HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONDUCT OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DOUGLAS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 27
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 29, 2002
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: April 15, 1970
• Content Type: OPEN

United States
of America
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
a:on9rcssi'*ona1 Rccord
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 9 I 't CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY., APRIL 15, 1970 No. 60
House of Representatives
CONDUCT OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DOUGLAS
Speech in the House of Representatives by Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford of Michigan
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, His private life, to the degree that it does
last May 8 I joined with the gentleman not bring the Supreme Court into disre-
from Ohio (Mr. TAFT) in introducing pute, is his own business. One does not
H.R. 11109, a bill requiring financial dis- need to be an ardent admirer of any
closure by members of the Federal ju- judge or justice, or an advocate of his
diciary. This was amid the allegations life style, to acknowledge his right to be
swirling around Mr. Justice Fortas. Be- elevated to or remain on the bench.
fore and since, other Members of this We have heard a great deal of dis-
body have proposed legislation of similar cussion recently about the qualifications
intent. To the best of my knowledge, all which a person should be required to
of them lie dormant in the Committee possess to be elevated to the U.S. Su-
on the Judiciary where they were re- preme Court. There has not been
ferred. sufficient consideration given, in my
On March 19 the U.S. Judicial Con- judgment, to the qualifications which a
ference announced the adoption of new person should possess to remain upon
ethical standards on outside earnings and the U.S. Supreme Court.
conflict of interest. They were described For, contrary to a widepsread miscon-
as somewhat watered down from the ception, Federal judges and the Justices
strict proposals of former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court are not appointed
Warren at the time of the Fortas affair, for life. The Founding Fathers would
In any event, they are not binding upon have been the last to make such a mis-
the Supreme Court. take; the American Revolution was
Neither are the 36-year-old Canons of waged against an hereditary monarchy
Judicial Ethics of the American Bar As- in which the King always had a life term
sociation, among which are these: and, as English history bloodily demon-
Canon 4. Avoidance of Impropriety. A strated, could only be removed from office
judge's official conduct should be free from by the headsman's ax or the assassin's
impropriety and the appearance of inipro- dagger.
priety; he should avoid infractions of law; No, the Constitution does not gualan-
and his personal behavior, not only upon the tee a lifetime of power and authority to
Bench and in the performance of judicial
Houseofficial. Theterms 2fMembers
duties, but also in his everyday life, should allytpublic
he beyond reproach. years; of
Canon 24. Inconsistent Obligations. A judge the President and Vice President at 4;
should not accept inconsistent duties; nor of U.S. Senators at 6. Members of the
incur obligations, pecuniary or otherwise, Federal judiciary hold their offices only
which will in any way interfere or appear to "during good behaviour."
interfere with his devotion to the expe- Let me read the first section of article
f
ditious c and proper administration of his of- III of the Constitution in full:
flcial f ion.
al func
Canon 31, Private Law Practice. In many The judicial power of the United States
states the practice of law by one holding shall be vested in one supreme Court, and
judicial position is forbidden . If forbid- in such inferior Courts as the Congress may
den to practice law, he should refrain from from time to time ordain and establish. The
accepting any professional employment while Judges, both of the -supreme and inferior
in office. Courts, shall hold their offices during good
Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive
Following the public disclosure last for their Services, a Compensation, which
year of the extrajudicial activities and shall ib11e diminished during their Con-
moonlighting employment of Justices
Fortas and Douglas, which resulted in The clause dealing with the compen-
the resignation from the Supreme Bench sation of Federal judges, which inciden-
of Mr. Justice Fortas but not of Mr. Jus- tally we raised last year to $60,000 for
tice Douglas, I received literally hundreds Associate Justices of the Supreme Court,
of inquiries and protests from concerned suggests that their "continuance in of-
citizens and colleagues. fice" is indeed limited. The provision
In response to this evident interest I that it may not be decreased prevents
quietly undertook a study of both the the legislative or executive branches
law of impeachment and the facts about from unduly influencing the judiciary by
the behavior of Mr. Justice Douglas. I cutting judges' pay, and suggests that
assured inquirers that I would make my even in those bygone days the income of
findings known at the appropriate time. jurists was a highly sensitive matter.
That preliminary report is now ready. To me the Constitution is perfectly
Let me say by way of preface that I am clear about the tenure, or term of office,
a lawyer, admitted to the bar of the U.S. of all Federal judges-it is "during good
Supreme Court. I have the most profound behaviour." it is implicit in this that
respect for the U.S. Supreme Court. I when behaviour ceases to be good, the
would never advocate action against a right to hold judicial office ceases also.
member of that Court because of his Thus, we come quickly to the central
political philosophy or the legal opinions question: What constitutes "good be-
which he contributes to the decisions of haviour" or, conversely, ungood or dis-
the Court. Mr. Justice Douglas has been qualifying behaviour?
criticized for his liberal opinions and be- The words employed by the Framers of
cause he granted stays of execution to the Constitution were, as the proceedings
the convicted spies, the Rosenbergs, who of the Convention detail, chosen with
stole the atomic bomb for the Soviet exceedingly great care and precision.
Union. Probably I would disagree, were Note, for example, the word "behaviour."
I on the bench, with most of Mr. Justice It relates to action, not merely to
Douglas' views, such as his defense of the thoughts or opinions; further, it refers
filthy film, "I Am Curious (Yellow)." But not to a single act but to a pattern or
a judge's right to his legal views, as- continuing sequence of action. We can-
suming they are not improperly influ- not and should not remove a Federal
enced or corrupted, is fundamental to our judge for the legal views he holds-this
system of justice. would be as contemptible as to exclude
th t T have no per- him from serving on the Supreme Court
l
should we remove him for a minor or
isolated mistake-this does not consti-
tute behaviour in the common meaning.
What we should scrutinize in sitting
Judges is their continuing pattern of
action, their behaviour. The Constitution
does not demand that it be "exemplary"
or "perfect." But it does have to be
good."
Naturally, there must be orderly pro-
cedure for determining whether or not
a Federal judge's behaviour is good. The
courts, arbiters in most such questions of
judgment, cannot judge themselves. So
the Founding Fathers vested this ulti-
mate power where the ultimate sover-
eignty of our system is most directly re-
flected-in the Congress, in the elected
Representatives of the people and of the
States.
In this seldom-used procedure, called
impeachment. the legislative branch
exercises both executive and judicial
functions. The roles of the two bodies
differ dramatically. The House serves as
prosecutor and grand jury; the Senate
serves as judge and trial jury.
Article I of the Constitution has this
to say about the impeachment process:
The House of Representatives-shall have
the sole power of Impeachment.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to
try all Impeachments. When sitting for
that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Af-
firmation. When the President of the United
States is tried, the Chief Justice shall
preside: And no Person shall be convicted
without the Concurrence of two-thirds of
the Members present.
Article II. dealing with the executive
branch, states in section 4:
The President, Vice President, and all civil
Officers of the United States, shall be re-
moved from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high
crimes and misdemeanors.
