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
4530422
label
Supreme Court
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4530422
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Supreme Court
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Secretary Reference Materials
subjects
Supreme Court of the United States. (02/02/1790 - )
Judicial impeachment
Presidential appointments
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4530422
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1971-11-30
month
11
year
1971
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1968-07-01
month
7
year
1968
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a871e300d67203ac
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D110, folder "Supreme Court" of the Gerald R.
Ford Congressional Papers 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. Gerald R. Ford 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
by
U. S. SENATOR ROBERT P. GRIFFIN
National Press Club
July 30, 1968
President Cromley, distinguished guests and
members of the Press Club.
I am grateful for the opportunity to appear in
this justly-famous forum to discuss a subject of
historic importance and proportions.
There are some in the country who would brush
the current controversy aside on the ground that it
is just petty bickering and jockeying for partisan
political advantage. Those who take such a view are
short-sighted.
The issues involved in this struggle reach far
beyond party lines to the very core of our system of
government.
At the outset, let me re-emphasize that the junior
Senator from Michigan has not - - and does not now --
challenge or question the Constitutional power of this
President, or of any President, to make nominations to
fill vacancies on the Supreme Court.
As some of the columnists and editorial writers
have been saying, with a lot of ink, any President ---
even a President in the waning months of his final year
in office -- has the Constitutional power (perhaps even
a responsibility, when there is really a vacancy) to
make such nominations --- and he continues to have that
Constitutional power even through the last day of his
Administration.
But, of course, that is not the point. Some have
not understood, or will not recognize, that under our
Constitution the power of this President -- or of any
President -- to nominate, constitutes only half of the
appointing process.
The other half of the appointing process lies
within the jurisdiction of the Senate, which has not
only the Constitutional pawer, but a solemn obligation,
to determine whether to confirm such a nomination.
Some are suggesting that the Senate's role in
this situation is merely to ascertain whether a Supreme
Court nominee is "qualified," in the sense that he
possesses some minimum measure of academic training
or professional experience.
Digitized from Box D110 of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
- 2 -
Any such limited view of the Senate's responsibility
with respect to Supreme Court nominations is wrong, and
does not square with the clear intent of those who
conferred the "advice and consent" power upon the Senate.
In the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote
that the requirement of Senate approval in the appointing
process would, in his words,
"
be an excellent check upon
a spirit of favoritism of the President,
and would tend greatly to prevent the
appointment of unfit characters from
state prejudice, from family connection,
from personal attachments, or from a view
to popularity."
Admittedly, the Senate has moved a considerable
distance away from Hamilton's ideal with respect to
appointments in the Executive branch. But that is
somewhat understandable. Cabinet members and other
officers in the Executive branch serve at the pleasure
of the President, and they are responsible to him.
The Senate has generally recognized that, unless
the President is given wide latitude in selecting his
Cabinet, he could not be held accountable for the
Executive branch of government.
Throughout our history, only 8 nominations for
Cabinet posts -- 8 out of 564 -- have failed to win
Senate confirmation.
And the last such instance, of course, was the
refusal in 1959 of a Senate majority, led by Senator
Lyndon Johnson, to confirm the nomination of Lewis
Strauss as Secretary of Commerce in President Eisenhower's
cabinet.
Although it has been unusual over the years for
the Senate to reject non-judicial appointments, interestingly
enough, it was not so unusual for Senator Lyndon Johnson.
In 1949, President Harry Truman nominated Leland
Olds -- not for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court --
but for a third term on the Federal Power Commission.
Since Olds had already served on the Commission for 10
years, and had been confirmed by the Senate twice before,
it was difficult for anyone to argue that he lacked
qualifications.
But that did not deter the then junior Senator
from Texas. Although Olds was supported by Senator
Hubert Humphrey, Johnson played a key role in getting
the Senate to reject the Olds nomination.
- 3 -
Afterwards, there was general comment in the
press that the real issue had nothing to do with
qualifications, but everything to do with government
policy concerning the regulation of natural gas.
The recent Evans-Novak book, Lyndon Johnson:
The Exercise of Power, adds this interesting footnote
to the story (and I quote):
"There seems little doubt that Ickes,
nursing his old grudge against Olds, was
egging on his protege (Senator Lyndon)
Johnson. Abe Fortas, who had been Ickes'
Under Secretary
...
although now in
private law practice, was the behind-the-
scenes counsel for Johnson, supplying him
with material and arguments against Olds."
Although there have been a few such notable
exceptions, generally speaking, the Senate has been
sparing with the exercise of its "advice and consent"
power in connection with appointments in the Executive
branch -- to non-judicial posts.
But the reasons for a limited or nominal Senate
role with respect to Executive branch appointments do
not apply when it comes to nominations for lifetime
positions on the Supreme Court -- the highest tribunal
in the independent, third branch of government.
A distinguished former colleague, Senator Paul
Douglas, put it this way:
"The 'advice and consent' of the Senate
required by the Constitution for such appoint-
ments (to the Judiciary) was intended to be
real, and not nominal. A large proportion of
the members of the (Constitutional) Convention
were fearful that if judges owed their appoint-
ments solely to the President the Judiciary,
even with life tenure, would then become
dependent upon the executive and the powers
of the latter would become overweening. By
requiring joint action of the legislature and
the executive, it was believed that the
Judicary would be made more independent."
Throughout our history, there have been 125 hominations
submitted for the Supreme Court. Of that number, 21 or one-
sixth, have failed to win Senate approval.
Incidentally, the question of qualifications or fitness
was an issue in only 4 of those 21 instances.
- 4 -
When debating nominations for the Supreme Court,
the Senate has never hesitated to look beyond mere
qualifications to consider a nominee's philosophy, his
writings, his views on issues, charges of cronyism or
other matters.
There have been 16 nominations for the Supreme
Court submitted by Presidents during the final year of
their Administration.
History records that the Senate confirmed 7 of
those (including Chief Justice Marshall)
But
the
Senate refused to confirm the other nine generally
on the ground that the vacancy should be filled by the
new President.
In almost every previous instance, when a President
has had an opportunity during his last year in office to
submit a Supreme Court nomination, the vacancy came about
by reason of the death of a sitting justice.
