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.
Source Description
This file contains William O. Douglas.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525579
label
Ford Press Releases - Supreme Court, 1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525579
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Supreme Court, 1970
description
This file contains William O. Douglas.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Supreme Court of the United States. 2/2/1790-
Judicial impeachment
Presidential appointments
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525579
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1970-12-31
month
12
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
814ac2e0b5149c47
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D9, folder "Ford Press Releases - Supreme
Court, 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Full distribution
office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
April 10, 1970
A Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
The U.S. Senate's refusal to confirm G. Harrold Carswell of Florida as a
justice of the Supreme Court was a slap in the face to the South.
I think it is only logical to conclude--as President Nixon has done--that
Judge Carswell was rejected because he is both a Southerner and a strict con-
structionist. The same must be said about Judge Clement Haynsworth of South
Carolina before him.
The truth is that a hatchet job was done on both of these men by U.S.
senators who find the judicial philosophies of Judges Carswell and Haynsworth
greatly at variance with their own thinking.
Because they found it impossible to accept the idea of placing a strict
constructionist Southerner on the Supreme Court, these senators mounted the most
vicious attacks on Judges Haynsworth and Carswell that one could possibly imagine.
That these opponents of conservative philosophy were successful in their
attacks does not redound to their credit. Rather, the rejection of Judge Carswell,
coming immediately after the Senate's refusal to approve Judge Haynsworth, simply
proves to the South and the rest of the Nation that certain wilful men have used
the Senate's advise and consent powers to keep strict constructionist Southerners
off the highest court in the land.
The President is absolutely right in categorizing the Carswell rejection
as he has. And he has rightly concluded that the South should not be subjected
to any further humiliation at the hands of Senate liberals.
###
Digitized from Box D9 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
April 10, 1970
A Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
The U.S. Senate's refusal to confirm G. Harrold Carswell of Florida as a
justice of the Supreme Court was a slap in the face to the South.
I think it is only logical to conclude--as President Nixon has done-that
Judge Carswell was rejected because he is both a Southerner and a strict con-
structionist. The same must be said about Judge Clement Haynsworth of South
Carolina before him.
The truth is that a hatchet job was done on both of these men by U.S.
senators who find the judicial philosophies of Judges Carswell and Haynsworth
greatly at variance with their own thinking.
Because they found it impossible to accept the idea of placing a strict
constructionist Southerner on the Supreme Court, these senators mounted the most
vicious attacks on Judges Haynsworth and Carswell that one could possibly imagine.
That these opponents of conservative philosophy were successful in their
attacks does not redound to their credit. Rather, the rejection of Judge Carswell,
coming immediately after the Senate's refusal to approve Judge Haynsworth, simply
proves to the South and the rest of the Nation that certain wilful men have used
the Senate's advise and consent powers to keep strict constructionist Southerners
off the highest court in the land.
The President is absolutely right in categorizing the Carswell rejection
as he has. And he has rightly concluded that the South should not be subjected
to any further humiliation at the hands of Senate liberals.
###
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
-FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
April 24, 1970
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
Rules Committee Chairman William M. Colmer has decided not to program the
Wyman Resolution during the 60-day period alloted by the House Judiciary Committee
to an investigation of Justice Douglas.
I have met with Judiciary's Senior Republican William M. McCulloch and
Judiciary Chairman Emanuel Celler and they have assured me that their investigation
will be full and fair and will be undertaken without delay.
On the basis of their personal assurances to me, I will abide by the decision
of the Rules Committee chairman.
#####
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
office Capy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
April 27, 1970
A Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich,, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
Justice Douglas' action in disqualifying himself from participation in
censorship cases involving Barney Rossett, president of Evergreen Review and of
Grove Press, is a tacit admission that he should have disqualified himself in
the libel case in which publisher Ralph Ginzburg was the defendant.
The Douglas disqualifications announced Monday also indicate the extent
to which Justice Douglas' off-the-bench activities have diminished his usefulness
on the Supreme Court.