This has been the most controversial
of the constitutional references to the
impeachment process. No concensus
exists as to whether, in the case of Fed-
eral judges, impeachment must depend
upon conviction of one of the two speci-
fied crimes of treason or bribery or be
within the nebulous category of "other
high crimes and misdemeanors." There
are pages upon pages of learned argu-
ment whether the adjective "high"
modifies "misdmeanors" as well as
"crimes," and over what, indeed, con-
stitutes a "high misdemeanor."
In my view, one of the specific or gen-
eral offenses cited in article II is required
for removal of the indirectly elected
President and Vice President and all ap-
pointed civil officers of the executive
branch of the Federal Government,
whatever their terms of office. But in the
case of members of the judicial branch,
Federal judges and Justices, I believe an
additional and much stricter requirement
is imposed by article II, namely, "good
behaviour."
Finally, and this is a most significant
provision, article I of the Constitution
specifies:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall,
not extend further than to removal, from
Office, and disqualification to hold and en-
joy any office of honor, Trust or Profit under
the United States: but the Party convicted
shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punish-
ment, according to Law.
I should say a
so a fn l
sonal feeling toward AVl 9ReleasE r2~iuuis2Y/b :oeI]ta 6 4@b0 O?5R000600010013-7
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
In other words, impeachment resem-
bles a regular criminal indictment and
trial but it is not the same thing. It re-
lates solely to the accused's right to hold
civil office; not to the many other rights
which are his as a citizen and which pro-
tect him in a court of law. By pointedly
voiding any immunity an accused might
claim wader the double jeopardy princi-
ple, the framers of the Constitution
clearly established that impeachment is
a unique political device; designed ex-
plicitly to dislodge from public office
those who are patently unfit for it, but
cannot otherwise be promptly removed.
The d.istinction between impeachment
and ordinary criminal prosecution is
again evident when impeachment is
made the sole exception to the guarantee
of article III, section 3 that trial of all
crimes shall be by jury-perhaps the
most fundamental of all constitutional
protections.
We must continually remember that
the writers of our Constitution did their
work with the experience of the British
Crown and Parliament freshly in mind.
'T'here is so much that resembles the
British system in our Constitution that
we sometimes overlook the even sharper
differences-one of the sharpest is our
divergent view on impeachment.
In Great Britain the House of Lords
sits as the court of highest appeal in the
land, and upon accusation by Commons
the Lords can try, convict, and punish
any impeached subject-private person
or official-with any lawful penalty for
hiss crime-including death.
Our Constitution, on the contrary, pro-
vides only the relatively mild penalties of
removal from office, and disqualification
for future office-the worst punishment
the U.S. Senate can mete out is both re-
moval and disqualification.
Moreover, to make sure impeachment
would not be frivolously attempted or
easily abused, and further to protect of-
ficeholde:s against political reprisal, the
Constitution requires a two-thirds vote
of the Senate to convict.
With this brief review of the law, of
the constitutional background for im-
peachrnent, I have endeavored to correct
two common misconceptions: first, that
Federal judges are appointed for life and,
second, that they can be removed only by
being convicted, with all ordinary pro-
teciions and presumptions of innocence
to which an accused is entitled, of vio-
lating the law.
This is not the case, Federal judges
can be and have been impeached for im-
proper personal habits such as chronic
intoxication on the bench, and one of the
charges brought against President An-
drew Johnson was that he delivered "in-
temperate, inflammatory, and scandal-
ous harangues."
I have studied the principal impeach-
ment actions that have been initiated
over the years and frankly, there are too
few cases to make very good law. About
the only thing the authorities can agree
upon in recent history, though it was
hotly argued up to President Johnson's
impeachment and the trial of Judge
Swayne, is that an offense need not be
indictable to be impeachable. In other
words, something less than a criminal
act or criminal dereliction of duty may
nevertheless be sufficient grounds for iin-
peachment and removal from public
office.
What, tl:.en, is an impeachable offense?
The only honest answer is that an im-
peachable offense is whatever a majority
of the House of Representatives considers
to be at a given moment in history; con-
viction results from whatever offense or
offenses two-thirds of the other body
considers to be sufficiently serious to re-
quire removal of the accused from office,
Again, the historical context and poL'ti-
cal climate are important; there are few
fixed principles among the handful of
precedents.
f think it is fair to come to one con-
clusion, however, from our history of
impeachments: a higher standard is ex-
pected of Federal judges than of any
other "civil officers" of the United States.
The President and Vice President, and
all persons holding office at the pleasure
of the President, can be thrown out of
office by the voters at least every 4 years,
To remove them in midterm-it has been
tried only twice and never done-would
indeed require crimes of the magnitude
of treason and bribery. Other elective
officials, such as Members: of the Con-
gress, are so vulnerable to public dis-
pleasure that their removal by the com-
plicated impeachment route has not even
Judges, including one Associate Justice
peacned by this House and tried by th
Senate; four were acquitt d; four con
victed and removed from office; and one
conducted by the other body, that of U.S.
Judge Halsted L. Ritter of the southern
district of Florida who was removed in
1936, the point of judicial behavior was
paramount, since the criminal charges
were admittedly thin. This case was in
the context of F. D. R.'s effort to pack the
Supreme Court with Justices more to his
liking; Judge Ritter was a transplanted
conservative Colorado Republican ap-
pointed to the Federal bench in solidly
Democratic Florida by President Coo-
lidge. He was convicted by a coalition of
liberal Republicans, New Deal Demo-
crats, and Farmer-Labor and Progres-
sive Party Senators in what might be
called the northwestern strategy of that
era. Nevertheless, thie arguments were
In a joint statement, Senators Borah,
La Follette, Frazier, and Sh;pstead said.
We therefore did not, in passing upon the
facts presented to us in the matter of the
impeachment proceedings against Judge
Halsted L. Ritter, seek to satisfy ourselves
as to whether technically a crime or crimes
had been committed, or as to' whether the
acts charged and proved disclosed criminal
intent or corrupt motive; we sought only to
ascertain from these facts whether his con-
duct had been such as to amount to mis-
behavior, misconduct-as to whether he had
conducted himself in a way that was cal-
culated to undermine public confidence in
the courts and to create a sense of scandal.
There are a great many thins which one
must readily admit would be wholly unbe-
coming, wholly intolerable, in the conduct of
a judge, and yet these things might not
amount to a crime.
Senator Elbert Thomas of Utah, citing
the Jeffersonian and colonial antecedents
of the impeachment process, bluntly
declared:
Tenure during good behavior ... is in
no sense a guaranty of a life job, and mis-
behavior In the ordinary, dictiohary sense of
of the term will cause it to be cut short on
the vote, under spacial oath, of two-thirds
of the Senate, if charges are first brought by
the House of Representatives.:. . . To as-
sume that good behavior means anything but
good behavior would be to cast, a reflection
upon the ability of the fathers to express
themselves in understandable language.
But the best summary, in ley opinion,
was that of Senator William G. McAdoo
of California, son-in-law of Woodrow
Wilson and Secretary of the: Treasury:
usher of a number of magazines not
commonly found on the family coffee
table. For sending what was held to be
an obscene edition of one of them, Eros,
through the U.S. mails, Mr. Ginzburg
was convicted and sentenced to 5 years'
imprisonment in 1963.
