had a sudden
be redressed. One is lawful procedure and
Now you may be able to tell me that it
urge to go to Cuba and was later mur-
one is violent protest, riot, and revolu-
is permissible for someone to write such
dered. Next Albert Parvin teamed up
tion. Should a judge who sits at the
stuff, and this being a free country I
with William Israel Alderman-known
pinnacle of the orderly system of justice
agree. You may tell me that nude couples
as Ice Pick Willie-to head the Fla-
give sympathetic encouragement, on the
cavorting in photographs are art, and
mingo. But Alderman soon was off to
side, to impressionable young students
and hard-core fanatics who espouse the
that morals are a matter of opinion, and
the Riviera and Parvin took over.
that such stuff is lawful to publish and
On May 12, 1960, Parvin signed a
militant method? I think not.
send through the U.S. mails at a postage
contract with Meyer Lansky, one of the
In other words, I concede that William
rate subsidized by the taxpayers. I dis-
country's top gangsters, paying Lansky
O. Douglas has a right to write and pub-
agree, but maybe I am old fashioned.
what was purportedly a finder's fee of
lish what he pleases; but I suggest that
But you cannot tell me that an Asso-
$200,000 in the sale of the Flamingo.
for Associate Justice Douglas to put his
ciate Justice of the United States is
The agreement stipulated that payment
name to such an inflammatory volume as
compelled to give his permission to re-
would be made to Lansky in quarterly
"Points of Rebellion"-at a critical time
print his name and his title and his
installments of $6,250 starting in 1961.
in our history when peace and order is
writings in a pornographic magazine
If kept, final payment of the $200,000
what we need-is less than judicial good
with a portfolio of obscene photographs
would have been in October 1968.
behavior. It is more serious than simply
on one side of it and a literary admoni-
Parvin and the other owners sold the
"a summation of conventional liberal
tion to get a gun and start shooting at
Flamingo for a reported $10,500,000 to
poppycock," as one columnist wrote.
the first white face you see on the other.
a group including Florida hotelmen
Whatever Mr. Justice Douglas may
You cannot tell me that an Associate
Morris Lansburgh, Samuel Cohen, and
have meant by his justification of anti-
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court could
Daniel Lifter. His attorney in the deal
was Edward Levinson, who has been
Also on hand in Santo Domingo to
Nevada city, and in 1969 was denied per-
associated with Parvin in a number of
celebrate Bosch's taking up the reins of
mission by Nevada to buy the Riviera
enterprises. The Nevada Gaming Com-
power were Mr. Albert Parvin, President
Hotel and took over operation of the
mission approved the sale on June 1.
of the Parvin-Dohrmann Co., and the
Stardust Hotel. This brought an investi-
1960.
President of the Albert Parvin Founda-
gation which led to the suspension of
In November of 1960, Parvin set up the
tion, Mr. Justice William O. Douglas of
trading in Parvin-Dohrmann stock by
Albert Parvin Foundation. Accounts vary
the U.S. Supreme Court.
the SEC, which led further to the com-
as to whether it was funded with Fla-
Again there is conflicting testimony as
pany's employment of Nathan Voloshen.
mingo Hotel stock or with a first mort-
But in the interim Albert Parvin is said
gage on the Flamingo taken under the
to the reason for Mr. Justice Douglas'
presence in the Dominican Republic at
to have been bought out of the company
terms of the sale. At any rate the foun-
and to have retired to concentrate on his
dation was incorporated in New York and
this juncture, along with Parvin, Levin-
son, and Bobby Baker. Obviously he was
foundation, from which Mr. Justice
Mr. Justice Douglas assisted in setting it
not there as an official representative of
Douglas had been driven to resign by re-
up, according to Parvin. If the Justice
did indeed draft the articles of incorpo-
the United States, as he was not in the
lentless publicity.
Vice President's party.
On May 12, 1969, Mr. Justice Douglas
ration, it was in patent violation of title
One story is that the Parvin Founda-
reportedly wrote a letter to Albert Par-
28, section 454, United States Code, which
vin in which he discussed the pending
tion was offering to finance an educa-
states that "any justice or judge ap-
tional television project for the Domini-
action by the Internal Revenue Service
pointed under the authority of the United
to revoke the foundation's tax-exempt
can Republic. Another is that Mr. Justice
States who engages in the practice of law
status as a "manufactured case" de-
Douglas was there to advise President
is guilty of a high misdemeanor."
signed to pressure him off the Supreme
Please note that this offense is spe-
Bosch on writing a new Constitution for
the Dominican Republic.
Court. In this letter, as its contents were
cifically stated in the Federal statute
There is little about the reasons be-
paraphrased by the New York Times,
to be a high misdemeanor, making it
Mr. Justice Douglas apparently offered
hind the presence of a singularly large
conform to one of the constitutional
legal advice to Mr. Parvin as to how to
contingent of known gambling figures
grounds for impeachment. There is ad-
avoid future difficulties with the Internal
and Mafia types in Santo Domingo, how-
ditional evidence that Mr. Justice Doug-
Revenue Service, and this whole episode
ever. With the change of political re-
las later, while still on salary, gave legal
demands further examination under
gimes the rich gambling concessions of
advice to the Albert Parvin Foundation
oath by a committee with subpena
the Dominican Republic were up for
on dealing with an Internal Revenue
grabs. These were generally not owned
powers.
investigation.
When things got too hot on the Su-
and operated by the hotels, but were
The ostensible purpose of the Parvin
preme Court for Justices accepting large
granted to concessionaires by the gov-
Foundation was declared to be educat-
sums of money from private foundations
ernment-specifically by the President
ing the developing leadership in Latin
for ill-defined services, Mr. Justice Doug-
It was one of the country's most lucra-
las finally gave up his open ties with the
America. This had not previously been
tive sources of revenue as well as private
Albert Parvin Foundation. Although re-
a known concern of Parvin or his Las
corruption. This brought such known
signing as its president and giving up his
Vegas associates, but Cuba, where some
gambling figures as Parvin and Levin-
$12,000-a-year salary, Mr. Justice Doug-
of them had business connections, was
son, Angelo Bruno and John Simone, Jo-
las moved immediately into closer con-
then in the throes of Castro's Commu-
seph Sicarelli, Eugene Pozo, Santa Traf-
nection with the leftish Center for the
nist revolution.
ficante Jr., Louis Levinson, Leslie Earl
Study of Democratic Institutions.