Never before has there been such obvious maneuvering
to create a "vacancy" for a political purpose.
Coming at a time when the people are in the process
of choosing a new government, such maneuvering not only
demeans the Court but it is an affront to the electorate.
It suggests a shocking lack of faith in our
system.
And it may also register an astonishing vote of
no confidence in Hubert Horatio -- and his chances in
November.
I don't know who will be elected President in
November. But I do know that this Nation is seething
with unrest and is calling for change. A new generation
wants to be heard and demands a voice in charting the
future of America.
Particularly at this point in our history, the
Senate would be unwise to put its stamp of approval on
a cynical effort to thwart the orderly processes of
change.
What is the reason for such haste in denying the
people a voice in shaping the course of the Supreme
Court for years to come?
Of course, there is no urgent reason. Indeed, there
is not even a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Incidentally, in considering the role of Chief
Justice Warren in all this, I ran across an interesting
commentary in The New Republic. It reads like this:
- 5 -
"Executive officers serve under the
direction and at the pleasure of the
President. It is unobjectionable, and
often right, that they should make their
resignation effective at his pleasure
But judicial officers are independent of
the President
"It is perhaps a small, symbolic
point only, but the symbols of judicial
independence are not trivial; they are
an important source of judicial power
and effectiveness.
The point, moreover, goes beyond
the symbolic, as Chief Justice Warren
himself ingeniously emphasized at his
press conference on July 5. He was
still in office, said the Chief Justice,
and would return to preside in the fall
if the Senate fails to confirm Abe Fortas,
of whom he thinks well.
That may not have been intended as
a form of pressure, but it looked like it.
The pressure was in any event implicit in
the manner of Chief Justice Warren's
retirement
Retirements which are
effective on a date that is certain and
irrevocable, ensure that a replacement
will be considered on his own merits, not
as a choice between himself and his
predecessor.
"The practice of retiring or resigning,
as Chief Justice Warren did, effective upon
the qualification of a successor, is un-
precedented in the Supreme Court. It seems
to have grown up among the lower federal
judges. It has nothing to commend it. "
- 6 -
Back at the beginning of this crusade, before
Mr. Fortas and Mr. Thornberry were even named, I made
it clear that I would vote against confirmation of any
nominee by President Johnson to be Chief Justice --
whether he named a Republican or Democrat; a liberal,
conservative or a moderate.
I took the position, in view of the circumstances
and political purposes surrounding the resignation, that
it would be in the best interest of the Court and the
Nation if the next Chief Justice were named by the new
President after the people have an opportunity to vote
in November.
To be quite candid, I suspect that I might have
been a lonely figure standing there on principle if
President Johnson had not been so accommodating by
submitting the particular nominations that he did.
Now, I have several additional reasons to oppose
the pending nominations.
One additional reason is that I am convinced
Mr. Fortas and Mr. Thornberry were selected primarily
because they are close personal friends of long-standing
of President Johnson, and not because they are among the
best qualified in the Nation to fill the particular
positions.
The charge of "cronyism" is not new to Senate
confirmation debates, but it is highly unusual for
any President to subject himself to that charge with
respect to a nomination for the Supreme Court of the
United States. And never before in history has any
President been so bold as to subject himself to the
charge of "cronyism" with respect to two Supreme Court
nominations at the same time.
Some say that if a "crony" -- nominated because he
is a "crony" -- is "qualified," he should be approved.
I reject this view because it diminishes public respect
for the Supreme Court -- at a time when there is a
desperate need to rebuild and enhance confidence in
the Court.
In the case of Mr. Thornberry, I am convinced, on
the basis of the record and personal knowledge, that --
while he is a good and a fine gentleman -- he is just
not (as Senator Norris Cotton put it) "Supreme Court
material."
- 7 -
In the case of Mr. Fortas, while I am satisfied that
he is a brilliant lawyer, I am not satisfied that he
possesses an adequate sense of propriety and other
qualities which are particularly appropriate and necessary
to be Chief Justice of the United States.
When it comes to selecting the man in the United
States best suited to be Chief Justice, I would
prefer and I believe most people would prefer --
the type of lawyer who would not be asked to proposition
newspaper publishers on behalf of a Baker or Jenkins; and
who, if asked, would refuse.
Whatever our frailties as public servants, as
lawyers, or as members of the press, I am sure most
of us do not deserve the skepticism with which we are
often regarded by the public. Nevertheless, we can
never forget that our apparent motives, as well as
our actual motives, play an important part in determining
the degree of confidence which the public develops
towards the institutions with which we are associated.
I am confident that the public does not approve
of the admitted telephone call made by Mr. Justice
Fortas to a business friend, criticizing a public
statement that Vietnam war costs would run $5 billion
higher than Administration estimates. Incidentally,
the statement made at Hot Springs, and retracted after
Mr. Fortas' phone call, turned out to be very accurate.
I am confident that the public does not condone
the fact that Mr. Justice Fortas admittedly participated
in the decision-making process of the Executive branch
of government on such matters as the Vietnam war and the
Detroit riots.
But more disturbing is the fact that Mr. Fortas
stated to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he is proud
of his extra-judicial activities, and that he "did not see
anything wrong" with them.
Judges -- particularly Justices of the Supreme Court --
have no license to ignore the separation of powers
principle which is at the core of our system of government.
In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called upon
Chief Justice Stone for assistance in arriving at executive
decisions in connection with wartime rubber problems. In
response to the President's request Chief Justice Stone
replied as follows:
- 8 -
"I have your letter of the 17th
Personal and patriotic considerations alike
afford powerful incentives for my wish to
comply with your request that I assist you
in arriving at some solution of the pending
rubber problem. But most anxious, not to
say painful, reflection has led me to the
conclusion that I cannot rightly yield to
my desire to render for you a service which
as a private citizen I should not only feel
bound to do but one which I should undertake
with zeal and enthusiasm
"A judge, and especially the Chief Justice,
cannot engage in political debate or make public
defense of his acts. When his action is judicial
he may always rely upon the support of the defined
record upon which his action is based and of the
opinion in which he and his associates unite as
stating the ground of decision. But when he
participates in the action of the executive or
legislative departments of government he is
without those supports. He exposes himself to
attack and indeed invites it, which because of
his peculiar situation inevitably impairs his
value as a judge and the appropriate influence
of his office.