His conviction was appealed and, In
1966, was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme
Court in a close 5-to-4 decision. Mr. Jus-
tice Douglas dissented. His dissent fa-
vored Mr. Ginzburg and the publication,
Eras,
During the 1964 presidential campaign,
another Ginzburg magazine, Fact, pub-
lished an issue entitled "The Uncon-
scious of a Conservative: A Special Issue
on the Mind Of BARRY GOLDWATER."
The thrust of the two main articles
in Ginzburg's magazine was that Sena-
tor GOLDWATER, the Republican nominee
for President of the United States, had a
severely paranoid personality and was
psychological unfit to be President.
This was supported by a fraction of re-
plies to an alleged poll which the maga-
zinc had mailed to some 12,000 psychia-
trists-hardly a scientific diagnosis, but
a potent political hatchet job.
Naturally, Senator GOLDWATER
promptly sued Mr. Ginzburg and Fact
01 magazine for libel. A Federal court jury
in New York granted the Senator a total
of $75,000 in punitive damages from
Ginzburg and Fact magazine
Fact
.
shortly was to be incorporated into an-
other Ginzburg publication, Avant
Garde. The U.S. court of appeals sus-
tained this libel award. It held that un-
der the New York Times against Sullivan
decision a public figure could be libelled
if the publication was made with actual
malice; that is, if the publisher knew it
was false or acted with reckless disregard
Of whether it was false or not.
So once again Ralph Ginzburg
ap- pealed to the Supreme Court which, in
due course, upheld the lower courts' judg-
ment in favor of Senator GOLDWATER and
declined to review the case.
However, Mr. Justice Douglas again
dissented on the side of Mr. Ginzberg,
along with Mr. Justice Black. Although
the Court's majority did not elaborate
on its ruling, the dissenting minority de-
cision was based on the theory that the
constitutional guarantees of free speech
and free press are absolute.
This decision was handed down Janu-
ary 26, 1970.
Yet, while the Ginzberg-Goldwater
suit was pending in the Federal courts
,
s clearly headed for the highest court in
the land, Mr. Justice Douglas appeared
as the author of an article in Avant
I approach this subject frond the stand- Garde, the successor to Fact in the Ginz-
point of the general conduct. of this judge berg stable of magazines, and reportedly
while on the bench
as ports iy ed by the
various counts in the impeachment and the
evidence submitted in the trial.'The picture
thus presented is, to my mind, that of a
man who is so lacking in any proper concep-
tion of professional ethics and' those high
standards of judicial character and conduct
as to constitute misbehavior in its most seri-
ous aspects, and to render him Unfit to hold
a judicial office ...
Good behavior, as it is used in the Con-
stitution, exacts of a judge the highest
standards of public and private rectitude.
No judge can besmirch the robes he wears
by relaxing these standards, by compromis-
ing them through conduct which brings re-
proach upon himself personally, or upon the
great office he holds. No more sacred trust
is committed to the bench of the United
States than to keep shining with undimmed
effulgence the brightest jewel in the crown
of democracy-justice.
However disagreeable the duty may be to
those of us who constitute this great body
in determining the guilt of tho a who are
entrusted under the Constitutiop with the
high responsibilities of judicial. office, we
must be as exacting in our conception of the
obligations of a judicial officer as Mr. Justice
Cardozo defined them when he said, in con-
nection with fiduciaries, that they should
be held "to something stricter than the
morals of the market-place. Not honesty
alone, but the punctilio of an honor the
most sensitive, is then the standard of be-
havior,"
M
'
,
(
einhard v. Solmon,
249 N.Y. Justice, U.S. Supreme Court" and a full
458'1 page picture would be worth something
Let us now objectively examine certain I to a publisher and a magazine with two
as efts of the behavior of Mr. Justice
1s'" " h 'u a k"our"selves in fie
'Vor3s 8T Mr. Justice Cardozo, whether
they represent "not honesty alone, but
the punctilio of an honor the most
sensitive."
a ph Ginzburg is editor and pub-
The March 1969 issue of Avant Garde, on
its title page, shows Ralph Ginzburg as
editor stating under oath that it incor-
porates the former magazine Fact.
The table of contents, lists on page
16 an article titled "Appeal of Folk Sing-
ing: A Landmark Opinion" by Justice
William O. Douglas, Even his judicial
title, conferred on only eight other Amer-
leans, is brazenly exploited.
Justice Douglas' contribution imme-
diately follows one provocatively entitled
"The Decline and Fall of the Female
Breast." There are two other titles in the
table of contents so vulgarly playing on
double meaning that I will not repeat
them aloud.
Ralph Ginzburg's magazine Avant
Garde paid the Associate Justice of the
U.S. Supreme Court the sum of $350 for
his article on folk singing. The article
itself is not pornographic, although it
praises the lusty, lurid, and risque along
with the social protest of leftwing folk
singers. It is a matter of editorial judg-
ment whether It was worth the $350.
Ginzburg claims he paid Justice Douglas
for writing it. I would think, however,
that a byline clear across the page read-
ing "By William O. Douglas
Associate
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 CIA-
RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
appeals pending in the U.S. courts.
However, Mr. Justice Douglas did not
disqualify himself from taking part in
the Goldwater against Ginzburg libel
appeal. Had the decision been a close
5-to-4 split, as was the earlier one, Ginz-
burg might have won with Douglas' vote.
Actually, neither the quantity of the
sum that changed hands nor the position
taken by the Court's majority or the size
in the gross impropriety involved.
Title 28, United States Code, section
455 states as follows:
Any justice or judge of the United States
should disqualify himself in any case in
which he has a substantial interest, has been
of counsel, is or has been a material witness,
or is so related to or connected with any
party or his attorney as to render it improper,
in his opinion, for him to sit on the trial, ap-
peal or other proceeding therein.
Let me ask each one of you: Is this
what the Constitution means by "good
behaviour"? Should such a person sit on
; our Supreme Court?
Writing signed articles for notorious
is bad enough. '1'aaing money iruui t,uciu
is worse. Declining to disqualify one's
has evidently decided to sully the high
standards of his profession and defy the
conventions and convictions of decent
Recently, there has appeared on the
stands a little black book with the auto-
graph, "William O. Douglas," scrawled on
the cover in red. Its title is "Points of
Rebellion" and its thesis is that violence
may be justified and perhaps only revo-
lutionary overthrow of "the establish-
ment" can save the country,
The kindest thing I can say about this
97-page tome is that it is quick reading.
Had it been written by a militant sopho-
more, as it easily could, it would of course
have never found a prestige publisher
like Random House. It is a fuzzy haran-
gue evidently intended to give historic
legitimacy to the militant hippie-yippie
movement and to bear testimony that a
71-year-old Justice of the Supreme
Court is one in spirit with them.
Now, it Is perfectly clear to me that
the first amendment protects the right
of Mr. Justice Douglas and his publishers
to write and print this drivel if they
please.
Mr. Justice Douglas is constitutionally
and otherwise entitled to believe, though
it is difficult to understand how a grown
man can, that "a black silence of fear
possesses the Nation," and that "every
conference room in Government build-
ings is assumed to be bugged."