In 1961 Mr. Justice Douglas was named
Kruse, and Sam Giancanno to the island
a life member of the Parvin Foundation's
in the spring of 1963.
The center is located in Santa Barbara,
board, elected president and voted a sal-
Bobby Baker, in addition to serving as
Calif., and is run by Dr. Robert M. Hut-
ary of $12,000 per year plus expenses.
go-between for his Las Vegas friends such
chins, former head of the University of
There is some conflict in testimony as to
as Ed Levinson, was personally interested
Chicago.
how long Douglas drew his pay, but he
in concessions for vending machines of
A longtime "consultant" and member
did not put a stop to it until last May-
his Serv-U Corp., then represented by
of the board of directors of the center,
1969-in the wake of public revelations
Washington Attorney Abe Fortas. Baker
Mr. Justice Douglas was elevated last
that forced the resignation of Mr. Justice
has described Levinson as a former
December to the post of chairman of the
Fortas.
partner.
executive committee. It should be noted
The Parvin Foundation in 1961 under-
Mrs. Fortas, also an attorney, was sub-
that the Santa Barbara Center was a
took publication of Mr. Justice Douglas'
sequently to be retained as tax counsel
beneficiary of Parvin Foundation funds
book, "America's Challenge," with costs
by the Parvin Foundation. Her fee is not
during the same period that Mr. Justice
borne by the foundation but royalties
exactly known but that year the founda-
Douglas was receiving $1,000 a month
going to the author.
tion spent $16,058 for professional serv-
salary from it and Mobster Meyer Lansky
In April 1962 the Parvin Foundation
ices.
was drawing down installment payments
applied for tax-exempt status. And
There are reports that Douglas met
of $25,000 a year. In addition to Douglas,
thereafter some very interesting things
with Bosch and other officials of the new
there are several others who serve on
happened.
government in February or early March
both the Parvin Foundation and Center
On October 22, 1962, Bobby Baker
of 1963. and also that he met with Bobby
for Democratic Studies boards, so the
turned up in Las Vegas for a 3-day stay.
Baker and with Albert Parvin. In April
break was not a very sharp one.
His hotel bill was paid by Ed Levinson,
1963, Baker and Ed Levinson returned to
The gentleman from New Hampshire
Parvin's associate and sometime at-
the Dominican Republic and in that same
(Mr. WYMAN) has investigated Mr. Jus-
torney. On Baker's registration card a
month the Albert Parvin Foundation was
tice Douglas' connections with the center
hotel employee had noted-"is with
granted its tax-exempt status by the In-
and discovered that the Associate Jus-
Douglas."
ternal Revenue Service.
tice has been receiving money from it,
Bobby was then, of course, majority
In June, I believe it was June 20, Bobby
both during the time he was being paid
secretary of the Senate and widely re-
Baker and Ed Levinson traveled to New
by Parvin and even larger sums since.
garded as the right hand of the then
York where Baker introduced Levinson
The distinguished gentleman, who
Vice President of the United States. So
to Mr. John Gates of the Intercontinental
served as attorney general of his State
it is unclear whether the note meant
Hotel Corp. Mr. Gates has testified that
and chairman of the American Bar As-
literally that Mr. Justice Douglas was
Levinson was interested in the casino
sociation's committee on jurisprudence
also visiting Las Vegas at that time or
concession in the Ambassador-El Em-
before coming to the House, will detail
whether it meant only to identify Baker
bajador-Hotel in Santo Domingo. My
his findings later. But one activity of the
as a Douglas associate.
information is that Baker and Levinson
center requires inclusion here because it
In December 1962, I have learned,
made at least one more trip to the Domin-
provides some explanation for Mr. Jus-
Bobby Baker met with Juan Bosch, soon
ican Republic about this time but that,
tice Douglas' curious obsession with the
to be President of the Dominican Re-
despite all this influence peddling, the
current wave of violent youthful rebel-
public, in New York City.
gambling franchise was not granted to
lion.
In January 1963 the Albert Parvin
the Parvin-Levinson-Lansky interests
In 1965 the Santa Barbara Center,
Foundation decided to drop all its Latin
after all.
which is tax exempt and ostensibly
American projects and to concentrate on
In August, President Bosch awarded
serves as a scholarly retreat, sponsored
the Dominican Republic. Douglas de-
the concession to Cliff Jones, former
and financed the National Conference
scribed President-elect Bosch as an old
Lieutenant Governor of Nevada who, in-
for New Politics which was, in effect, the
friend.
cidentally, also was an associate of Bobby
birth of the New Left as a political move-
On February 26, 1963, however, we find
Baker.
ment. Two years later, in August 1967,
Bobby Baker and Ed Levinson together
When this happened, the further in-
the Center was the site of a very signif-
again-this time on the other side of the
terest of the Albert Parvin Foundation
icant conference of militant student
continent in Florida-buying round-trip
in the Dominican Republic abruptly
leaders. Here plans were laid for the
tickets on the same plane for the Domin-
ceased. I am told that some of the edu-
violent campus disruptions of the past
ican Republic.
cational television equipment already de-
few years, and the students were ex-
Since the Parvin Foundation was set
livered was simply abandoned in its origi-
horted by at least one member of the
up to develop leadership in Latin Amer-
nal crates.