We must not forget that it is the judgment
of history that two of my predecessors, Jay and
Ellsworth, failed in the obligations of their
office and impaired their legitimate influence
by participation in executive action in the
negotiation of treaties. True, they repaired
their mistake in part by resigning their
commissions before returning to their judicial
duties, but it is not by mere chance that every
Chief Justice since has confined his activities
=
strictly to the performance of his judicial duties
Today, with respect for law at a low ebb, with our
ability to maintain order in our cities seriously in
question for the first time in our history, and with
sizable groups of Americans convinced that the basic
institutions of our society are a sham and a fraud,
the rewarding of an "old friend" with the Chief
Justiceship is uniquely inappropriate.
- 9 -
If ever there was a time when a "Caesar's wife"
appointment would be of great value to reinforce public
confidence in the Supreme Court -- this is such a time.
If there were ever a time when "cronyism" was a
disservice to the Nation, this is the time.
Even before the current controversy erupted, public
confidence in the Supreme Court had fallen to an all-time
low in modern history. According to a Gallup survey in
June, 60 per cent of the American people had an unfavorable
opinion of the Supreme Court.
Undoubtedly, much of this disfavor can be attributed
to widespread dissatisfaction with some of the more
controversial rulings of the Court in various fields.
But the prestige of the Supreme Court does not hinge
solely on the result it reaches in particular cases. I am
convinced that there are other, perhaps more compelling,
considerations which also influence the standing of the
Court with the people.
For example, the same Gallup poll reported that 61%
of the people favor a change in the method of selecting
Supreme Court justices. This strongly suggests that the
circumstances which surround an appointment of a justice
profoundly affect the capacity of the Court to merit
public confidence.
I deeply regret that President Johnson has seen fit
in this campaign season to drag the Supreme Court into
the political arena.
But in another sense, perhaps this debate can ultimately
serve a higher and a nobler purpose. For it can serve to
lift the Supreme Court, once again, above and out of politics.
If we prevail, there will be hope that future Presidents
will select a Benjamin Cardozo for the Supreme Court, as
Hoover did -- not because of personal or political con-
siderations --- but because he was the most outstanding
jurist available in the land.
In this battle, we are right. Because we are right,
time is on our side.
And I'm confident that we are going to win.
### ###
PPI-49
Supreme Court
(RELEASEAT 630 PM EDT)
OHLYOMSNAVID
WASHINGTON--THE AFL-CIO TEXTILE WORKERS UNION MADE PUBLIC
TODAY h FILE OF CONFIDENTIAL CORRESPONDENCE INVOLVING THE
CONNECTION BETWEEN SUPREME COURT agminee CLEMENT F. HAYNSWORTH JR.
AND PENDING MACHINE FIRM DUNING sh CASE HR HELPED DECIDE.
UNION PRESIDENT WILLIAM POLLOCK SAID IN A STATEMENT THAT
HAYNSWORTH*S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE COMPANY INDICATED "POSSIBLE
BIAS" IN HIS RULING AS A APPEALS COURT MEMBER.
IN 1963, haynswerth VOTED WITH THE 3-2 MAJORITY IN FAVOR OF
THE DARLINGTON MANUE ACTORING 000, AND AQAINST THE TEXTHER WORKERS
INTION WHICH TAD PROTESTED THE CLOSING OF A MELL AS DEING AN
AMTILABOR DEVICE.
THE UNION LATER CONTENDED THAT HAYNSWORTH NAD BEEN INFLUENCED BY
THE FACT HE WAS FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF CARCLINA VEND-A-MATIC
WHICH SUPPLIED VENDING MACHINES TO SEVERAL MILLS OWNED BY
MARLINGTON'S PARENT COMPANY, DEERING, MILLIKEN, INC.
IN ANNOUNCING PRESIDENT NIXON'S NOMINATION OF THE SOUTH CAROLINIAN,
PRESS SECRETARY RONALD ZIECLER SAID HAYNSWORTH HAD BEEN EXONERATED
OF ANY CONFILICT BY INTEREST IN THE CASE. ZPEGIER DISTRIBUTED
EXCERPTS OF LETTERS FROM THEN CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE SIMON E.
SQBOLDFF AND ATTY. GEN. ROBERT F. KENNEDY TO THAT EFFECT.
POLLOCK SAID ZIEGLER RELEASED ONLY "SELECTED EXCERPTS OF THIS
CORRESPONDENCE, ALONG WITH MISLEADING CHARACTERIZATIONS THEREOF."
THE UNION READ SAID THAT WHILE NO WRONGDOING WAS ESTABLISHED AND
THE TEXTILE WORKERS' ATTORNEY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS WITH AN APOLOGY,
THE QUESTION REMAINED THAT HAYNSWORTH SHOULD HAVE DISQUALIFIED
RICELF FROM THE DECISION.
PCLLOCK CLAIMED TRAT THE QUESTION RAISED BY THE UNION IN 1963
WAS WHETHER ATTEMPTED BRIBERY WAS INVOLVED, NOT CONFLICT OF
INTEREST.
HE COMMENTED: "IN HIS RELEASE OF SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM LETTERS,
AND HIS STATEMENTS TO THE PRESS, MR. ZIEGLER HAS ENDEAVORED TO
CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT JUDGE HAVNSWORTH WA. CLEARED OF ANY
CHARGE CF CONF LICT OF INTEREST IN CONNECTION WITH THE DARLINGTON CASE.
IT IS EVIDENT THAT HE WAS CLEARED OF A QUITE DIFFERENT CHARGE.'
HE ADDED THAT THE UNION HAD NOT PURSOED THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Q BESTION FOR FOUR REASONS:
--THE UNION HAD RELAYED TO SCBOLOFF A MUCH MORE SERIOUS CHARGE
WHICH HAD BEEN PROVEN FALSE. "IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE JUDGES WERE
NOT PLEASED WITH THE UNION: AND THE UNION WOULD INEVITABLY BE A
LITIGANT BEFORE THOSE JUDGES YEARS TO COME. " POLLOCK OBSERVED.
