FRANCIS R. VALEO SECRETARY
United States Senate OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20510
October 11, 1973
Honorable Sam J. Ervin, Jr., United States Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Ervin:
I am enclosing herewith S. Res. 181, adopted by the Senate on October 10, 1973, regarding your appearance before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 23, 1973.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely, Frank Valeo Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate.
Enclosure: S. Res. 181.
SENATOR SAM J. ERVIN, JR.
OCTOBER 23, 1973
THE PRESIDENT THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON, D. C.
THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES IS GOING TO MEET THURSDAY MORNING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL WHICH THE WHITE HOUSE MADE ORALLY TO SENATOR HOWARD BAKER AND ME LAST FRIDAY AFTERNOON. SINCE STATEMENTS BY THE NEWS MEDIA INDICATE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PROPOSAL AND SINCE IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE SELECT COMMITTEE HAVE THE EXACT TERMS OF THE PROPOSAL BEFORE IT AT ITS MEETING, I HEARBY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE WHITE HOUSE TO FURNISH ME BEFORE THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE A STATEMENT OF ITS UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSAL. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSAL IS AS FOLLOWS: FIRST, THAT THE TAPE RECORDINGS REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE WOULD BE DELIVERED TO THE TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF SENATOR STENNIS; SECOND, THAT SENATOR SENNIS WOULD HEAR THE TAPE RECORDINGS AND SEPERATE THE PORTIONS OF THE TAPES RELATING TO THE WATERGATE AFFAIR FROM ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE TAPES; AND THIRD, THAT AFTER SO DOING SENATOR STENNIS WOULD PREPARE AND FURNISH TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE A VERBATIM COPY OF THE EXACT WORDS AS RECORDED ON THE TAPES WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE MATTERS WHICH THE COMMITTEE IS AUTHORIZED BY SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 60 TO INVESTIGATE. SENATOR STENNIS WILL ALSO IDENTIFY FOR THE COMMITTEE THE ITEMS ON THE TAPES WHICH HE DETERMINES NOT TO BE RELEVANT TO THE MATTERS WHICH THE COMMITTEE IS AUTHORIZED TO INVESTIGATE. MOREOVER, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMMITTEE, SENATOR STENNIS WOULD ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN WITH THE AID OF EXPERTS THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TAPES. I TRUST THAT THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE WHITE HOUSE IN RESPECT TO THE PROPOSAL COINCIDES WITH MINE BECAUSE I WOULD BE UNWILLING TO URGE THE COMMITTEE TO ACCEPT ANYONE'S PARAPHRASE OR SUMMARY OF WHAT HE THINKS THE TAPES SAY. THIS IS SO BECAUSE IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COMMITTEE TO INTERPRET FOR ITSELF EXACTLY WHAT THE WORDS ON THE TAPES SAY.
SAM J. ERVIN, JR., CHAIRMAN SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
cc: MEMBERS OF SELECT COMMITTEE
(OFFICIAL - GWA 008349)
WAYLAND B. CEDERQUIST ATTORNEY 33 NORTH LA SALLE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602
October 28, 1973
Honorable Robert Taft Senator from Ohio Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Taft:
This relates to the situation resulting from the President's dismissal of Special Prosecutor Cox. I enclose a copy of my Letter of October 27, mailed by me to Senators Stevenson, Percy, Ervin, Weicker, Humphrey et al. You can see that I am entirely opposed to any further presidential involvement in the appointment of a new Special Prosecutor.
I heard a News Broadcast last night, including a statement by you that you wondered whether Congress had the power to adopt a statute authorizing Judge Sirica to appoint a new Special Prosecutor. You raised the question of seperation of powers.
It is my judgement that Congress has the power. I base my judgement on the following considerations.
In the States, the Regular Prosecutor is usually elected. Where he is disqualified becasue of involvement in the matter being investigated, the common law is that the Courts have power to appoint a Special Prosecutor to act in his stead with regard to the particular matter. Many States, including Illinois, have adopted statutes confirming this common law principle.
In the Federal system, there is no governing constitutional provision. It has generally been said that, by derivation from the power of the Attorney General in England to appoint Prosecutors, the function of appointing Prosecutors in the Federal system belongs to the Executive. The present Federal Statutes so provide. See 28 U. S. Code, Section 541.
What is the situation in the Federal system with regard to Special Prosecutors? 28 U. S. Code, Section 543 provides that the Attorney General may appoint Attorneys to assist United States Attorneys when the public interest requires. Is this the only way
it can be done? It is my judgement that Congress has power to provide alternate ways of doing it, including the vesting of the power to appoint a Special Prosecutor in a District Judge or Court.
I enclose copies of two items, to the effect that the Courts have common law power to appoint Special Prosecutors, unles inhibited by specific constitutional or statutory provision. The items are at Pages 714-715 from 27 Corpus Juris Secundum, District & Prosecuting Attorneys; and the Case of Wilson vs. Marshall County, 257 Ill. App. 220 (1930), at Pages 225-226.
More importantly, I think there are times when one's judgement as to the spirit of the Law carries greater weight than the letter of the Law. It rubs my conscience raw to think that the President should be conceded to have any further authority with regard to the appointment of a new Special Prosecutor. On the other hand, I would have full confidence in a Special Prosecutor appointed by Judge Sirica or by the full Panel of District Court Judges for the District of Columbia.
Wayland Cedarquist Wayland B. Cedarquist
220 APPELLATE COURTS OF ILLINOIS
Wilson v. County of Marshall, 257 Ill. App. 220.
the case at bar are not in any way interdependent but are severable. The fact that the violation charged adopts the location described in the second covenant does not tend to make the covenants inseperable or to charge violation of the second covenant. It was proper to plead the close proximity of the business of defendants to that of complainants as tending to show damages suffered from the alleged breach. It was error to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the bill.
Therefore the order of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in harmony with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
F. E. Wilson et al., Appellants v. County of Marshall et al., Appellees.
Gen. No. 8,100
1. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS -- power of county board over State's Attorney. The county board has no power to lessen the duties of the State's Attorney, or to curtain the exercise of his lawful authority, or to control him therein.
2. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS -- right of State's Attorney to prosecute county treasurer without interference by county board. The duty of prosecuting a county treasurer, either criminially of civilly, on account of a shortage in his accounts, primarily devolves upon the State's Attorney and this duty and right cannot be interfered with or curtailed by the county board.
3. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS -- when statute authorizing appointment of attorney to act in place of State's Attorney applies. Section 6, Cahill's St. ch. 14, ¶6, authorizing the appointment by the court of another attorney to prosecute or defend an action in place of the State's Attorney, applies only to pending cases.
4. ATTORNEY AND COUNSELORS -- power of courts of having criminal jurisdiction to appoint special attorneys. Courts of general criminal jurisdiction have inherent power in the absence of a statute to appoint special