#####
GERALD FORD SIDRARY
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
April 27, 1970
A Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich,, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
Justice Douglas' action in disqualifying himself from participation in
censorship cases involving Barney Rossett, president of Evergreen Review and of
Grove Press, is a tacit admission that he should have disqualified himself in
the libel case in which publisher Ralph Ginzburg was the defendant.
The Douglas disqualifications announced Monday also indicate the extent
to which Justice Douglas' off-the-bench activities have diminished his usefulness
on the Supreme Court.
#####
GERALD
GERALD R. FORD
MICHIGAN OFFICE:
FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
425 CHERRY STREET SE.
GRAND RAPIDS
ZIP 49502
Congress of the United States
Office of the Minority Leader
House of Representatives
Mashington, D.C. 20515
July 29, 1970
The Honorable Emanuel Celler
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
2137 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Upon learning from news reporters that you or your Special Subcommittee
had, last Friday, removed the confidential classification from the Report
dated June 20, 1970 and made it generally available to press and public,
I availed myself of a copy.
I am deeply concerned both by its contents and by the fact that I was
never officially advised of the unwarranted threat and attack it contains
upon me and other Members who have pressed for a thorough and objective
investigation of Associate Justice William O. Douglas, as is their right
and duty. I refer particularly to the last three paragraphs of Judge
Rifkind's letter.
While I am aware that the document in question is largely the work of a
few members of your staff, it bears the imprimatur of the Special Sub-
committee and the names of all five of its Members. Moreover, it is my
understanding that it was distributed to the full Committee on the Judiciary
at its Executive Session on June 24 last, without any advance opportunity
for the Members to read it and with little or no discussion of its con-
tents except as they related to a 60-day extension of time for the staff
"investigation." It was also promptly leaked to the press. (See copy of
Los Angeles Times report of June 25 and AP report of June 27, attached.)
I am shocked, Mr. Chairman, that my position on this question could be
so misstated and my relations with your Special Subcommittee so misrepre-
sented. Indeed it is difficult to tell from this document whether the
Special Subcommittee staff has been engaged in investigating the behavior
of Justice Douglas or the behavior of the Minority Leader of the House
of Representatives, and more than 100 other Members of both political
parties. I have always admired the courteous consideration of the Dean
of the House for his colleagues, and have been particularly appreciative
of our personal friendship and working relationship.
-2-
Knowing of your dedication to fairness and facts, whatever your own pre-
viously held opinions, may I cite some of the errors and flaws in this
Report to which I take particular exception:
(1) Page 2, paragraph 4, states that "although H. Res. 920
does not contain a statement of charges, it encompasses all
the charges made by Mr. Ford in his speech to the House."
This may be the opinion of the drafter of H. Res. 920 but it
is not mine. Mr. Jacobs' Resolution of Impeachment (a word
which curiously does not appear on the cover of this Report)
clearly excludes any misbehavior which is unconnected with
judicial office or which is not construed to be a high crime
or misdemeanor in the Constitutional sense. The careful word-
ing of Mr. Jacobs' resolution resolves in a single phrase the
historic and continuing debate over the "good behavior" pro-
vision of Article III, section 1, to which you yourself re-
ferred in your letter to me of May 15, 1970. As is well known,
my position is that the Constitution sets "good behavior" as
a separate, additional, and more exacting standard for the
Federal Judiciary. This argument is central to my April 15
speech and it is neither "encompassed" by Mr. Jacobs' resolu-
tion nor entertained by the authors of this Report.
(2) I am particularly disturbed, Mr. Chairman, that in re-
lating my response of May 20, 1970 to your request of May 15
for my views on the foregoing subject, the authors of this
Report deliberately omitted my first three paragraphs -- which
are fully responsive to your question -- and included only my
last two paragraphs which, standing alone, appear to be evasive
and argumentative. Here and in other instances the Report
seemingly seeks to portray me and other Members urging thorough
investigation of Justice Douglas as being uncooperative and
contributing little to the Special Subcommittee. In my opinion,
it is the duty of an investigating staff to ferret out facts
for the benefit of the Members of the House of Representatives,
and not the duty of the Members to feed evidence to the staff.