One wonders how this enthusiastic
traveler inside the Iron Curtain is able
to warn seriously against alleged Wash-
ington hotel rooms equipped with two-
way mirrors and microphones, or accuse
the "powers that be" of echoing Adolf
Hilter. Frankly, this is nonsense, but cer-
tainly not the only nonsense being print-
ed nowadays.
But I wonder if it can be deemed "good
behaviour" in the constitutional sense
for such a distorted diatribe against the
f Government of the United States to be
published, indeed publicly autographed
and promoted, by an Associate Justice
of the Supreme Court.
There are, as the book says, two ways
by which the grievances of citizens can
be redressed. One is lawful procedure and
4. one is violent protest, riot, and revolu-
tion. Should a judge who sits at the
pinnacle of the orderly system of justice
give sympathetic encouragement, on the
side, to impressionable young students
and hard-core fanatics who espouse the
militant method? I think not.
In other words, I concede that William
0. Douglas has a right to write and pub-
lish what he pleases; but I suggest that
for Associate Justice Douglas to put his
name to such an inflammatory volume as
"Points of Rebellion"-at a critical time
in our history when peace and order is
what we need-is less than judicial good
behavior. It is more serious than simply
"a summation of conventional liberal
poppycock," as one columnist wrote.
Whatever Mr. Justice Douglas may
have meant by his justification of anti-
establishment activism, violent defiance
of police and public authorities, and
even the revolutionary restructuring of
American society-does he not suppose
that these confrontations and those ac-
cused of unlawfully taking part in them
will not come soon before the Supreme
Court? By his own book, the Court surely
will have to rule on many such cases.
I ask you, will Mr, Justice Douglas
then disqualify himself because of a bias
previously expressed, and published for
profit? Will he step aside as did a liberal
jurist of the utmost personal integrity,
Chief Justice Warren, whenever any re-
mote chance of conflict of interest arose?
Not if we may judge by Mr. Justice Doug-
las' action in the Ginzburg appeals, he
will not.
When I first encountered the facts of
Mr. Justice Douglas' involvement with
pornographic publications and espousal
of hippie-yippie style revolution, I was
inclined to dismiss his fractious behavior
as the first sign of senility. But I believe
I underestimated the Justice.
In case there are any "square" Amer-
icans who were too stupid to get the mes-
sage Mr. Justice Douglas was trying to
tell us, he has now removed all possible
not have prevented the publication of
his writings in such a place if he wanted
to, especially after widespread criticism
of his earlier contributions to less ob-
jectionable magazines.
No, Mr. Justice Douglas has been tell-
ing us something and this time he wanted
to make it perfectly clear. His blunt mes-
sage to the American people and their
Representatives in the Congress of the
United States is that he does not give a
tinker's damn what we think of him and
his behaviour on the Bench. He believes
he sits there by some divine right and
that he can do and say anything he
pleases without being questioned and
with complete immunity.
Does he really believe this? Whatever
else one may say, Mr. Justice Douglas
does know the Constitution, and he
knows the law of impeachment. Would
it not, I ask you, be much more reason-
able to suppose that Mr. Justice Douglas
is trying to shock and outrage us-but
for his own reasons.
Suppose his critics concentrate on his
3 outrageous opinions, expressed off the
Bench, in books and magazines that
the constitutional protections of free
speech and free press. Suppose his im-
of a magazine innocently entitled "Ever- grounds alone-will not the accusers of
green." Mr. Justice Douglas be instantly branded,
Perhaps the name has some secret as we already are in his new book-as
erotic significance, because otherwise it the modern Adolf Hitlers, the book-
may be the only clean word in this pub- burners, the defoliators of the tree of
the prurient advertisements, the per-
verted suggestions, the downright filthy
illustrations and the shocking and exe-
Alongside of Evergreen the old Avan
Garde is a family publication.
Just for a sample, here is an article by
Tom Hayden of the "Chicago 5." It is
titled "Repression and Rebellion." It pos-
sibly is somewhat more temperate than
the published. views of Mr. Justice Doug-
las, but no matter.
Next we come to a 7-page rotogravure
section of 13 half-page photographs. It
starts off with a relatively unobjection-
able arty nude. But the rest of the dozen
poses are hard-core pornography of the
kind the U.S. Supreme Court's recent de-
cisions now permit to be sold to your
children and mine on almost every news-
stand. There are nude models of both
sexes in poses that are 'perhaps more
shocking than the postcards that used to
be sold only in the back alleys of Paris
and Panama City, Panama.
Immediately following the most ex-
plicit of these photographs, on pages 40
and 41, we find a full-page caricature of
the President of the United States, made
to look like Britain's King George III and
waiting, presumably, for the second
American Revolution to begin on Boston
Common, or is it Berkeley?
This cartoon, while not very respectful
toward Mr. Nixon, is no worse than we
see almost daily in a local newspaper and
all alone might be legitimate political
parody. But it is there to illustrate an
article on the opposite page titled much
A like Tom Hayden's "Redress and Revolu-
tion."
able Supreme Court Justice," William O.
Douglas. It consists of the most extreme
excerpts from this book, given a some-
what more seditious title. And it states
plainly in the margin:
Copyright 1970 by William 0. Douglas ...
Now you may be able to tell me that it
0 is permissible for someone to write such
stuff, and this being a free country I
agree. You may tell me that nude couples
cavorting in photographs are art, and
that morals are a matter of opinion, and
that such stuff is lawful to publish and
send through the U.S. mails at a postage
rate subsidized by the taxpayers. I dis-
agree, but maybe I am old fashioned.
But you cannot tell me that an Asso-
ciate Justice of the United States is
print his name and his title and his
writings in a pornographic magazine
with a portfolio of obscene photographs
tion to get a gun and start shooting at
the first white face you see on the other.
is a prima facie case against Mr. Justice
Douglas that is-in my judgment-far
more grave. There is prima facie evidence
that he was for nearly a decade the well-
paid moonlighter for an organization
who tie to the international am ing
fraternity never have been sufficiently
explored.
Are these longstanding connections,
personal, professional, and profitable, the
skeleton in the closet which Mr. Justice
Douglas would like to divert us from
looking into? What would bring an As-
sociate Justice of the Supreme Court
into any sort of relationship with some
of the most unsavory and notorious ele-
ments of American society? What, after
some of this became public knowledge,
holds him still in truculent defiance
bordering upon the irrational?
For example, there is the curious and
profitable relationship which Mr. Justice
Douglas enjoyed, for nigh onto a decade,
with Mr. Albert Parvin and a mysteri-
ous entity known as the Parvin Founda-
tion.
Albert Parvin was born in Chicago
around the turn of the century, but little
is known of his life until he turns up as
president and 30-percent owner of Hotel
Flamingo, Inc., which operated the hotel
and gambling casino in Las Vegas, Nev.
It was first opened by Bugsy Siegel in
1946, a year before he was murdered.