center's staff to sabotage American so-
ica, Trujillo had been toppled from
On September 25, 1963, President Bosch
ciety, block defense work by universities,
power in a bloody uprising, and Juan
was ousted and all deals were off. He was
immobilize computerized record systems
Bosch was about to be inaugurated as
later to lead a comeback effort with Com-
and discredit the ROTC.
the new, liberal President. Officially rep-
munist support which resulted in Presi-
This session at Mr. Justice Douglas'
resenting the United States at the cere-
dent Johnson's dispatch of U.S. Marines
second moonlighting base was thus the
monies February 27 were the Vice Presi-
to the Dominican Republic.
birthplace for the very excesses which he
dent and Mrs. Johnson. But their Air
Meanwhile, through the Parvin-Dohr-
applauds in his latest book in these
Force plane was loaded with such celeb-
mann Co. which he had acquired, Albert
words:
rities as Senator and Mrs. Humphrey,
Parvin bought the Fremont Hotel in Las
Where grievances pile high and most of
two Assistant Secretaries of State, Mr.
Vegas in 1966 from Edward Levinson
the elected spokesmen represent the Estab-
and Mrs. Valenti, and Mrs. Elizabeth
and Edward Torres, for some $16 million.
lishment, violence may be the only effective
Carpenter. Bobby Baker and Eddie
In 1968, Parvin-Dohrmann acquired the
response.
Levinson went commercial.
Aladdin Hotel and casino in the same
Mr. Speaker, we are the elected
spokesmen upon whom the Associate
and the Wolfson Family Foundation,
public confidence in the Supreme Court.
Justice of the Supreme Court is attempt-
Louis Wolfson's troubles with the SEC
That is the easiest to answer. Public con-
ing to place the blame for violent re-
and Wolfson's $20,000-a-year retainer to
fidence in the U.S. Supreme Court dimin-
bellion in this country. What he means
Associate Justice Fortas? Why, the cast
ishes every day that Mr. Justice Douglas
by representing the establishment I do
of characters in these two cases is vir-
remains on it.
not know, except that he and his young
tually interchangeable.
Finally, I have been asked, and I have
hothead revolutionaries regard it as evil.
Albert Parvin was named a coconspir-
asked myself, whether or not I should
I know very well who I represent, how-
ator but not a defendant in the stock
stand here and impeach Mr. Justice
ever, and if the patriotic and law abiding
manipulation case that sent Louis Wolf-
Douglas on my own constitutional re-
and hard-working and God-fearing peo-
son to prison. Albert Parvin was again
sponsibility. I believe, on the basis of
ple of America are the establishment, I
under investigation in the stock manipu-
my own investigation and the facts I
am proud to represent such an establish-
lation action against Parvin-Dohrmann.
have set before you, that he is unfit and
ment.
This generation has largely forgotten
should be removed. I would vote to im-
Perhaps it is appropriate to examine
that William O. Douglas first rose to na-
peach him right now.
at this point who Mr. Justice Douglas
tional prominence as Chairman of the
But we are dealing here with a solemn
represents. On the basis of the facts
Securities and Exchange Commission.
constitutional duty. Only the House has
available to me, and presented here, Mr.
His former law pupil at Yale and fellow
this power; only here can the people ob-
Justice Douglas appears to represent Mr.
New Dealer in those days was one Abe
tain redress from the misbehavior of
Albert Parvin and his silent partners of
Fortas, and they remained the closest
appointed judges. I would not try to im-
the international gambling fraternity,
friends on and off the Supreme Court.
pose my judgment in such a matter upon
Mr. Ralph Ginzburg, and his friends of
Mrs. Fortas was retained by the Parvin
any other Member; each one should
the pornographic publishing trade, Dr.
Foundation in its tax difficulties. Abe
examine his own conscience after the full
Robert Hutchins and his intellectual in-
Fortas was retained by Bobby Baker until
facts have been spread before him.
cubators for the New Left and the SDS,
he withdrew from the case because of his
close ties with the White House.
I cannot see how, on the prima facie
and others of the same ilk. Mr. Justice
Douglas does not find himself in this
I will state that there is some differ-
case I have made, it is possible to object
company suddenly or accidentally or un-
ence between the two situations. There is
to a prompt but thoroughgoing investi-
knowingly, he has been working at it for
no evidence that Louis. Wolfson had no-
gation of Mr. Justice Douglas' behavior.
years, profiting from it for years, and
torious underworld associations in his
I believe that investigation, giving both
flaunting it in the faces of decent Amer-
financial enterprises. And more impor-
the Associate Justice and his accusers the
tant, Mr. Justice Fortas had enough re-
right to answer under oath, should be
icans for years.
There have been many questions put
spect for the so-called establishment
as nonparisan as possible and should in-
and the personal decency to resign when
terfere as little as possible with the regu-
to me in recent days. Let me unequivo-
his behavior brought reproach upon the
lar legislative business of the House. For
cally answer the most important of them
for the record now.
U.S. Supreme Court. Whatever he may
that reason I shall support, but not ac-
Mr. Speaker, is this action on my
have done privately, Mr. Justice Fortas
tively sponsor, the creation of a select
did not consistently take public positions
committee to recommend whether prob-
part in response to, or retaliation for,
that damaged and endangered the fabric
able causes does lie, as I believe it does,
the rejection by the other body of two
of law and government.
for the impeachment and removal of Mr.
nominees for the Supreme Court, Judge
Haynsworth and Judge Carswell. In a
Another question I have been asked is
Justice Douglas.
whether I, and others in this House, want
Once more, I remind you of Mr. Justice
narrow sense, no. The judicial misbe-
to set ourselves up as censors of books
Cardozo's guidelines for any judge:
havior which I believe Mr. Justice
and magazines. This is, of course, a stock
Not honest alone, but the punctilio of
Douglas to be guilty of began long before
liberal needle which will continue to be
an honor the most sensitive, is then the
anybody thought about elevating Judges
inserted at every opportunity no matter
standard of behavior.