Nevertheless, I.have endeavored to provide you and your Special
Subcommittee with certain investigative leads which were not
disclosed in my April 15 speech, or which subsequently came
to my attention. It is disheartening to have my communications
with you edited and twisted in this staff document, while the
attorneys for the accused and for Mr. Albert Parvin have their
letters reproduced in full. It must be equally disheartening
to Mr. Wyman to be singled out for failure to respond to your
request when the most important paragraphs of my response were
deleted and his excellent letter of May 6 was omitted entirely.
In light of the general tone of this document I seriously
question whether it would be advisable for any Member to turn
any information over to this staff. (I append hereto a com-
plete copy of my May 20 letter with the deleted paragraphs
marked.)
-3-
(3) Page 4 of the Report, after acknowledging numerous resolu-
tions by Mr. Wyman and other Members were referred to the Com-
mittee on Rules, states as follows: "Inasmuch as the charges
against Associate Justice Douglas in H. Res. 922 and the re-
lated resolutions, challenge the same activities and conduct
that were criticized by Representative Ford in his speech, the
Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 has included Mr. Wyman's
charges in its investigation."
This poses first a question of jurisdiction, since H. Res. 920
(Mr. Jacobs' Resolution of Impeachment) is all that has definitely
been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. But beyond the
jurisdictional question the quoted statement is simply untrue.
There are very considerable differences of scope, emphasis, and
specifics, between the activities of Justice Douglas cited in
the premises of H. Res. 922 (Mr. Wyman et al) and my report on
the conduct of Justice Douglas which I made to the House on
April 15. Much appears in H. Res. 922 that is not mentioned in
my speech and vice versa. Both the Wyman resolution and the text
of my April 15 speech are appended to this printed Report. They
were independently developed and the staff's efforts to treat
them as redundant is in my judgment a serious misrepresentation
of both.
(4) Pages 2, 3, and 4 of the Report presume and purport to
summarize in five categories my April 15 "charges" against
Justice Douglas. In fact, my April 15 speech was not intended
as a formal presentation of "charges" but, as I stated in preface,
as a report to the House of my personal and independent inquiry
into the law of impeachment and the behavior of Mr. Justice
Douglas. It was my hope that a bipartisan Select Committee
should investigate all the facts and allegations about Mr. Justice
Douglas, of which I had reported only those which to me appeared
most serious, significant and worthy of further inquiry.
Although I never reduced my own speech to specific "charges,"
whoever did so in this Report grossly distorted my position
both by phraseology and by the omission of my important quali-
fications, and most of all by completely ignoring my basic
"charge" -- that Justice Douglas' behavior has been less than
good, and that this brings the Supreme Court and the entire
judicial process into disrepute.
Of the five "charges" to which your staff has reduced my April
15 speech one (E) relating to the Center for the Study of Demo-
cratic Institutions cannot be fairly construed as a "charge"
at all. It is necessary to inquire into the Center because of
its close relationship with the Albert Parvin Foundation while
Justice Douglas was associated with and advising both. This
-4-
becomes relevant to Justice Douglas' practicing law and the
propriety of his extra-judicial moonlighting, but constitutes
no separate "charge" or criticism of the Center.
My other "charges" are summarized as (A), (B), (C), and (D), with
increasing misrepresentation. In charge (B) the Report utterly
ignores the careful qualifications I stated regarding the First
Amendment rights of free speech and free press. In charge (C)
the Report includes the irrelevant fact that a caricature of
President Nixon appears in Evergreen magazine, but makes no
mention of my straightforward concession that it is within the
bounds of "legitimate political parody."