Bugsy's contract for decorations and
furnishings of the Flamingo was with
Albert Parvin & Co. Between Siegel and
Parvin there were three other heads, or
titular heads, of the Flamingo. After the
gangland rubout of Siegel in Los
Angeles, Sanford Adler-who was a
partner with Albert Parvin in another
gambling establishment, El Rancho,
took over. He subsequently fled to Mex-
ico to escape income tax charges and
the Flamingo passed into the hands of
one Gus Greenbaum.
Greenbaum one day had a sudden
urge to go to Cuba and was later mur-
eamed up
dered. Next Albert Parvin teamed-
with William Israel Alderman-known
as Ice Pick Willie-to head the Fla-
mingo. But Alderman soon was off to
the Riviera and Parvin took over.
On May 12, 1960, Parvin signed a
contract with Meyer Lansky, one of the
country's top gangsters, paying Lansky
what was purportedly a finder's fee of
$200,000 in the sale of the Flamingo.
The agreement stipulated that payment
would be made to Lansky in quarterly
installments of $6,250 starting In 1961.
If kept, final payment of the $200,000
would have been in October 1968.
Parvin and the other owners sold the
Flamingo for a reported $10,500,000 to
a group Including Florida hotelmen
Morris Lansburgh, Samuel Cohen, and
Daniel Lifter. His attorney in the deal
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00411R000600010013-7
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
was Edward Levinson, who has been
associated with Parvin in a number of
enterprises. The Nevada Gaming Com-
mission approved the sale on June 1.
1960.
In November of 1960, Parvin set up the
Albert Parvin Foundation. Accounts vary
as to whether it was funded with Fla-
mingo Hotel stock or with a first mort-
gage on the Flamingo taken under the
terms of the sale. At any rate the foun-
dation was incorporated in New York and
Mr. Justice Douglas assisted in setting it
up, according to Parvin. If the Justice
did indeed draft the articles of incorpo-
28, section 454, United States Code, which
states that "any justice or judge ap-
pointed under the authority of the United
States who engages in the practice of law
is guilty of a high misdemeanor."
Please note that this offense is spe-
cifically stated in the Federal statute
to be a high misdemeanor, making it
conform to one of the constitutional
grounds for impeachment. There is ad-
ditional evidence that Mr. Justice Doug-
las later, while still on salary, gave legal
advice to the Albert Parvin Foundation
on dealing with an Internal Revenue
investigation.
The ostensible purpose of the Parvin
Foundation was declared to be educat-
ing the developing leadership in Latin
America. This had not previously been
a known concern of Parvin or his Las
Vegas associates, but Cuba, where some
of them had business connections, was
then in the throes of Castro's Commu-
nist revolution.
In 1961 Mr. Justice Douglas was named
a life member of the Parvin Foundation's
board, elected president and voted a sal-
ary of $12,000 per year plus expenses.
There is some conflict in testimony as to
how long Douglas drew his pay, but he
did not put a stop to it until last May-
1969-in the wake of public revelations
that forced the resignation of Mr. Justice
Fortas.
The Parvin Foundation in 1961 under-
took publication of Mr. Justice Douglas'
book, "America's Challenge," with costs
borne by the foundation but royalties
going to the author.
In April 1962 the Parvin Foundation
applied for tax-exempt status. And
thereafter some very interesting things
happened.
On October 22, 1962, Bobby Baker
turned up in Las Vegas for a 3-day stay.
His hotel bill was paid by Ed Levinson,
Parvin's associate and sometime at-
torney. On Baker's registration card a
hotel employee had noted-"is with
Douglas."
Bobby was then, of course, majority
secretary of the Senate and widely re-
garded as the right hand of the then
Vice President of the United States. So
it is unclear whether the note meant
literally that Mr. Justice Douglas was
also visiting Las Vegas at that time or
whether it meant only to identify Baker
as a Douglas associate.
In December 1962, I have learned,
Bobby Baker met with Juan Bosch, soon
to be President of the Dominican Re-
public, in New York City.
In January 1963 the Albert Parvin
Foundation decided to drop all its Latin
American projects and to concentrate on
the Dominican Republic. Douglas de-
scribed President-elect Bosch as an old
friend.
On February 26, 1963, however, we find
Bobby Baker and Ed Levinson together
again-this time on the other side of the
continent in Florida-buying round-trip
tickets on the same plane for the Domin-
ican Republic.
Since the Parvin Foundation was set
up to develop leadership in Latin Amer-
ica, Trujillo had been toppled from
power in a bloody uprising, and Juan
Bosch was about to be inaugurated as
the new, liberal President. Officially rep-
resenting the United States at the cere-
monies February 27 were the Vice Presi-
dent and Mrs. Johnson. But their Air
Force plane was loaded with such celeb-
rities as Senator and Mrs. Humphrey,
two Assistant Secretaries of State, Mr.
and Mrs. Valenti, and Mrs. Elizabeth
n,,..
t
B
bb
Bake
and Eddie
pen
er
o
y
r
Also on hand in Santo Domingo to
celebrate Bosch's taking up the reins of
power were Mr. Albert Parvin, President
of the Parvin-Dohrmann Co., and the
President of the Albert Parvin Founda-
tion, Mr. Justice William O. Douglas of
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Again there is conflicting testimony as
to the reason for Mr. Justice Douglas'
presence in the Dominican Republic at
this juncture, along with Parvin, Levin-
son, and Bobby Baker. Obviously he was
not there as an official representative of
the United States, as he was not in the
Vice President's party.
One story is that the Parvin Founda-
tion was offering to finance an educa-
tional television project for the Domini-
can Republic. Another is that Mr. Justice
Douglas was there to advise President
Bosch on writing a new Constitution for
the Dominican Republic.
There is little about the reasons be-
hind the presence of a singularly large
contingent of known gambling figures
and Mafia types in Santo Domingo, how-
ever. With the change of political re-
gimes the rich gambling concessions of
the Dominican Republic were up for
grabs. These were generally not owned
and operated by the hotels, but were
granted to concessionaires by the gov-
ernment-specifically by the President,
It was one of the country's most lucra-
tive sources of revenue as well as private
corruption. This brought such known
gambling figures as Parvin and Levin-
son, Angelo Bruno and John Simone, Jo-
seph Sicarelli, Eugene Pozo, Santa Traf-
ficante Jr., Louis Levinson, Leslie Earl
Kruse, and Sam Giancanno to the island
in the spring of 1963.
Bobby Baker, in addition to serving as
go-between for his Las Vegas friends such
as Ed Levinson, was personally interested
in concessions for vending machines of
his Serv-U Corp., then represented by
Washington Attorney Abe Fortas. Baker
has described Levinson as a former
partner.
Mrs. Fortas, also an attorney, was sub-
sequently to be retained as tax counsel
by the Parvin Foundation. Her fee is not
exactly known but that year the founda-
tion spent $16,058 for professional serv-
ices.
There are reports that Douglas met
with Bosch and other officials of the new
government in February or early March
of 1963, and also that he met with Bobby
Baker and with Albert Parvin. In April
1963, Baker and Ed Levinson returned to
the Dominican Republic and in that same
month the Albert Parvin Foundation was
granted its tax-exempt status by the In-
ternal Revenue Service.