Haynsworth and Carswell.
how often it is plainly answered in the
Why should the American people de-
But in a larger sense, I do not think
negative. But as the "censor" was an
mand such a high standard of their ju-
there can be two standards for member-
ancient Roman office, the supervisor of
diciary? Because justice is the founda-
ship on the Supreme Court, one for Mr.
public morals, let me substitute, if I
tion of our free society. There has never
Justice Fortas, another for Mr. Justice
might, another Roman office, the tribune.
been a better answer than that of Daniel
Douglas.
It was the tribune who represented and
Webster, who said:
What is the ethical or moral distinc-
spoke up for the people. This is our role
tion, I ask those arbiters of high principle
There is no happiness, there is no liberty,
in the impeachment of unfit judges and
there is no enjoyment of life, unless a man
who have studied such matters, between
other Federal officials. We have not made
can say when he rises in the morning, I shall
the Parvin Foundation, Parvin-Dohr-
ourselves censors; the Constitution
be subject to the decision of no unwise judge
mann's troubles with the SEC, and Par-
makes us tribunes.
today.
vin's $12,000-a-year retainer to Associ-
A third question I am asked is whether
ate Justice Douglas-on the one hand-
the step we are taking will not diminish
Moffice Copy
HOUSE RESOLUTION
MR. WYMAN (for himself, Mr. Scott, Mr. Waggonner, etc.) submitted the following
resolution
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States provides in Article III,
Section 1, that Justices of the Supreme Court shall hold office only "during good
behavior", and
WHEREAS, the Constitution also provides in Article II, Section 4, that
Justices of the Supreme Court shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for High
Crimes and Misdemeanors, and
WHEREAS, the Constitution also provides in Article VI that Justices of
the Supreme Court shall be bound by "Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitu-
tion" and the United States Code (5 U. S. C. 16) prescribes the following form of
oath which was taken and sworn to by William Orville Douglas prior to his accession
to incumbency on the United States Supreme Court:
"I, William Orville Douglas, do solemnly swear that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faith-
fully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to
enter. So help me God."
and
WHEREAS, integrity and objectivity in respect to issues and causes to be
presented to the United States Supreme Court for final determination make it manda-
tory that Members thereof refrain from public advocacy of a position on any matter
that may come before the High Court lest public confidence in this constitutionally
co-equal judicial body be undermined, and
WHEREAS, the said Justice Orville Douglas has, on frequent occasions in
published writings, speeches, lectures and statements, declared a personal position
on issues to come before the United States Supreme Court indicative of a prejudiced
and non-judicial attitude incompatible with good behavior and contrary to the re-
quirements of judicial decorum obligatory upon the Federal judiciary in general
and members of the United States Supreme Court in particular, and
WHEREAS, by the aforementioned conduct and writings, the said William
Orville Douglas has established himself before the public, including litigants whose
lives, rights and future are seriously affected by decisions of the Court of which
the said William Orville Douglas is a member, as a partisan advocate and not as a
judge, and
WHEREAS, by indicating in advance of Supreme Court decisions, on the
basis of declared, printed, or quoted convictions, how he would decide matters in
FORD
controversy pending and to become pending before the Court of which he is a member,
the said William Justice Orville Douglas has committed the high misdemeanor of undermining
LIBRARY
- 2 -
the integrity of the highest constitutional Court in America, and has wilfully
and deliberately undermined public confidence in the said Court as an institution,
and
WHEREAS, contrary to his Oath of Office as well as patently in conflict
with the Canons of Ethics for the Judiciary of the American Bar Association, the
said William Orville Douglas nevertheless on February 19, 1970, did publish and
publicly distribute throughout the United States, statements encouraging, aggravat-
ing and inciting violence, anarchy and civil unrest in the form of a book entitled
"Points of Rebellion" in which the said William Orville Douglas, all the while an
incumbent on the Highest Court of last resort in the United States, stated, among
other things, that:
"But where grievances pile high and most of the elected spokesmen
represent the Establishment, violence may be the only effective
response." (pp. 88-89, Points of Rebellion. Random House, Inc.,
February 19, 1970, William 0. Douglas.
"The special interests that control government use its powers to
favor themselves and to perpetuate regimes of oppression, exploit-
ation, and discrimination against the many." (ibid, p. 92)
"People march and protest but they are not heard." (ibid, P. 88)
"Where there is a persistent sense of futility, there is violence;
and that is where we are today." (ibid, P. 56)
"The two parties have become almost indistinguishable; and each is
controlled by the Establishment. The modern day dissenters and
protesters are functioning as the loyal opposition functions in
England. They are the mounting voice of political opposition to
the status quo, calling for revolutionary changes in our institu-
tions. Yet the powers-that-be faintly echo Adolph Hitler."
(ibid, P. 57)
"Yet American protesters need not be submissive. A speaker who
resists arrest is acting as a free man." (ibid, p. 6)
"We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III.
Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know.
If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution."
(ibid, P. 95)
and thus wilfully and deliberately fanned the fires of unrest, rebellion, and
revolution in the United States, and
WHEREAS, in the April 1970 issue of EVERGREEN Magazine, the said William
Orville Douglas for pay did, while an incumbent on the United States Supreme Court,
publish an article entitled REDRESS AND REVOLUTION, appearing on page 41 of said
issue immediately following a malicious caricature of the President of the United
States as George III, as well as photographs of nudes engaging in various acts of
sexual intercourse, in which article the said William Orville Douglas again wrote
for pay that:
GERALD
- 3 -
"George III was the symbol against which our Founders made a revolu-
tion now considered bright and glorious.
...