The portfolio of erotic photographs in Evergreen magazine, copies
of which presumably are available to the Subcommittee staff, are
described blandly as "nude photographs that are characterized
by Mr. Ford as 'hard core pornography. " As you know, Mr. Chair-
man, several of these photographs portray sexual perversion be-
tween male and female nudes. The least an objective summarizer
should have done was describe them in my own words. The Report,
on the contrary, suggests to anyone unacquainted with Evergreen
magazine that I am a prude who objects to artistic photographs
and a partisan insensed by irreverent cartoons of President
Nixon -- precisely contrary to clear statements in my speech.
Charge (D) represents the most significant distortion of my
speech. In a total of ten paragraphs the Report presumes to
summarize four "charges" from data which I presented to the
House by way of preface to what I termed prima facie evidence
"far more grave. This "far more grave" portion consumed almost
one-fourth of my total text. And all this is compressed in the
Report to five paragraphs under charge (D). There it is not
only inadequately but inexcusably presented to misread my mean-
ing.
I could cite several examples of this but the worst is found
on page 3 of the Report, as follows: "These associations (with
Albert Parvin, alleged international gamblers, and the Albert
Parvin Foundation) allegedly resulted in practicing law in
violation of Section 454, Title 28, U. S. Code, Practice of
Law by Justices and Judges." I am unable to fathom the mean-
ing of this sentence but my speech contains no such contention.
(5) The account of the Special Subcommittee's treatment of
information which I personally supplied concerning former em-
ployees and officials of the Parvin-Dohrmann Company is related
in two separate sections of the Report with the result that my
cooperation is concealed and minimized. On page 25, it is
stated that my Legislative Assistant, Robert T. Hartmann, sup-
plied your staff with the names of six former employees. In
-5-
fact, upon my instructions Mr. Hartmann on May 20 supplied
your staff with seven names, one of whom was the "former"
official of the Albert Parvin Company" mentioned on page 15.
Prior to this I had personally given this information to
Members of the Special Subcommittee and my Assistant handed
your staff investigators a Xerox copy of my original hand-
written notes. Incredibly, the Report claims that "the Sub-
committee independently received" the information concerning
the seventh prospective witness referred to on page 15.
The Report takes two pages to describe the alleged diffi-
culties encountered at the Department of Justice with respect
to its investigative file on this key prospective witness.
Neither is any credit given me for arranging, at your re-
quest and that of Mr. McCulloch, your June I conference with
the Attorney General which I understand helped to resolve
this problem. There is no doubt in my mind that this in-
dividual, and others, must be questioned under oath in the
course of any complete investigation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, may I comment briefly upon certain questions of law
and procedure which, after reading the Report, leave me puzzled to say
the least. On page 1 the Report states that "thus far all potential
witnesses have been cooperative" so no subpoenas have been necessary.
By what legal logic does the staff reach this extraordinary conclusion?
How can the appearance of cooperativeness ensure that the potential
witness is telling the truth, much less the whole truth. The truly
"uncooperative" witness probably would plead self-incrimination and
provide no information whatsoever. The purpose of the subpoena power
in Congressional and other investigations is to produce testimony under
oath and subject to the penalties of perjury. I cannot perceive how
you can conduct a meaningful investigation, "neither witch-hunt nor
whitewash" as promised, without obtaining sworn testimony and the pro-
duction of private records other than those conveniently volunteered
by the accused and his associates.
The Report barely mentions on page 10 the expert and thoughtful letter
which Mr. Wyman sent you on May 6 concerning proper investigative pro-
cedure. On page 12 the Report notes but does not detail an 11-page
submission on June 1 by Judge Rifkind, attorney for the accused, en-
titled "Role of Counsel and Related Procedural Matters." Without
questioning the right and duty of counsel to attempt any and every
advantage for his client, Justice Douglas, I must respectfully in-
quire whether Judge Rifkind's unchallenged memorandum has been ac-
cepted by the Subcommittee and is currently guiding the staff investi-
gation. Obviously Mr. Wyman's suggestions are not.
-6-
It seems to me that both submissions should have been included in this
Report and should now be made available promptly to all Members of the
House, together with the procedural guidelines which the Special Sub-
committee is in fact observing.