**THE U. S. CODE LEAVES IT TO THE JUDGE'S OWN OPINION WHETHER IT
IS IMPROPER FOR HIM TO SIT IN JUDGMENT OF N CASE.
--THE UNION DID NOT AND DOES NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS,
THE UNION INTENDED TO ASK THE SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW THE CASE.
THE COURT UNANTMOUSLY REVERSED PART OF THE APPEALS COURT VERDICT.
8723--TS128PED
Supreme Court
NEW CHIEF JUSTICE
If past performance is a reliable indicator, and in
and public life." This is true, and it is a fact that will
this instance we believe it is, the designation of Judge
be an asset to the court. The opinions he has written
Warren E. Burger as the next Chief Justice of the
as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for
United States foreshadows a major change in the influ-
the District since 1956 stamp him as anything but a
ence of the Supreme Court on the shape of our society.
judicial "activist." He believes that it is the function of
above any question or suspicion.
The President emphasized that Judge Burger is a
The Evening Star (Washington, D. C.)
man of "unquestioned integrity throughout his private
May 22, 1969
4
FOCUS
Supreme Cart
C
Fact
High Court Appointment
Sheet
A NEW CHIEF JUSTICE:
A NEW COURT ERA
President Nixon May 21 moved toward creation of a
Retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren has served in
Nixon Court and what could well be a new Court era with
that seat for 16 years, five years more than any other
his nomination of Warren Earl Burger, 61, judge of the
Chief Justice appointed in the 20th century. Chief Jus-
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Colum-
tices appointed in this century have served an average
bia, as the fifteenth Chief Justice of the United States.
of ten years, barely half the average 20-year term of
In accord with his campaign statements describing
Chief Justices appointed in the 19th century.
the qualifications of the men he would appoint to the High
Presidents Taft, Harding, Hoover, Roosevelt, Tru-
Court and in keeping with the law-and-order emphasis of
man and Eisenhower each named a Chief Justice. Presi-
his Administration, Mr. Nixon appointed a man known in
dent Johnson sent the nomination of Associate Justice
legal circles for his conservative stance on questions of
Abe Fortas to the Senate for confirmation as successor to
criminal law. (See box for Nixon statements.)
Chief Justice Warren, but was forced by Senate opposi-
Mr. Nixon had attacked recent Supreme Court de-
tion to withdraw the nomination. (1968 Almanac p.
cisions on the rights of accused persons for "hamstring-
531)
ing" the forces of order against the criminal forces in
Twentieth Century Chief Justices. President Taft
society. Judge Burger recently criticized the same Su-
in 1910 elevated Associate Justice Edward D. White to
preme Court holdings: "This seeming anxiety of judges to
the Chief Justice's seat. White thus became the first
protect every accused person from every consequence of
Associate Justice to ascend to the leadership of the
his voluntary utterances is giving rise to myriad rules,
Court. President Washington had attempted to name an
subrules, variations and exceptions which even the most
Associate Justice, John Rutledge, as Chief Justice in
alert and sophisticated lawyers and judges are taxed to
1795, but the Senate had rejected such a nomination.
follow. Each time judges add nuances to these 'rules' we
Eleven years later Taft himself became Chief Jus-
make it less likely that any police officer will be able to
tice, named by President Warren G. Harding in 1921.
follow the guidelines we lay down."
Harding's Secretary of State, Charles Evans Hughes, a
President Nixon, in announcing his nomination of
former Associate Justice of the Court, had been consid-
Burger, described the role of the Chief Justice as "guar-
ered for the post, but had made it plain that he would
dian of the Constitution." Burger's reputation as a man
not only decline the offer but also resign as Secretary
opposed to such judicial activism as that which has
of State if it were made.
characterized the Warren Court appeared to qualify him
Hughes, an Associate Justice from 1910 until 1916,
to lead the more conservative Court which Mr. Nixon en-
resigned to run unsuccessfully for President. He became
visioned.
Chief Justice in 1930, appointed by President Hoover to
Burger, a native of Minnesota where he worked his
succeed Taft.
way through law school and practiced law for more than
President Roosevelt, in choosing Hughes' successor
20 years, was Assistant Attorney General in charge of
in 1941, followed the precedent set by Taft in 1910, and
the Civil Division of the Justice Department (1953-56)
elevated an Associate Justice, Harlan F. Stone, to the
serving under Attorneys General Herbert Brownell and
post of Chief Justice. Stone, a former Attorney General,
William P. Rogers. President Eisenhower in 1956 appoint-
had been appointed to the Court by President Coolidge
ed Burger to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
in 1925.
In the wake of the resignation of Associate Justice
Truman chose his Secretary of the Treasury, Fred
Abe Fortas amid controversy concerning the propriety of
M. Vinson, to become Chief Justice succeeding Stone
his extra-judicial activities, President Nixon emphasized
in 1946. President Eisenhower in 1953 appointed the
that Burger was a man "above all, qualified (for the post
popular Governor of California, Earl Warren, to lead
of Chief Justice) because of his unquestioned integrity
the Court.
throughout his private and public life."
Early Chief Justices. The Supreme Court in 1969 is
Sen. James O. Eastland (D Miss.), chairman of the
quite a different institution from that described in 1789
Senate Judiciary Committee, announced May 21 that the
as "the weakest of the three departments of power." That
Committee would hold hearings in early June on Bur-
description, from The Federalist, was written by Alex-
ger's nomination.
ander Hamilton, James Madison, and the man who was
Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D Mont.)
to become the first Chief Justice, John Jay.
May 18 said that the Senate had previously been "dere-
Hamilton further described the Court as having
lict in not scrutinizing more carefully the nominations for
"neither force nor will but merely judgment" with "no
the high court." He indicated that a more searching
influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction
Senate scrutiny would be directed at the nominations
either of the strength or of the wealth of the society" and
for Supreme Court appointments which President Nixon
unable to take any positive action.
sent to the Senate. He said that the Senate would make
John Jay, the first Chief Justice, served for five years
its own "extensive" investigation into the background of
-one of which he spent in England on a diplomatic mis-
nominees.
sion. He resigned to become governor of New York, an
COPYRIGHT 1969 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
Reproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients
May 22, 1969-PAGE 1
Court
"Perhaps chief among these other purposes was a desire to avoid extinguishing
the male line of a family by facilitating the death in action of its only surviving
son," the court said.