We must realize that
today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will con-
tinue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the re-
dress, honored in tradition, is also Revolution."
and
WHEREAS, the said William Orville Douglas, prepared, authored, and re-
ceived payment for an article which appeared in the March 1969 issue of the maga-
zine, AVANT GARDE, published by one Ralph Ginzburg, previously convicted of sending
obscene literature through the U. S. Mails, (see 383 U. S. 463) at a time when the
said Ralph Ginzburg was actively pursuing an appeal from his conviction upon a
charge of malicious libel before the Supreme Court of the United States, yet never-
theless the said William Orville Douglas, as a sitting member of the Supreme Court
of the United States, knowing full well his own financial relationship with this
litigant before the Court, sat in judgment on the Ginzburg appeal, all in clear
violation and conflict with his Oath of Office, the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and
Federal law (396 U. S. 1049), and
WHEREAS, while an incumbent on the United States Supreme Court the said
William Orville Douglas for hire has served and is reported to still serve as a
Director and as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Center for the Study of
Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California, a politically-oriented action
organization which, among other things, has organized national conferences designed
to seek detente with the Soviet Union and openly encouraged student radicalism, and
WHEREAS, the said Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, in
violation of the Logan Act, sponsored and financed a "Pacem in Terris II Convoca-
tion" at Geneva, Switzerland, May 28-31, 1967, to discuss foreign affairs and U. S.
foreign policy including the "Case of Vietnam" and the "Case of Germany", to which
Ho Chi Minh was publicly invited, and all while the United States was in the midst
of war in which Communists directed by the same Ho Chi Minh were killing American
boys fighting to give South Vietnam the independence and freedom from aggression
we had promised that Nation, and from this same Center there were paid to the said
William Orville Douglas fees of $500 per day for Seminars and Articles, and
WHEREAS, paid activity of this type by a sitting Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States is contrary to his Oath of Office to uphold the United
States Constitution, violative of the Canons of Ethics of the American Bar Associa-
tion and is believed to constitute misdemeanors of the most fundamental type in
the context in which that term appears in the United States Constitution (Article
II, Section 4) as well as failing to constitute "good behavior" as that term
- 4 -
appears in the Constitution (Article III, Section 1), upon which the tenure of all
Federal judges is expressly conditioned, and
WHEREAS, monies paid to the said William Orville Douglas from and by the
aforementioned Center are at least as follows: 1962, $900; 1963, $800; 1965, $1,000
1966, $1,000; 1968, $1,100; 1969, $2,000; all during tenure on the United States
Supreme Court, and all while a Director on a Board of Directors that meets (and
met) biannually to determine the general policies of the Center, and
WHEREAS, the said William Orville Douglas, contrary to his sworn obliga-
tion to refrain therefrom and in violation of the Canons of Ethics, has repeatedly
engaged in political activity while an incumbent of the High Court, evidenced in
part by his authorization for the use of his name in a recent political fund-rais-
ing letter, has continued public advocacy of the recognition of Red China by the
United States, has publicly criticized the military posture of the United States,
has authored for pay several articles on subjects patently related to causes pend-
ing or to be pending before the United States Supreme Court in Playboy Magazine on
such subjects as invasions of privacy and civil liberties, and most recently has
expressed in Brazil public criticism of United States foreign policy while on a
visit to Brazil in 1969, plainly designed to undermine public confidence in South
and Latin American countries in the motives and objectives of the foreign policy
of the United States in Latin America, and
WHEREAS, in addition to the foregoing, and while a sitting Justice on
the Supreme Court of the United States, the said William Orville Douglas has
charged, been paid and received $12,000 per annum as President and Director of the
Parvin Foundation from 1960 to 1969, which Foundation received substantial income
from gambling interests in the Freemont Casino at Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as
the Flamingo at the same location, accompanied by innumerable conflicts of interest
and overlapping financial maneuvers frequently involved in litigation the ultimate
appeal from which could only be to the Supreme Court of which the said William
Orville Douglas was and is a member, the tenure of the said William Orville Douglas
with the Parvin Foundation being reported to have existed since 1960 in the cap-
acity of President, and resulting in the receipt by the said William Orville
Douglas from the Parvin Foundation of fees aggregating at least $85,000, all while
a member of the United States Supreme Court, and all while referring to Internal
Revenue Service investigation of the Parvin Foundation while a Justice of the
United States Supreme Court as a "manufactured case" intended to force him to leave
the bench, all while he was still President and Director of the said Foundation
- 5 -
and was earning a $12,000 annual salary in those posts, a patent conflict of in-
terest, and
WHEREAS, it has been repeatedly alleged that the said William Orville
Douglas in his position as President of the Parvin Foundation did in fact give
the said Foundation tax advice, with particular reference to matters known by the
said William Orville Douglas at the time to have been under investigation by the
United States Internal Revenue Service, all contrary to the basic legal and judicial
requirement that a Supreme Court Justice may not give legal advice, and particularly
not for a fee, and
WHEREAS, the said William Justice Orville Douglas has, from time to time over the
past ten years, had dealings with, involved himself with, and may actually have
received fees and travel expenses, either directly or indirectly, from known crim-
inals, gamblers, and gangsters or their representatives and associates, for services,
both within the United States and abroad and
WHEREAS, the foregoing conduct on the part of the said William Orville
Douglas while a Justice of the Supreme Court is incompatible with his constitution-
al obligation to refrain from non-judicial activity of a patently unethical nature,
and
WHEREAS, the foregoing conduct and other activities on the part of the
said William Orville Douglas while a sitting Justice on the United States Supreme
Court, establishes that the said William Orville Douglas in the conduct of his
solemn judicial responsibilities has become a prejudiced advocate of predetermined
positions on matters in controversy or to become in controversy before the High
Court to the demonstrated detriment of American jurisprudence, and
WHEREAS, from the foregoing, and without reference to whatever addition-
al relevant information may be developed through investigation under oath, it
appears that the said William Orville Douglas, among other things, has sat in
judgment on a cause involving a party from whom the said William Orville Douglas
to his knowledge received financial gain, as well as that the said William Orville
Douglas for personal financial gain, while a member of the U. S. Supreme Court,
has encouraged violence to alter the present form of government of the United States
of America, and has received and accepted substantial financial compensation from
various sources for various duties incompatible with his judicial position and con-
stitutional obligation, and has publicly and repeatedly, both orally and in writings,
declared himself a partisan on issues pending or likely to become pending before
the Court of which he is a member,
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 6 -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT
1. The Speaker of the House shall within 14 days hereafter appoint a
Select Committee of six Members of the House, equally divided between the majority
and the minority parties and shall designate one member to serve as Chairman,
which Select Committee shall proceed to investigate and determine whether Associate
Justice William Orville Douglas has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as that
phrase appears in the Constitution, Article II, Section 4, or has, while an incum-
bent, failed to be of the good behavior upon which his Commission as said Justice
is conditioned by the Constitution, Article III, Section 1. The Select Committee
shall report to the House the results of its investigation, together with its
recommendations on this resolution for impeachment of the said William Orville
Douglas not later than 90 days following the designation of its full membership
by the Speaker.