In June, I believe it was June 20, Bobby
Baker and Ed Levinson traveled to New
York where Baker introduced Levinson
to Mr. John Gates of the Intercontinental
Levinson was interested in the casino
concession in the Ambassador-El Em-
bajador-Hotel in Santo Domingo. My
ican Republic about this time but that,
despite all this influence peddling, the
gambling franchise was not granted to
the Parvin-Levinson-Lansky interests
In August, President Bosch awarded
cidentally, also was an associate of Bobby
When this happened, the further in-
in the Dominican Republic abruptly
ceased. I am told that some of the edu-
cational television equipment already de-
livered was simply abandoned in its origi-
On September 25, 1963, President Bosch
was ousted and all deals were off. He was
later to lead a comeback effort with Com-
Parvin bought the Fremont Hotel in Las
Vegas in 1966 from Edward Levinson
Nevada city, and in 1969 was denied per-
mission by Nevada to buy the Riviera
Hotel and took over operation of the
Stardust Hotel. This brought an investi-
gation which led to the suspension of
trading in Parvin-Dohrmann stock by
the SEC, which led further to the com-
pany's employment of Nathan Voloshen.
But in the interim Albert Parvin is said
to have been bought out of the company
and to have retired to concentrate on his
foundation, from which Mr. Justice
Douglas had been driven to resign by re-
lentless publicity.
On May 12, 1969, Mr. Justice Douglas
reportedly wrote a letter to Albert Par-
vin in which he discussed the pending
action by the Internal Revenue Service
to revoke the foundation's tax-exempt
status as a "manufactured case" de-
signed to pressure him off the Supreme
Court. In this letter, as its contents were
paraphrased by the New York Times,
Mr. Justice Douglas apparently offered
legal advice to Mr. Parvin as to how to
avoid future difficulties with the Internal
Revenue Service, and this whole episode
demands further examination under
oath by a committee with subpena
preme Court for Justices accepting large
sums of money from private foundations
for ill-defined services, Mr. Justice Doug-
las finally gave up his open ties with the
Albert Parvin Foundation. Although re-
signing as its president and giving up his
$12,000-a-year salary, Mr. Justice Doug-
las moved immediately into closer con-
nection with the leftish Center for the
Study of Democratic Institutions.
The center is located in Santa Barbara,
Calif., and is run by Dr. Robert M. Hut-
chins, former head of the University of
Chicago.
A longtime "consultant" and member
of the board of directors of the center,
Mr. Justice Douglas was elevated last
December to the post of chairman of the
executive committee. It should be noted
that the Santa Barbara Center was a
beneficiary of Parvin Foundation funds
during the same period that Mr. Justice
Douglas was receiving $1,000 a month
salary from it and Mobster Meyer Lansky
was drawing down installment payments
of $25,000 a year. In addition to Douglas,
there are several others who serve on
both the Parvin Foundation and Center
for Democratic Studies boards, so the
break was not a very sharp one.
The gentleman from New Hampshire
(Mr. WYMAN) has investigated Mr. Jus-
tice Douglas' connections with the center
and discovered that the Associate Jus-
tice has been receiving money from it,
both during the time he was being paid
by Parvin and even larger sums since.
The distinguished gentleman, who
served as attorney general of his State
and chairman of the American Bar As-
if sociation's committee on jurisprudence
before coming to the House, will detail
his findings later. But one activity of the
center requires inclusion here because it
provides some explanation for Mr. Jus-
tice Douglas' curious obsession with the
current wave of violent youthful rebel-
lion.
In 1965 the Santa Barbara Center,
which is tax exempt and ostensibly
serves as a scholarly retreat, sponsored
and financed the National Conference
birth of the New Left as a political move-
ment. Two years later, in August 1967,
the Center was the site of a very signif-
leaders. Here plans were laid for the
violent campus disruptions of the past
few years, and the students were ex-
horted by at least one member of the
so-
ciety, block defense work by universities,
immobilize computerized record systems
and discredit the ROTC.
This session at Mr. Justice Douglas'
, I applauds in his latest book in these
words:
Where grievances pile high and most of
the elected spokesmen represent the Estab-
lishment, violence may be the only effective
response.
Mr. Speaker, we are the elected
Approved For Rele
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
spokesmen upon whom the Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court is attempt-
ing to palace the blame for violent re-
bellion in this country. What he means
by representing the establishment I do
not know, except that he and his young
hothead revolutionaries regard it as evil.
I know very well who I represent, how-
ever, and if the patriotic and law abiding
and hard-working and God-fearing peo-
ple of America are the establishment, I
re. am proud to represent such an establish-
ment.
1'' n g'?i'f"2t P 1"t f?f `?i finer ?
at this point who Mr. Justice Douglas
represents. On the basis of the facts
available to me, and presented here, Mr.
Justice Douglas appears to represent Mr.
Albert Pa.rvin and his silent partners of
the international gambling fraternity,
Mr. Ralph Ginzburg, and his friends of
the pornographic publishing trade. Dr.
Robert Hutchins and his intellectual in-
cubators for the New Left and the SDS,
and others of the same ilk. Mr. Justice
Douglas does not find himself in this
company suddenly or accidentally or un-
knowingly, he has been working at it for
years, profiting from it for years, and
flaunting it in the faces of decent Amer-
icans for years.
'),'here Nave been many questions put
to me in recent days. Let me unequivo-
cally answer the most important of them
for the record now.
Mr. Speaker, is this action on my
part in response to, or retaliation for,
the rejection by the other body of two
nominees for the Supreme Court, Judge
Haynsworth and Judge Carswell. In a
narrow sense, no. The judicial misbe-
havior which I believe Mr. Justice
Douglas to be guilty of began long before
anybody thought about elevating Judges
Haynsworth and Carswell.
But in a larger sense, I do not think
there can be two standards for member-
ship on the Supreme Court, one for Mr.
Justice Fcrtas, another for Mr. Justice
Douglas.
What is the ethical or moral distinc-
tion. I ask those arbiters of high principle
who have studied such matters, between
the Parvin Foundation, Parvin-Dohr-
mann's troubles with the SEC, and Par-
vin's $12,000-a-year retainer to Associ-
ate Justice Douglas-on the one hand-
and the Wolfson Family Foundation.
Louis Wolfson's troubles with the SEC
and Wolfson's $20,000-a-year retainer to
Associate Justice Fortas? Why, the cast
of characters in these two cases Is vir-
tually interchangeable.
Albert Parvin was named a coconspir-
ator but not a defendant in the stock
manipulation case that sent Louis Wolf-
son to prison. Albert Parvirt was again
under Investigation in the stock manipu-
lation action against ParvinDohrmann.
This generation has largely forgotten
that William O. Douglas first rose to na-
tional prominence as Chairman of the
Securities and, Exchange Commission.
His former law pupil at Yalei and fellow
New Dealer in those days was one Abe
Fortas, and they remained the closest
friends on and off the Supreme Court.
Mrs. Fortas was retained by'the Parvin
Foundation in its tax difficulties. Abe
Fortas was retained by Bobby Baker until
he withdrew from the case because of his
close ties with the White House.