Particularly disturbing is the apparently inadvertent disclosure on page
50 of the Report in the next to the last paragraph of Judge Rifkind's
letter, wherein he states:
"We have responded, at this point, to all allegations made
with some dégree of particularity. Since the gentlemen who
made the charges have not yet accepted the subcommittee's
invitation to produce by May 8, 1970, evidence to support
their allegations, there may remain one or two charges
insufficiently defined to make an answer possible."
How did the attorney for the accused on May 18 know (1) that the subcom-
mittee had invited other Members of Congress to submit evidence to support
their allegations by May 8 and (2) whether they had or had not replied to
this invitation?
Clearly, here is tacit admission of improper communication between the
attorney for the accused and the staff of the Special Subcommittee with
respect to internal communications among Members of the House of Repre-
sentatives. This paragraph also indicates a future expectation on the
part of Judge Rifkind that he will be advised of the contents of communi-
cations by Members of the House to the Chairman of the Subcommittee con-
cerning charges against his client.
The adversary proceeding of a formal impeachment trial by the Senate clearly
permits the accused and/or his counsel to be advised of the charges against
him. When such charges are still unformulated and unappraised by the whole
House or even by the Full Committee on the Judiciary no such right exists.
Counsel for the accused does not sit in the Grand Jury Room. If any such
procedure is being pursued by the Special Subcommittee, or clandestinely
by the staff, the result can only be a sweeping whitewash of every allega-
tion as it appears.
In summary, this Report clearly demonstrates that while the demand for a
full investigation of the conduct of Justice Douglas has truly been a bi-
partisan effort, the normal safeguards of the two-party system are not
functioning in the staff investigation undertaken by the Special Subcommittee.
Those Members who have publicly gone on record for a full investigation
into the conduct of Justice Douglas are not, obviously, properly represented
at the staff level in this investigation. They are not, it seems, repre-
sented at all.
From cover sheet to its final sentence before the Chronology on page 26,
the staff Report betrays a basic and persistent distortion of the true
-7-
role of a House committee investigation in the Constitutional process
of impeachment. It states:
"Hopefully, during this period (60 days), the Subcommittee
will receive all the information it needs for a final assess-
ment of the validity of the charges against Associate Justice
William O. Douglas."
The function of the subcommittee is not to make a final assessment. It
is to present all the available and relevant facts and evidence to the
Members of the full committee, in the first instance; and to the Members
of the House of Representatives in the final instance. Only the House as
a whole has the power of impeachment, and even this is not a final assess-
ment.
The final assessment of the validity of the charges is made in the Senate
sitting as a court of impeachment. From this there is no appeal. The
preliminary assessment required of the House as a whole is whether the
charges and preliminary showing of evidence are of sufficient gravity to
warrant a formal trial in the interests of both the public and of the
accused.
The concluding sentence and the whole tenor of this Report seem to envisage
the Special Subcommittee's investigation as the start of a scries of judi-
cial proceedings and appeals, with adversary rules applicable all the
way -- at least to the benefit of the accused. Thus, an appeal may be
taken from the Special Subcommittee to the Full Committee and then to the
whole House. Under this curious concept, the United States Senate would
become the Supreme Court of impeachment. Much as this role might please
some in the other body, it is not at all the Constitutional concept.
In impeachment, the Senate is the sole court, original and final, judge
and jury. The role of the House at no time becomes judicial in character;
it is investigator, grand jury and (if it votes to impeach) prosecutor at
the bar of the Senate. This is clearly established by the Constitution
and by all the precedents. Significantly, it is totally ignored in the
final phrase of Judge Rifkind's letter to the Chairman of the Special Sub-
committee:
"I very much appreciate the opportunity you have given us to
expose the lack of merit in the allegations and to vindicate
the reputation of Mr. Justice Douglas."
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I express the hope that your staff Report --
the confidential nature of which is explicable only on the basis of its
bias -- does not reflect the attitude of your Special Subcommittee or of
yourself.