2. For the purpose of carrying out this resolution the Committee, or
any Subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress
at such times and places within the United States whether the House is sitting,
has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, and to require by subpoena
or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of
such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it deems
necessary. Subpoenas may be issued under the signature of the Chairman of the
Committee or any member of the Committee designated by him, and may be served by
any person designated by such Chairman or member.
Douglas
m Office Copy
CO-SPONSORS OF WYMAN RESOLUTION
TO CREATE A SELECT COMMITTEE
INVESTIGATING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS
APRIL 16, 1970
MR. WYMAN
MR. GUBSER
MR. WINN
MR. CRAMER
MR. SCOTT
MR. LENNON
MR. O'NEAL
MR. JONES of N.C.
MR. WAGGONER
MR. KING
MR. BROCK
MR. DICKINSON
MR. SIKES
MR. JONES of Ala.
MR. JARMAN
MR. CAFFERY
MR. SCHERLE
MR. CLANCY
MR. CRANE
MR. KUYKENDALL
MR. HEBERT
MR. SLACK
MR. ZION
MR. BEVEL
MR. FLYNT
MR. MYERS
MR. RARICK
MR. LUKENS
MR. BURTON
MR. PASSMAN
MR. ASHBROOK
MR. STUCKEY
MR. HALEY
MR. O'KONSKI
MR. FLOWERS
MR. LANDGREBE
MR. CLAWSON
RM. LANDRUM
MR. CAMP
MR. EDWARDS of Ala.
MR. ANDREWS of Ala.
MR. MIZELL
MR. CHAPPELL
MR. GROSS
MR. BERRY
MR. ROGERS of Fla.
MR. TAYLOR
MR. BUCHANAN
MR. ABBITT
MR. QUILLEN
MR. THOMPSON of Ga.
MR. HARSHA
MR. MICHEL
MR. WHITTEN
MR. MONTGOMERY
MR. STEIGER
MR. ABERNETHY
MR. WOLD
MR. BRAY
MR. PRICE
MR. BOW
MR. DAVIS of Ga.
MR. DANIEL
MR. SEBELIUS
MR. HENDERSON
MR. DEVINE
MR. ESHLEMAN
MR. GETTYS
MR. WILLIAMS
MR. CLARK
MR. HOSMER
MR. ROUDEBUSH
MR. DOWNING
MR. SNYDER
MR. EDWARDS of La.
MR. BURLESON
MR. POLLOCK
MR. FUQUA
MR. HUNT
MR. FISHER
MR. ICHORD
MR. WATKINS
MR. GRAY
MR. DOWDY
MR. SMITH of Calif.
MR. MINSHALL
MR. BLACKBURN
MR. ROBERTS
MR. HALL
MR. LONG of La.
MR. NICHOLS
MR. DORN
MR. BRINKLEY
MR. RUTH
MR. FOREMAN
MR. FOUNTAIN
MR. SCHADEBERG
MR. HAGAN
MR. GRIFFIN
MR. RIVERS
MR. (W.UP.)
Mn. Huu (mo.)
Mn. hone (md)
FORD JBRART
Ma. SATTERFIELD
HOUSE RESOLUTION
MR. WYMAN (for himself, Mr. Scott, Mr. Waggonner, etc.) submitted the following
resolution
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States provides in Article III,
Section 1, that Justices of the Supreme Court shall hold office only "during good
behavior", and
WHEREAS, the Constitution also provides in Article II, Section 4, that
Justices of the Supreme Court shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for High
Crimes and Misdemeanors, and
WHEREAS, the Constitution also provides in Article VI that Justices of
the Supreme Court shall be bound by "Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitu-
tion" and the United States Code (5 U. S. C. 16) prescribes the following form of
oath which was taken and sworn to by William Orville Douglas prior to his accession
to incumbency on the United States Supreme Court:
"I, William Orville Douglas, do solemnly swear that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faith-
fully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to
enter. So help me God."
and
WHEREAS, integrity and objectivity in respect to issues and causes to be
presented to the United States Supreme Court for final determination make it manda-
tory that Members thereof refrain from public advocacy of a position on any matter
that may come before the High Court lest public confidence in this constitutionally
co-equal judicial body be undermined, and
WHEREAS, the said William Orville Douglas has, on frequent occasions in
published writings, speeches, lectures and statements, declared a personal position
on issues to come before the United States Supreme Court indicative of a prejudiced
and non-judicial attitude incompatible with good behavior and contrary to the re-
quirements of judicial decorum obligatory upon the Federal judiciary in general
and members of the United States Supreme Court in particular, and
WHEREAS, by the aforementioned conduct and writings, the said William
Orville Douglas has established himself before the public, including litigants whose
lives, rights and future are seriously affected by decisions of the Court of which
the said William Orville Douglas is a member, as a partisan advocate and not as a
judge, and
WHEREAS, by indicating in advance of Supreme Court decisions, on the
basis of declared, printed, or quoted convictions, how he would decide matters in
controversy pending and to become pending before the Court of which he is a member,
the said William Orville Douglas has committed the high misdemeanor of undermining
- 2 -
the integrity of the highest constitutional Court in America, and has wilfully
and deliberately undermined public confidence in the said Court as an institution,
and
WHEREAS, contrary to his Oath of Office as well as patently in conflict
with the Canons of Ethics for the Judiciary of the American Bar Association, the
said William Orville Douglas nevertheless on February 19, 1970, did publish and
publicly distribute throughout the United States, statements encouraging, aggravat-
ing and inciting violence, anarchy and civil unrest in the form of a book entitled
"Points of Rebellion" in which the said William Orville Douglas, all the while an
incumbent on the Highest Court of last resort in the United States, stated, among
other things, that:
"But where grievances pile high and most of the elected spokesmen
represent the Establishment, violence may be the only effective
response." (pp. 88-89, Points of Rebellion. Random House, Inc.,
February 19, 1970, William O. Douglas.