I will state that there is some differ-
ence between the two situations. There is
no evidence that Louis Wolfson had no-
torious underworld associations in his
financial enterprises. And more impor-
tant, Mr. Justice Fortas had'enough re-
spect for the so-called establishment
and the personal decency to resign when
his behavior brought reproach upon the
U.S. Supreme Court. Whatever he may
have done privately, Mr. Justice Fortas
did not consistently take public positions
that damaged and endangered the fabric
of law and government.
Another question I have been asked is
whether I, and others in this House, want
to set ourselves up as censors of books
and magazines. This is, of coulrse, a stock
liberal needle which will continue 'to be
inserted at every opportunity no matter
how often it is plainly answered In the
negative. But as the "censor" was an
ancient Roman office, the supervisor of
public morals, let me substitute, if I
might, another Roman office, the tribune.
It was the tribune who repre$ented and
spoke up for the people. This is our role
in the impeachment of unfit judges and
other Federal officials. We have not made
ourselves censors; the Constitution
makes us tribunes.
A third question I am asked!is whether
the step we are taking will not diminish
public confidence In the Supreme Court.
That is the easiest to answer. Public con-
fidence in the U.S. Supreme Court dimin-
ishes every day that Mr. Justice Douglas
remains on It.
Finally, I have been asked, and I have
asked myself, whether or not I should
stand here and impeach Mr. Justice
Douglas on my own constitutional re-
sponsibility. I believe, on the basis of
my own investigation and the facts I
have set before you, that he is unfit and
should be removed. I would vote to im-
peach him right now.
But we are dealing here with a solemn
constitutional duty. Only the House has
this power; only here can the people ob-
tain redress from the misbehavior of
appointed judges. I would not try to im-
pose my judgment in such a matter upon
any other Member; each one should
examine his own conscience after the full
facts have been spread before him.
I cannot see how, on the prima facie
case I have made, it is possible to object
to a prompt but thoroughgoing investi-
gation of Mr. Justice Douglas' behavior.
I believe that investigation, giving both
the Associate Justice and his accusers the
right to answer under oath, should be
as nonparisan as possible and should in-
terfere as little as possible with the regu-
lar legislative business of the House. For
that reason I shall support, but not ac-
tively sponsor, the creation of a select
committee to recommend whether prob-
able causes does lie, as I believe it does,
for the impeachment and removal of Mr.
Justice Douglas.
Once more, I remind you of Mr. Justice
Cardozo's guidelines for any judge:
Not honest alone, but the punctilio of
an honor the most sensitive, is then the
standard of behavior,
Why should the American people de-
mand such a high standard of their ju-
diciary? Because justice is the founda-
tion of our free society, There has never
been a better answer than that of Daniel
Webster, who said:
There is no happiness, there is no liberty,
there is no enjoyment of life, unless a man
can say when he rises in the morning, I shall
be subject to the decision of no unwise judge
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
 Approved For Release 2002/05 RDP74B 00010013-7
E 7279
August 3, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECO Extensions
without reference to Section 223(e), careful quality roofing, plumbing, heating equip- The collection is strongest in eighteenth hot water
and
neteenth adherence to all applicable requirements is ofethe liundeTsize ne appliances are itemstwhichomust these niare particularly finertworkseby Ben
mandator ry.
(b) For all existing property appraisals the be of concern to the appraiser in estimating gamin West, John Singleton Copley, Gilbert
the
71429 are (as supplemented being appraised land evatuat on of the n- Stuart and i pa ntings Sull by John collection is
valuation
The paragraphs 7409.2, requirements
by HUD Circular 4400.26) and 71603 of the dition and adequacy of all its elements is an James McNeill Whistler, Mary Cassatt John and
The FHA Underwriting
ectManual. Instructions
y are in without which he cannot make a proper tap- AmSinger naive pit ures, Mr, Campbell has
the related d Inspection of of the property noted, comprise "possibly the most impor-
paragraph 70751. instructions for de- pr el.
tection of termite damage are in paragraph ph The appraiser must be especially careful in Cant group of such paintings in a public
70752. All appraisers are required to review checking the house and the operation of collection."
ER EXHIBITION
this material before undertaking any new equipment where a property shows evidence SPECIAL SUMM
The exhibition of Impressionist R and Post-
assignments. of neglect or vandalism.
FHA cannot warrant existing properties Im esexhi paintings and sculpture from
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, the Nathan Cummings coeculp urel eo
c tt defects n should make this position
clear ear to all concerned. However, this does not COMMITTEE BANKING August 1, 1970. tinue through Labor Day. One large bronze
sp nsi way relieve the appraiser of his re- Washington, by contemporary British sculptor Henry
Manual nuals references. esSecretary, Hon, set forth in the foregoing ryDepartment ,of Housing and Ur- Moore is on view outside the Gallery's Con-
(c) Supervisory Insuring office staff must ban Development, Washington, D.C. stitutsourioon the Ave. exhibition entranceis. An Acoustiguide
available.
follow the system of spot checks of existing DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Thank you for your PRINT EXHIBITION
construction appraisals and any other man- prompt response of July 31, 1970, to my July p
A selection tEXHIBITIve turn-of-the-
You tools necessary to assure compliance. 28 letter to e you.
You re to be commended for the imme- century French prints, mostly color litho-
VALUATION ANALYSIS diate action you are taking in this matter. graphs, from the Rosenwald Collection of
Certainly we shall be happy to meet with you the National Gallery are on view through
71409 1 co .2 Existing Dweinggs-building or your representatives on this matter at Labor Day.
The e condLtio~n of existing building immpproveve- any time. FILMS
ments is examined at the time of appraisal We shall, of course, immediately analyze During August, two films will be shown
to determine whether repairs, alterations, or the new appraisal regulations for existing for the first time at the National Gallery,
additions are necessary. If so they should be housing which you have promulgated. We A Gallery of Children and Reflections in
in De scrip items hose s se tithe liminate on- shall also look forward to the findings of Space. In Search of Rembrandt continues to
continued economic oyour investigation concerning the material be shown on weekdays. Refer to the weekly
diutionds s threatening gsen the al to the
so sent to you in my letter of July 28 and your listings of this calendar for showings. For
q-
uired rep irthe me limited to to t toe hose n. es- answer to the questions raised in that letter. details on the evening showings of "Civilisa
sary to eser the be property and protect neces- I am concerned, however, about the prob- tion," call 737-4220.
e the
property and able wrongs that have already been commit- Monday, July 27, through Sunday, Au-
preserve eserv
they
t
r
ai
~, of the occupan
t
an safe_
d
s' tad in this 235 existing housing program and
_ y
health
the
termite damage; ' damaged or ; can be done to correct the situation as far
plumbing, heating or electrical systems; as those people who have been victimized by
broken or missing fixtures; rotted counter unscrupulous dealings involving ,the 235 ex-
tops and floors; leaking roofs; exterior paint isting housing programs.
d founda-
n
bare wood; masonry a
our
d t
d
o
y
peele
Again, I wish to commend you an
tion damage; drainage problems on-site; and
reaction in this matter.
requirements to meet the code in code en- office for your prompt
forcement areas. It may also be necessary With best personal I am
l
n
ere
y,
i
c
S
d outbuild-
id
t
a
e
moval of dilap
to require re
WRIGHT
ings which might endanger the safety of
children.