-8-
No one knows better than I the legislative workload which still burdens
the Committee on the Judiciary. It was for this reason, rather than any
lack of confidence in your thoroughness or fairness, that I openly favored
a bipartisan Select Committee with an independent investigative staff to
undertake this important and wide-ranging inquiry. It was for the same
reason that I requested that those Members who favored the Select Committee
alternative be permitted staff representation to augment your regular
staff and to ensure that their rights and their viewpoints would be pro-
tected and properly presented. Clearly, they are not.
I gave my informal agreement to a 60-day time extension for your investi-
gation because no responsible Member of the House, on a Constitutional
question of this moment, would wish to act in haste or in the absence of
every available element of testimony and evidence. But I have grave reser-
vations whether this will ever be obtained under the cursory and one-sided
procedures revealed by this staff Report.
As I previously advised you (in the portions of my letter deleted from
the Report) I am not only continuing my personal search for relevant in-
formation but am obtaining authoritative legal opinions both in response
to your specific requests and otherwise, which I shall make available to
the House at the proper time. In the interim I most respectfully renew
my request for access to the information being anassed by your Special
Subcommittee, adequate staff representation, public hearings and the in-
clusion of all pertinent documentary materials in the public report of
the committee.
While I anticipate that you may not be disposed to change your position
on some of my requests, I respectfully submit that as a minimum I be sup-
plied with every item of information and copies of all communications
between the Special Subcommittee and the Accused and his Counsel, Judge
Rifkind, and be given the courtesy of an opportunity to respond to such
communications prior to their inclusion in a printed document or their
consideration by the Members of the Special Subcommittee or the full Com-
mittee on the Judiciary.
I also respectfully request that this letter be made available as soon
as practicable to all Members of the Special Subcommittee with the sug-
gestion that they reexamine the June 20 staff Report in the light of my
comments. I must also ask that all my correspondence with you in this
matter be made available to the Members of the Special Subcommittee in
full context and not in part or in paraphrase. I would think this cour-
tesy should apply to similar communications from other Members.
Please be assured of my continuing and warm personal respect and regard.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford, M. C.
Enclosures
CC to: The Honorable William M. McCulloch
GERALD R. FORD
MICHIGAN OFFICE:
FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
425 CHERRY STREET SE.
GRAND RAPIDS
ZIP 49502
Congress of the United States
Office of the Minority Leader
House of Representatives
Clashington, D.C. 20515
May 20, 1970
The Honorable Emanuel Celler
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
U. S. House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of May 15, requesting my views on the meaning
of the "good behaviour" clause of Article III, Section 1 of the Consti-
tution with reference to impeachments of members of the Federal Judiciary.
I am indeed aware that this question has been vigorously debated through-
out our history. My own review of the background of impeachments and
my views on "good behaviour", supported by some distinguished opinion
in the other body on the occasion of the last impeachment trial, occupy
Deleted in Report
perhaps one-third of my April 15 speech to the House. A marked copy is
enclosed.
I am also aware that Judge Rifkind, who is retained by Associate Justice
Douglas, has taken public exception to a single sentence from my argument,
which states not so much my personal opinion as what I believe to be a
fair summary of the few precedents. Judge Rifkind has branded this "a
subversive notion" and I am happy to have your calmer conclusion that it
is legitimately arguable.
With very real respect, however, I submit that it puts the cart before
the horse to argue the law in this specific instance in the absence of
all the Facts. It certainly is possible that a nore compelling and learned
summary of precedents and prior argument on "good behaviour" can be made
than the preliminary one I have made; indeed, I am in the process of doing
exactly that. This will be useful, however, only in the context of the
evidence and testimony which I have every confidence the Special Subcommittee
will fully develop in its investigation for the information of the House.
As previously stated I stand ready to cooperate in every way in getting
the truth and the whole truth on the record in this matter.
It is cry conviction, Mr. Chairman, that when all the facts are known the
Members will have little difficulty in deciding whether or not they square
with the Constitutional standards of judicial conduct.
Warm personal regards,
Gerald R. Ford, M. C.