"The special interests that control government use its powers to
favor themselves and to perpetuate regimes of oppression, exploit-
ation, and discrimination against the many." (ibid, P. 92)
"People march and protest but they are not heard." (ibid, P. 88)
"Where there is a persistent sense of futility, there is violence;
and that is where we are today." (ibid, p. 56)
"The two parties have become almost indistinguishable; and each is
controlled by the Establishment. The modern day dissenters and
protesters are functioning as the loyal opposition functions in
England. They are the mounting voice of political opposition to
the status quo, calling for revolutionary changes in our institu-
tions. Yet the powers-that-be faintly echo Adolph Hitler."
(ibid, p. 57)
"Yet American protesters need not be submissive. A speaker who
resists arrest is acting as a free man." (ibid, P. 6)
"We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III.
Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know.
If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution."
(ibid, P. 95)
and thus wilfully and deliberately fanned the fires of unrest, rebellion, and
revolution in the United States, and
WHEREAS, in the April 1970 issue of EVERGREEN Magazine, the said William
Orville Douglas for pay did, while an incumbent on the United States Supreme Court,
publish an article entitled REDRESS AND REVOLUTION, appearing on page 41 of said
issue immediately following a malicious caricature of the President of the United
States as George III, as well as photographs of nudes engaging in various acts of
sexual intercourse, in which article the said William Orville Douglas again wrote
for pay that:
- 3 -
"George III was the symbol against which our Founders made a revolu-
tion now considered bright and glorious. ... We must realize that
today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will con-
tinue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the re-
dress, honored in tradition, is also Revolution."
and
WHEREAS, the said William Orville Douglas, prepared, authored, and re-
ceived payment for an article which appeared in the March 1969 issue of the maga-
zine, AVANT GARDE, published by one Ralph Ginzburg, previously convicted of sending
obscene literature through the U. S. Mails, (see 383 U. S. 463) at a time when the
said Ralph Ginzburg was actively pursuing an appeal from his conviction upon a
charge of malicious libel before the Supreme Court of the United States, yet never-
theless the said William Orville Douglas, as a sitting member of the Supreme Court
of the United States, knowing full well his own financial relationship with this
litigant before the Court, sat in judgment on the Ginzburg appeal, all in clear
violation and conflict with his Oath of Office, the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and
Federal law (396 U. S. 1049), and
WHEREAS, while an incumbent on the United States Supreme Court the said
William Orville Douglas for hire has served and is reported to still serve as a
Director and as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Center for the Study of
Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, California, a politically-oriented action
organization which, among other things, has organized national conferences designed
to seek detente with the Soviet Union and openly encouraged student radicalism, and
WHEREAS, the said Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, in
violation of the Logan Act, sponsored and financed a "Pacem in Terris II Convoca-
tion" at Geneva, Switzerland, May 28-31, 1967, to discuss foreign affairs and U. S.
foreign policy including the "Case of Vietnam" and the "Case of Germany", to which
Ho Chi Minh was publicly invited, and all while the United States was in the midst
of war in which Communists directed by the same Ho Chi Minh were killing American
boys fighting to give South Vietnam the independence and freedom from aggression
we had promised that Nation, and from this same Center there were paid to the said
William Orville Douglas fees of $500 per day for Seminars and Articles, and
WHEREAS, paid activity of this type by a sitting Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States is contrary to his Oath of Office to uphold the United
States Constitution, violative of the Canons of Ethics of the American Bar Associa-
tion and is believed to constitute misdemeanors of the most fundamental type in
the context in which that term appears in the United States Constitution (Article
II, Section 4) as well as failing to constitute "good behavior" as that term
- 4 -
appears in the Constitution (Article III, Section 1), upon which the tenure of all
Federal judges is expressly conditioned, and
WHEREAS, monies paid to the said William Orville Douglas from and by the
aforementioned Center are at least as follows: 1962, $900; 1963, $800; 1965, $1,000
1966, $1,000; 1968, $1,100; 1969, $2,000; all during tenure on the United States
Supreme Court, and all while a Director on a Board of Directors that meets (and
met) biannually to determine the general policies of the Center, and
WHEREAS, the said William Orville Douglas, contrary to his sworn obliga-
tion to refrain therefrom and in violation of the Canons of Ethics, has repeatedly
engaged in political activity while an incumbent of the High Court, evidenced in
part by his authorization for the use of his name in a recent political fund-rais-
ing letter, has continued public advocacy of the recognition of Red China by the
United States, has publicly criticized the military posture of the United States,
has authored for pay several articles on subjects patently related to causes pend-
ing or to be pending before the United States Supreme Court in Playboy Magazine on
such subjects as invasions of privacy and civil liberties, and most recently has
expressed in Brazil public criticism of United States foreign policy while on a
visit to Brazil in 1969, plainly designed to undermine public confidence in South
and Latin American countries in the motives and objectives of the foreign policy
of the United States in Latin America, and
WHEREAS, in addition to the foregoing, and while a sitting Justice on
the Supreme Court of the United States, the said William Orville Douglas has
charged, been paid and received $12,000 per annum as President and Director of the
Parvin Foundation from 1960 to 1969, which Foundation received substantial income
from gambling interests in the Freemont Casino at Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as
the Flamingo at the same location, accompanied by innumerable conflicts of interest
and overlapping financial maneuvers frequently involved in litigation the ultimate
appeal from which could only be to the Supreme Court of which the said William
Orville Douglas was and is a member, the tenure of the said William Orville Douglas
with the Parvin Foundation being reported to have existed since 1960 in the cap-