NY TIMES, 5/27/69, Washington dateline:
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that states may collect sales and
use taxes from servicemen, even if they are permanent residents of other states.
In an opinion by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court overturned a lower
court decision that state officials had said would play havoc with state tax-
collecting systems.
Thirty-five other states joined Connecticut in protesting to the Supreme
Court after the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a
Federal District Court's ruling that Connecticut could not collect its 3.5 per-
cent tax on sales and use of personal property.
The lower courts held that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, a
Federal measure passed for the benefit of servicemen during World War II, prevented
the enforcement of the tax. The relief law bars states from collecting taxes
on the incomes and personal property of out-of-state servicemen, but is silent
on the subject of sales and use taxes
The Supreme Court reasoned that the relief act was intended to spare ser-
vicemen from double taxation, a threat that does not exist with sales taxes as
it does with ad valorem taxes on personal property. Justice Stewart concluded
that Congress would have specifically mentioned sales and use taxes if it had
intended to include them in the reach of the law.
NY TIMES, 5/27/69, edit.
Disclosure that the Internal Revenue Service has been conducting prolonged
investigation of the financial dealings of the Parvin Foundation underscores
the unwisdom of Justice William 0. Douglas's original involvement in the founda-
tion's work,
In a letter to Mr. Parvin which was described in this newspaper yesterday,
Justice Douglas expressed the belief that the failure to conclude the investiga-
tion which began nearly three years ago represented an effort "to get me off the
Court.' Since the I.R.S. would have no bureaucratic motive of its own, this
is presumably an allusion to the Nixon Administration. While his resignation
as the paid president of the Parvin Foundation ends this unseemly chapter in
his career, Justice Douglas, in fairness to himself, to the Supreme Court, and
to the public, ought to draw the correct inferences from this episode.
Although he has many critics because of his sometimes extreme dissenting
views and because of his rather cavalier style as a judge, he also has many
admirers who respect his incisive mind and very considerable legal talents.
Whatever may be the wishes or intentions of his enemies, the substance of Justice
Douglas's work on the Court is not the issue. The issue is his unjudicial be-
havior in involving himself and the good name of the Court with a private
businessman whose own background and associations could at best only be described
as embarrassing
The same objection would lie against his involvement with a foundation even
if its source of funds were above reproach. Some highly respected and prestigious
foundations can also be quite controversial because of the nature of their grants
and projects. The only wise rule for Justice Douglas and his fellow judges at every
level of the judiciary is to keep clear of any outside involvements
From the Office of
139-69
REP. TOM RAILSBACK
19th District, Illinois
1123 House Office Building
Washington, D. C.
(202) 225-5906
Contact: John Burnett
May 26, 1969
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SPEECH OF REP. TOM RAILSBACK, R-ILL., DELIVERED ON THE HOUSE FLOOR 5/26/69
Mr. Speaker, serving on the nation's highest court is not and never can be a
part-time job. And yet, it apparently is considered just that by some of the men
who sit on the Supreme Court. We hear a lot of talk about requiring judges to make
a full disclosure of their income. We should prohibit our federal judges who are
paid as much as $60,000 per year from receiving outside earned income for services
performed which necessarily detract from their judicial duties.
The resignation of Justice Fortas because of his financial dealings with con-
victed stock market manipulator Louis Wolfson; the $12,000 annual payment to Justice
Willian O. Douglas by the Albert Parvin Foundation, which had dealings with the Las
Vegas gambling industry; and now the revelation that President Nixon's choice for
Chief Justice--Warren Burger--has been paid $6,000 by the philanthropic Mayo
Foundation as a trustee, demand an urgent change in the laws on the federal judi-
ciary.
Mr. Burger's nomination by the President is a good one. I am not commenting
on the interests of this able jurist with this worthy organization--a foundation
devoted exclusively to the advancement of medical technology. The President, in his
nationally televised statement, said Burger was a man of "unquestioned loyalty." I
concur in this.
But, the fact remains that at least two justices before him, namely Fortas and
Douglas, have received substantial amounts of outside income for outside work while
serving on the Supreme Court, thereby making their duties on the bench part-time
responsibilities.
A few days ago, I called upon Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the Judiciary Com-
mittee on which I serve, to begin public investigations into the financial dealings
- MORE -
Page 2-2-2-2-2
of not only Fortas and Douglas but of other federal judges as well.
As I said in my letter to the Chairman:
"My request is not based on wanting to impeach or punish any federal judge,
but rather to determine to what extent judges are receiving income from outside
sources" so that definitive legislation might result in correcting future impro-
prieties.
The inquiry is not a witch hunt. It is to be a constructive investigation
aimed at determining the need for legislation which may require federal judges to
reveal outside financial interests, whether in the nature of honorariums, consultant
fees or other remuneration; indeed, the result of our inquiry may be to prohibit
entirely payment for work that is not directly related to a judge's responsibilities
on the federal bench.
I am well aware of the meeting called June 10 of the U. S. Judicial Conference
to consider financial disclosure rules. It is my opinion that not only federal
judges but congressmen as well should disclose all income earned while not perform-
ing their federal duties and should be prohibited from earning any outside income
whatsoever. They should, however, be able to receive out-of-pocket expenses for
lecturing, writing, etc. The money which goes into their pockets should end there.
This would take away any initiative for them to go gallavanting around the country
to subsidize their judicial income.
Members of the federal judiciary and indeed members of the Congress are being
looked at by the public with a critical eye. The opinion by many of many govern-
ment is already jaundiced by the Fortas Affair, by the Douglas matter, and by the
sometimes rather disparaging view of "those politicians in Washington."
Let us define the nebulous guidelines of judicial conduct so that there can be
no opportunity for "impropriety" in the judiciary, much less any question about
conflict of interests.
- 30 -
From the Office of
140-69
REP. TOM RAILSBACK
19th District, Illinois
1123 House Office Building
Washington, D. C.
(202) 225-5906
Contact: John Burnett
May 26, 1969
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Rep. Tom Railsback, R-Ill., a member of the House Judiciary Com-
mittee, said today federal officials, including members of the Supreme Court
and the Congress, should be prohibited from earning outside income while
serving the government.