CC to: The Honorable William M. McCulloch
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--HOLD FOR RELEASE IN SUNDAY AM's--
August 9, 1970
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
I am gratified that Chairman Celler of the Committee on the Judiciary has
agreed publicly to open hearings on the impeachment of Associate Justice William
O. Douglas, with witnesses examined under oath, as I have asked from the outset.
The Chairman's commitment is conditioned, however, as to time and cir-
cumstances. Public hearings will be in order, he stated in an August 5 news
release, "when the special subcommittee is satisfied that the facts indicate
that an impeachable offense may have been committed." The definition of "an
impeachable offense" thus becomes crucial to the conduct of free and full pub-
lic hearings.
The Constitution clearly entrusts the determination of this question to
the conscience of the whole House of Representatives, which has the "sole power
of impeachment." In response to an earlier request from Chairman Celler, as
detailed in my attached letter to him, I have provided members of the Committee
on the Judiciary with an independent and comprehensive legal memorandum on
this question which was prepared by the Detroit, Michigan law firm of Dykema,
Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg.
My own personal views on this legal question were stated in my April 15
speech on the floor of the House, a copy of which is also attached.
###
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
December 4, 1970
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
I am disappointed but not surprised by the action of the Democratic Majority
of the Special Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
It has been evident from the outset that its so-called investigation into
the conduct of Associate Justice Douglas would not be vigorously pursued or
objectively evaluated.
It makes a mockery of the constitutional duty of Congress to attempt to end
a matter of such importance to the American people and to the integrity of the
Supreme Court of the United States without one public hearing or a single word of
sworn testimony.
I have not seen the final report of the Subcommittee which I understand
contains additional evidence of impropriety and misbehavior on the part of Justice
Douglas, which the Majority of the Subcommittee chose to gloss over. For the
present I can only say that this matter is far from finished and that the sentiment
of House Members, both Democrats and Republicans, is not accurately reflected in
the Subcommittee's vote.
###
Office
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
December 4, 1970
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
I am disappointed but not surprised by the action of the Democratic Majority
of the Special Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
It has been evident from the outset that its so-called investigation into
the conduct of Associate Justice Douglas would not be vigorously pursued or
objectively evaluated.
It makes a mockery of the constitutional duty of Congress to attempt to end
a matter of such importance to the American people and to the integrity of the
Supreme Court of the United States without one public hearing or a single word of
sworn testimony.
I have not seen the final report of the Subcommittee which I understand
contains additional evidence of impropriety and misbehavior on the part of Justice
Douglas, which the Majority of the Subcommittee chose to gloss over. For the
present I can only say that this matter is far from finished and that the sentiment
of House Members, both Democrats and Republicans, is not accurately reflected in
the Subcommittee's vote.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
HOLD FOR RELEASE
WED. AMs, DEC. 16, 1970
STATEMENT OF REP. GERALD R. FORD (R-Mich.)
While a partisan majority of the Special Subcommittee whitewashes
Justice Douglas in its conclusions, the contents of its 924-page report conderin
his conduct and cry for more searching inquiry.
Aside from legalistic arguments, over the past decade Justice Douglas'
extensive extra-judicial earnings and activities have impaired his usefulness
and clouded his contribution to the United States Supreme Court. I am of the
opinion that he did practice law in the course of these non-judicial pursuits,
did intervene improperly in affairs outside the scope of the judicial branch of
the government, and did show poor judgment in his personal financial transactions,
to say the least.
Mr. Hutchinson's cogent Minority Views should have been unanimously
subscribed to by the Special Subcommittee. Not all the evidence is in nor has
it been tested in the normal way. Only an excess of personal or partisan loyalty
or a failure fully to study the documents can explain an attempt to close the
case at this point.
I return to the guideline of a great Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court, the late Benjamin Cardozo, with which I closed my April 15 speech to the
House.
"Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an
honor the most sensitive, is then the standard
of behaviour."
If one uses the Cardozo standard rather than the Rifkind standard, Justice
Douglas clearly fails the test of good behaviour.
#
#
#
#
#