acity of President, and resulting in the receipt by the said William Orville
Douglas from the Parvin Foundation of fees aggregating at least $85,000, all while
a member of the United States Supreme Court, and all while referring to Internal
Revenue Service investigation of the Parvin Foundation while a Justice of the
United States Supreme Court as a "manufactured case" intended to force him to leave
the bench, all while he was still President and Director of the said Foundation
- 5 -
and was earning a $12,000 annual salary in those posts, a patent conflict of in-
terest, and
WHEREAS, it has been repeatedly alleged that the said William Orville
Douglas in his position as President of the Parvin Foundation did in fact give
the said Foundation tax advice, with particular reference to matters known by the
said William Orville Douglas at the time to have been under investigation by the
United States Internal Revenue Service, all contrary to the basic legal and judicial
requirement that a Supreme Court Justice may not give legal advice, and particularly
not for a fee, and
WHEREAS, the said William Orville Douglas has, from time to time over the
past ten years, had dealings with, involved himself with, and may actually have
received fees and travel expenses, either directly or indirectly, from known crim-
inals, gamblers, and gangsters or their representatives and associates, for services,
both within the United States and abroad, and
WHEREAS, the foregoing conduct on the part of the said William Orville
Douglas while a Justice of the Supreme Court is incompatible with his constitution-
al obligation to refrain from non-judicial activity of a patently unethical nature,
and
WHEREAS, the foregoing conduct and other activities on the part of the
said William Orville Douglas while a sitting Justice on the United States Supreme
Court, establishes that the said William Orville Douglas in the conduct of his
solemn judicial responsibilities has become a prejudiced advocate of predetermined
positions on matters in controversy or to become in controversy before the High
Court to the demonstrated detriment of American jurisprudence, and
WHEREAS, from the foregoing, and without reference to whatever addition-
al relevant information may be developed through investigation under oath, it
appears that the said William Orville Douglas, among other things, has sat in
judgment on a cause involving a party from whom the said William Orville Douglas
to his knowledge received financial gain, as well as that the said William Orville
Douglas for personal financial gain, while a member of the U. S. Supreme Court,
has encouraged violence to alter the present form of government of the United States
of America, and has received and accepted substantial financial compensation from
various sources for various duties incompatible with his judicial position and con-
stitutional obligation, and has publicly and repeatedly, both orally and in writings,
declared himself a partisan on issues pending or likely to become pending before
the Court of which he is a member,
- 6 -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT
1. The Speaker of the House shall within 14 days hereafter appoint a
Select Committee of six Members of the House, equally divided between the majority
and the minority parties and shall designate one member to serve as Chairman,
which Select Committee shall proceed to investigate and determine whether Associate
Justice William Orville Douglas has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as that
phrase appears in the Constitution, Article II, Section 4, or has, while an incum-
bent, failed to be of the good behavior upon which his Commission as said Justice
is conditioned by the Constitution, Article III, Section 1. The Select Committee
shall report to the House the results of its investigation, together with its
recommendations on this resolution for impeachment of the said William Orville
Douglas not later than 90 days following the designation of its full membership
by the Speaker.
2. For the purpose of carrying out this resolution the Committee, or
any Subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit and act during the present Congress
at such times and places within the United States whether the House is sitting,
has recessed, or has adjourned, to hold such hearings, and to require by subpoena
or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of
such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it deems
necessary. Subpoenas may be issued under the signature of the Chairman of the
Committee or any member of the Committee designated by him, and may be served by
any person designated by such Chairman or member.
Naremann
office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
HOLD FOR RELEASE EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.), Republican Leader, prepared for
delivery on the Floor of the U. S. House of Representatives on April 15, 1970
[impeach Justice Douglas
Mr. Speaker:
Last May 8 (1969) I joined with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Taft, in
introducing 11109, a bill requiring financial disclosure by members of
the Federal Judiciary. This was amid the allegations swirling around Mr. Justice
Fortas. Before and since, other members of this body have proposed legislation
of similar intent. To the best of my knowledge, all of them lie dormant in the
Committee on the Judiciary where they were referred.
ORIGINAL RETIRED FOR PRESERVATION
On March 19 the U. S. Judicial Conference announced the adoption of
new ethical standards on outside earnings and conflict of interest. They were
described as somewhat watered down from the strict proposals of former Chief
Justice Warren at the time of the Fortas affair. In any event, they are not
binding upon the Supreme Court.
Neither are the 36-year-old Canons of Judicial Ethics of the American
Bar Association, among which are these:
"Canon 4. Avoidance of Impropriety. A judge's official conduct should
be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; he should avoid
BERALInstions of law; and his personal behavior, not only upon the Bench and in
the per formance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be
reproach."
"Canon 24. Inconsistent Obligations. A judge should not accept inconsis-
tent duties; nor incur obligations, pecuniary or otherwise, which will in any
way interfere or appear to interfere with his devotion to the expeditious and
proper administration of his official function."
"Canon 31. Private Law Practice. In many states the practice of law by
one holding judicial position is forbidden
If forbidden to practice law,
he should refrain from accepting any professional employment while in office."
Following the public disclosure last year of the extrajudicial activities
and moonlighting employment of Justices Fortas and Douglas, which resulted in
the resignation from the Supreme bench of Mr. Justice Fortas but not of
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
(more)