Railsback, in a speech on the House floor, said it was his opinion
"that not only federal judges but congressmen as well should disclose all
income earned while not performing their federal duties and should be pro-
hibited from earning any outside income whatsoever."
The Illinois Republican Mav 16 wrote Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the
Committee, demanding the panel investigate financial dealings of Justices
Fortas and Douglas and other federal Judges not "to impeach or punish any
federal judge, but rather to determine to what extent judges are receiving
income from outside sources."
"Serving on the nation's highest court is not and can never be a
part-time job. And yet, it apparently is considered just that by some of the
men who sit on the Supreme Court. We hear a lot of talk about requiring
judges to make full disclosure of their income. We should prohibit our federal
judges who are paid as much as $60,000 per year from receiving outside earned
income for services performed which necessarily detract from their judicial
duties," Railsback said.
- 30 -
From the Office of
REP. TOM RAILSBACK
19th District, Illinois
Supervilour
142-69
1123 House Office Building
Washington, D. C.
(202) 225-5906
Contact: John Burnett
May 28, 1969
ADV. FOR AM's WED., JUNE 4, 1969
REP. TOM RAILSBACK, R-ILL., REPORTS FROM WASHINGTON
A few days ago, in a speech on the House floor, I spoke out against
apparent judicial impropriety bordering on misconduct by some of the men who
sit on the nation's highest tribunal--the Supreme Court.
Serving on the High Court is not and can never be a part-time job.
And yet, it apparently is considered just that by at least two of the justices
who serve on it. There has been a lot of talk about requiring judges to make
full disclosure of their income. We should prohibit our federal judges who
are paid as much as $60,000 per year from receiving outside earned income for
performing services which necessarily detract from their judicial duties.
The resignation of Justice Fortas because of his financial dealings
with convicted stock market manipulator Louis Wolfson and the $12,000 annual
payment to Justice William O. Douglas by the Albert Parvin Foundation, which
had dealings with the Las Vegas gambling industry, demand an urgent change in
the laws on the federal judiciary.
The case against these two men is clear cut. Both Fortas and
Douglas, have received substantial amounts of outside income for outside work
while serving on the Supreme Court, thereby making their duties on the bench
part-time responsibilities.
I have called upon Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee on which I serve, to begin public investigations into the financial
dealings of not only Fortas and Douglas but of other federal judges as well.
I said in my letter to Chairman Celler:
- MORE -
Page 2-2-2-2-2
REP. TOM RAILSBACK, R-ILL., REPORTS FROM WASHINGTON
"My request is not based on wanting to impeach or punish any federal
judge, but rather to determine to what extent judges are receiving income from
outside sources" so that definitive legislation might result in correcting
future improprieties.
The investigation is not to be a witch hunt. It is to be a con-
structive inquiry aimed at determining the need for legislation which may
require federal judges to reveal outside financial interests, whether in the
nature of honorariums, consultant fees or any other remuneration. Indeed, the
result of our investigation may be to prohibit entirely any payment for work
that is not directly related to a judge's responsibilities on the federal bench.
Not only federal judges but congressmen as well should disclose all
income earned while not performing their federal duties and should be pro-
hibited from earning any outside income whatsoever. They should, however, be
able to receive out-of-pocket expenses for lecturing, writing, etc.
The money which goes into their pockets should stop there.
This would take away any initiative for them to go gallavanting
around the country to subsidize their judicial income.
Members of the federal judiciary and indeed, members of the Congress,
are being looked at by the public with a critical eye. The opinion by many of
many in the government is already jaundiced by the Fortas Affair, by the
Douglas matter and by the sometimes rather disparaging view of "those politi-
cians in Washington."
We must set out immediately to define the nebulous guidelines of
judicial and congressional conduct so that there can be no opportunity for
impropriety in the government--much less any question about conflict of
interests.
The taxpayers deserve that much.
- 30 -
UNITED Supreme STATES SENATOR Court FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA
STROM THURMOND
reports
TO THE PEOPLE
Major Committee Posts
Armed Services Subcommittees
Judiciary Subcommittees
Armed Services
Preparedness Investigating
Internal Security
Judiciary
Central Intelligence
Immigration-Naturalization
Appropriations (Defense) NATO Status of Forces
Constitutional Rights
Republican Campaign
Military Construction
Juvenile Delinquency
Adm. Practice & Procedure
Constitutional Amendments
Criminal Laws & Procedure
VOL. XV, NO. 19
JUNE 2, 1969
DOUGLAS IS NEXT
The resignation of Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas from
the Albert Parvin Foundation is only the first step. A sense of propriety
demands that he resign from the bench.
In the Fortas case, the American Bar Association has declared
that eight separate sections of the canons of judicial ethics were
violated. The Douglas case is even more complicated. Among the facts
that have a bearing on the conduct of Justice Douglas are the following:
1. Justice Douglas received a total of nearly $85,000 in fees
during his tenure as President and Director of the Parvin Foundation.
For 1967, the most recent year available, his fee was one-quarter
of the Foundation's "charitable" disbursements.
2. The principal assets of the Foundation consisted of a mortgage
on a gambling casino in Las Vegas, and stock in a company that owned
three other gambling casinos.
3. The Foundation falsified its tax returns for the period 1961-
1965, failing to report certain stock manipulations until its tax
return for 1966, after the Internal Revenue Service started an investigation.
4. As head of the Foundation, Justice Douglas sanctioned lecture
fees of $5,000 each to such politically controversial men as J. Robert
Oppenheimer and Teodoro Moscoso.
In addition, we must consider Justice Douglas' political activity
with the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa
Barbara.
1. Justice Douglas is Chairman and Director of the Center.
2. Justice Douglas is paid $500 a day for work with the Center,
and in recent months has received $4,000 for two seminars.
3. The Parvin Foundation has given $70,000 to the Center between
1965-1967.
4. Besides Justice Douglas, there are two others who are directors
of both the Parvin Foundation and the Center; namely, Robert Hutchins
and Harry S. Ashmore (the most active in both groups.)
5. The Center is overtly political in its program, and was host
to the founding meeting of the National Conference for New Politics,
the Communist-Black Power dominated movement that made nationwide
headlines for its revolutionary radicalism. The Center organized
the so-called "Pacem In Terris" conferences, designed to seek detente
with the Soviet Union. The Center has also been active in encouraging
student radicalism, and was credited with devising "a master plan
of how best to destroy the American university as it is today," according
to the Santa Barbara News-Press.
Thus, for all the talk about so-called "democratic institutions"
the work of Justice Douglas in the Parvin Foundation and the Center
appears to be a front for gambling enterprises and persons of anti-
democratic character. The salary of a Justice and his life-time appointment
are supposed to insulate him from social and political movements,
as well as from associations of unsavory character. The belated resignation
of Justice Douglas from the Foundation does not remove the stigma
which he has brought upon the bench.
The most distressing aspect of the Douglas case, as in the Fortas
case, is the conviction of the principal participants that there was
no impropriety in their actions. Their continued defiance of common
standards of decency does not speak well for the judgment of men sitting
on the highest court in the land. It is perhaps no coincidence that
the Fortas and Douglas cases are intertwined. Albert Parvin, who
created the Parvin Foundation, was named by the government as co-
conspirator, although not indicted, in the stock manipulations of
Louis Wolfson. Carolyn Agger, the wife of Mr. Fortas, was the tax
expert who gave a clean bill of health to the Parvin Foundation's
tax problems.
No Federal judge, or Justice of the Supreme Court, should be
allowed to practice law, serve in a corporation or partnership, or
as a trustee or director of a foundation, for any consideration whatsoever,
cash or otherwise. Judged by these standards, Justice Douglas is
the next one who must go.
strom Thurmond
18-A
Tuesday, May 6, 1969
Deg. News
Fortas in frouble again
A lack of sensitivity
On the basis of the facts revealed
"had been at the horse farm to dis-
to the public to date, it would be
cuss the SEC matter and that it was
unfair to d e m a n d that Supreme
to be taken care of," and another as
Court Justice Abe Fortas resign or
stating Wolfson had said Fortas was
be impeached because he accepted
furious because the SEC "had
and kept for 11 months a $20,000 fee
reneged on a pledge to g i V e the
from the family of industrialist
Wolfson group another hearing."
Louis E. Wolfson. But it would not
Whether the charges are true in
be unfair to suggest that Justice
all details, the facts indicate a close
Fortas provide a better explanation
relationship between Wolfson and
for the incident than he has given
Fortas even after the justice was
up to now.
on the bench. That raises a question
(Sugreme Court)
'America Is Not a Repressive Society'
By LEWIS F. POWELL
a prior court order issued only upon
a showing of probable cause. The
RICHMOND, Va.-At a time when
place and duration are strictly con-
slogans often substitute for rational
trolled. Ultimate disclosure of the taps
thought, it is fashionable to charge
is required. There are heavy penalties
that "repression" of civil liberties is
for unauthorized surveillance. Any
widespread. This charge-directed pri-
official or F.B.I. agent who employs a
marily against law enforcement-is
wiretap without a court order in a
standard leftist propaganda, It is also
made and widely believed on the
criminal case is subject to imprison-
"The outcry against wiretapping is a
ment and fine.
campus, in the arts and theater, in the
pulpit and among some of the media.
During 1969 and 1970, such Fed-
tempest in a teapot. There are 210
Many persons genuinely concerned
eral wiretaps were employed in only
0.01 libertics the inin
309 cases. More than 900 arrests re-
million Americans There are only a
SupremeCount THE NEW YORK TIMES, WENESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1971
L
27
Rehnquist's Statements Indicate He Would Be an Activist Pressing Conservative Views
By FRED P. GRAHAM
Council was considering an or-
eradicate "de facto" segregation
tion that the employes could
pblic law that disobedience
lowing aggrieved subjects of
declared "qualified martial law"
Mr. Rehnquist and Mr. Powell
dinance in 1964 to make all
in the Phoenix schools, he op-
Special to The New York Times
lose their jobs. "The Govern-
cnnot be tolerated, whether it
surveillance to go to court
had existed. Police officials, he
furnished material to the com-
establishments serve everyone
posed it on the following
ment as an employer has a le-
b violent or nonviolent dis-
"would balance the scale too
said, "have the authority to de-
mittee after liberal members
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2-The
regardless of race or national
grounds: "We are no more ded-
gitimate and constitutionally
cedience. If force or the threat
far against the interests of
tain individuals during the pe-
asked them to submit their
writings of William H. Rehn-
origin, Mr. Rehnquist opposed it
icated to an 'integrated' society
recognized interest in limiting
0 force is required to enforce
proper law enforcement." He
riod of an emergency without
public statements. There have
quist, encased in two thick
in the name of individual lib-
than we are to a desegrated
public criticism on the part of
te law, we must not shirk
argued that organized criminals
being required to bring them
been no indications of opposi-
binders and lodged by him last
erty. Mr. Rehnquist, then a law-
society. We are instead dedi-
its employes even though that
fom its employment."
and subversives would abuse
before a committing magistrate
tion to Mr. Powell by any or-
weekend with the Senate Ju-
yer in Phoenix, wrote in a
cated to a free society, in
same Government as a sov-
In speeches and Congres-
such court procedures to ex-
and filingcharges against them."
ganizations.
pose the Government's surveil-
diciary Committee, show that
pubished letter: "To the extent
which each man is equal before
ereign has no similar consti-
sonal testimony, Mr. Rehn-
Throughout the writings
Today the Leadership Confer-
that we substitute, for the de-
the law, but in which each
tutionally valid claim to limit
dist argued that the courts
lance efforts.
there are only a few references
ence on Civil Rights, a coalition
President Nixon's nominee to
cision of each businessman as
man is accorded a maximum
dissent on the part of its citi-
sould play no role in shield-
TReacting to the criticisms
to the Bill of Rights, and some
of civil rights, liberal and labor
the Supreme Court is an un-
to how he shall select his cus-
amount of freedom of choice
zens," he said in a speech.
ig individuals from surveil-
that during the Mayday pro-
liberals on the Judiciary Com-
groups, announced that it
varying conservative who be-
tomers, the command of the
in his individual activities."
qIn a speech on young pro-
lace from Government agents.
tests in the District of Colum-
mittee have served notice that
would oppose Mr. Rehnquist,
lieves that Justices invariably
government telling him how
qWhen some Federal em-
testers' resort to civil disobedi-
H said that citizens would be
bia many individuals had been
they will qeustion Mr. Rehn-
but not Mr. Powell.
write their own views into the
he must select them, we give
ployes began to sign statements
ence to dramatize their oppo-
potected by top officials in the
swept into the police mass-ar-
quist closely tomorrow as to
However, most of the mail
up a measure of our traditional
criticizing United States poli-
sition to Government policy,
ecutive branch or by Con-
rest net and held without op-
his apparent tendency to see
that has been received by the
Constituion.
Mr.
told. the
or overzeal-
make bail Mr
governmental needs in sharper
Judiciary Committee has been
REMAKING THE
SUPREME COURT
Nixon Sets a Pattern
President Nixon's Court choices were a surprise in one way-their identities
were unpredicted. Their judicial philosophy, however, was no surprise. Now if
they clear the Senate, it will be a "Nixon Court," dominated by "conservatives."
A pattern now has been firmly set for
tion who has practiced law in Richmond,
confirmation of Clement F. Haynsworth,
the kind of Supreme Court that Presi-
Va., since 1931.
Jr., and G. Harrold Carswell. And yet
dent Nixon thinks this country needs.
William H. Rehnquist, 47, a former
another confirmation battle had appeared
The President, on October 21, nomi-
Phoenix, Ariz., lawyer who has been
to be shaping up.
nated two men he described as "judicial
Assistant U.S. Attorney General since
On October 20, a report leaked out
conservatives" to fill the two recently
January, 1969.
that the American Bar Association's eval-
created vacancies on the Court.
Surprise choices. Both names, an-
uation committee had refused to endorse
It those nominees are confirmed by
nounced in a nationwide radio and tele-
as "qualified" two persons who had fig-
the Senate-and follow Mr. Nixon's "ju-
vision broadcast, came as surprises to
ured most prominently in speculation
dicial philosophy," as he obviously ex-
almost everyone. Their names had not
about the President's likely choices. They
pects-then the Supreme Court will have
been among those sent previously to the
were Herschel H. Friday, a Little Rock,
a clear "conservative" majority for the
American Bar Association for evaluation.
Ark., lawyer, and Mrs. Mildred L. Lillie,
first time in many years, and probably
Both, however, were expected-on
a judge of a California court of appeals.
for many years to come.
the basis of early reaction-to win Sen-
Only 24 hours after that report, Mr.
Nominated by the President were:
ate approval without a serious fight.
Nixon not only chose two names not on
Lewis F. Powell, Jr., 64, a former
President Nixon had previously lost
the ABA list but also his Attorney Gen-
president of the American Bar Associa-
two battles in attempts to win Senate
(continued on next page)
Chosen for Court: A Southern lawyer, an Assistant Attorney General
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
William H. Rehnquist
-UPI Photo
-USN&WR Photo
15
SupremeCourt
WHAT NIXON'S COURT NOMINEES
HAVE SAID ABOUT KEY ISSUES
As the Senate begins digging into the records
pressed in the past. Here, from speeches and
and qualifications of the men President Nixon
writings of Lewis F. Powell, Jr., and William H.
has nominated for the Supreme Court, atten-
Rehnquist, are some of their statements that
tion is being focused on views they have ex-
are attracting interest of Senate investigators.
Views Expressed by Lewis F. Powell, Jr.
On "Civil-Liberties Repression-
Fact or Fiction?"
From an article first published in "The Richmond (Va.)
Times-Dispatch" on Aug. 1, 1971:
At a time when slogans often substitute for rational
thought, it is fashionable to charge that "repression" of civil
liberties is widespread. This charge-directed primarily
against law enforcement-is standard "leftist" propaganda. It
is also made and widely believed on the campus, in the arts
and theater, in the pulpit and among some of the media.
Many persons genuinely concerned about civil liberties thus
join in promoting or accepting the propaganda of the "rad-
icalleft.
There are, of course, some instances of repressive action.
Officials are sometimes overzealous; police do employ un-
lawful means or excess force; and injustices do occur even
in the courts. Such miscarriages occur in every society. The
real test is whether these are episodic departures from the
norm, or whether they are-as charged-part of a system of
countenanced repression.
The evidence is clear that the charge is a false one. Amer-
ica is not a repressive sóciety. The Bill of Rights is widely
--Dementi Studio
revered and zealously safeguarded by the courts. There is
MR. POWELL
in fact no significant threat to individual freedom in this
country by law enforcement.
The attack has focused on wiretapping. There seems al-
are strictly controlled. Ultimate disclosure of the taps is re-
most to be a conspiracy to confuse the public. The impres-
quired. There are heavy penalties for unauthorized surveil-
sion studiously cultivated is of massive eavesdropping and
lance. Any official or FBI agent who employs a wiretap
snooping by the FBI and law-enforcement agencies. The
without a court order in a criminal case is subject to im-
right of privacy, cherished by all, is said to be widely
prisonment and fine. During 1969 and 1970, such federal
threatened.
wiretaps were employed in only 309 cases. More than 900
Some politicians have joined in the chorus of unsubstan-
arrests resulted, with some 500 persons being indicted-in-
tiated charges. Little effort is made to delineate the purposes
cluding several top leaders of organized crime.
or the actual extent of electronic surveillance.
The Government also employs wiretaps in counterintelli-
The facts, in summary, are as follows: The Department of
gence activities involving national defense and internal se-
Justice employs wiretapping in two types of situations: (i)
curity. The 1968 Act left this delicate area to the inherent
against criminal conduct such as murder, kidnaping, extor-
power of the President.
tion and narcotics offenses; and (ii) in national-security
Civil libertarians oppose the use of wiretapping in all
cases.
cases, including its use against organized crime and foreign
Wiretapping against crime was expressly authorized by
espionage. Since the 1968 Act, however, the attack has fo-
Congress in 1968. But the rights of suspects are carefully
cused on its use in internal-security cases, and some courts
safeguarded. There must be a prior court order, issued only
have distinguished these from foreign threats. The issue will
upon a showing of probable cause. The place and duration
be before the Supreme Court at the next term.
40
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Nov. 8, 1971