Conditions which do not require repair in-
clude "cosmetic" work such as interior paint-
in,g, polishing floors, cleaning or removal of
o
f ..
v
e
d drvewa.ys or
---. _ "
tial paving of street; replacement of tile
floors because tiles do not match; planting
of shrubbery or lawns, and the like, which
are not directly related to the preservation
of the property or the health and safety of
the occupants.
The appraiser is required to Inspect the
entire structure including the -attic, the
crawl space or basement and all equipment.
It'is essential that all deficiencies not found
in comparable properties be reflected in
value. An estimate of the cost of the required
repairs, alterations, or additions is made by
the appraiser, or by the Architectural Sec-
tion when requested. If conditions prevent
complete inspection of the property at the
time of appraisal (for example, snow cover-
ing the roof) so that,the appraiser cannot
determine the condition, he should require
either a reinspeotion prior to closing or that
evidence satisfactory to FHA be furnished
concerning the condition of those items cited
in the requirement.'
If the appraiser cannot determine whether
all mechanical equipment is in operating
condition, he should make a commitment
requirement that the mortgagee furnish evi-
dence satisfactory to FHA that all mechanical
equipment 1's in operating condition at the
time of loan closing.
A proper appraisal requires that the ap-
praiser consider not only the condition of
the property and its equipment but also the
functional adequacy of the components un-
der conditions typically expected. Inferior
PATMAN,
Chairman.
NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
HON. JAMES G. FULTON
OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, August 3, 1970
Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to place in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the Calendar of
Events for the monh of August 1970 for
the National Gallery of Art. Once again
the National Gallery has planned an out-
standing number of events, which I
heartily recommend to my colleagues
and the American people:
NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART, AUGUST 1970
AMERICAN PAINTINGS AND SCULPTURE
CATALOGUE
After more than thirty years of research,
the National Gallery has published a sum-
mary catalogue of its collection of American
paintings and sculpture.
Research on this fully illustrated cata-
logue of 827 paintings and five sculptures in
the collection of the National Gallery was
begun by James W. Lane, former curator of
the Gallery's American collection, and con-
tinued under his successor, William P. Camp-
bell, who is now Acting Chief Curator of the
Gallery. Study of the collection has led to
many new attributions and discoveries about
the works.
gust 2.
tion) Gallery 90, Tues. through Sat. 12:00
& 2:00; Sun. 3:30 &
6:00.
TOUR
Introduction to the Collection.-Rotunda,
Mon. through Sat. 11:00, 1:00 & 3:00; Sun.
2:30 & 5:00.
SUNDAY LECTURE
Modern Art: Matisse and Rouault. Speak-
er: Carleen Keating, Staff Lecturer; National
Gallery of Art, Auditorium 4:00.
SUNDAY FILM
A Gallery of Children, 1:00.
WEEKDAY FILMS
A Gallery of Children-2:00; In
Rembrandt-5:00.
GALLERY HOURS
Weekdays and Saturdays, 10:00 a.m. to 9:00
p.m.; Sundays, 12 noon to 10:00 p.m.
PAINTING OF THE WEEK*
Goya. Victor Guye.-(Gift of William Nel-
son Cromwell) Gallery 50, Tues. through Sat.
12:00 & 2:00; Sun. 3:30 & 6:00.
TOUR
Introduction to the Collection.-Rotunda,
Mon. through Sat. 11:00, 1:00 & 3:00; Sun.
2:30 & 5:00.
SUNDAY LECTURE
Modern Art: Picasso and Braque.-Speaker:
William J. Williams; Staff Lecturer, National
Gallery of Art, Auditorium 4:00.
SUNDAY FILM
Reflections in Space-1:00.
WEEKDAY FILMS
Reflections in Space-2:00.
Rembrandt-4:00.
CAFETERIA HOURS
Sundays: Dinner, 1:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.;
Weekdays: Snack Service, 10:00 a.m. to 11:00
a.m., 2:30 to 5:00 p.m.; Luncheon, 11:00 a.m.
to 2:30 p.m.; Dinner, 5:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Monday, August 10, through Sunday, Au-
gust 16.
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : 'CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
 E 7280 Approved FQQrr e T 002//05/0~7~ CIA -RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
(,(i MWAY
Charles Bartlett, which Should be of negotiations warn
GeI?ald David. The Hest on the Flight into great interest to all of us. the
golden fleece of 1 o that the qulity for
lf
pypt .--(Andrew Mellon Collection) Gallery yc,,e-price stability has
10, Tues. through sat. 12:00 & 2:00; Sun. Mr. Bartlett pointed out that the Japa- barely begun.
11:30 & 6:00. nese Finance Ministry has startled econ- The Nixon economistt, reflect growing con-
TOUR onlists here in ,,the United States by fldenee in their aiaiiit3 to avoid a recession,
?. eiwugn nat, 11:00, 1:00 & 3:00; Sun,
230 & 6:00.
SUNDAY LECTURE
Modern Art: Kirchner and Kandinsky,--
E peaker: Charlotte Snyder, Summer Staff
(Lecturer; National Gallery of Art, Auditor-
111m 4:00.
SUNDAY FILM
A Gallery of Children--1:00.
WEEKDAY FILMS
A Gallery of Children--2:00; in Search
of Rembrandt--4:00.
Monday, August 17, through Sunday, Au-
gust 23.
PAINTING OF THE WEEK
Delacroix, The Arab Tax,-(Chester Dale
Fund) Gallery 83, Tues. through Sat. 12:00
& 2:00; Sun. 3:340 & 6:00,
TOUR
Introduction to the oCllection. Rotunda,
Mon, through Sat. 11:00, 1:00 & 3:00, Sun,
2:30 & 5:00.
SUNDAY LECTURE
Modern Art: La Fresnaye and Leger-
Speaker: Margaret Houton. Curator in
Charge of Education; National Gallery of
Art, Auditorium 4:00.
SUNDAY FILM
Reflections in Space.-1:00.
WEEKDAY FILMS
Reflections in Space.-2:00, In Search of
Re mbrandt, 4:00.
3'or reproductions and slides of the col-
lection, books, and other related publica-
tions, self-service rooms are open daily near
the Constitution Avenue entrance.
foresee per capita incomes in Japan of
$55,267 by the end of this century.
- It is interesting to note that the Japa-
nese study shows that America's annual
per capita income is estimated at mere-
ly $14,181 by the year 2001, considerably
less than all the European countries ex-
cept Great Britain.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the
Japanese projections, but I do believe
that these projections warrant more than
passing interest by all of us In this
Country.
I said the other day that when we ex-
amine the economic growth of Japan,
West Germany, the Common Market
countries, and other economic systems
around the world, we Americans better
realize that we are faced with an in-
creased challenge from world competi-
tion.
We Americans have been fortunate in
the last 200 years, in that our cities have
not ,been ravaged by the horrors of war
as have the Japanese and European
cities. It should be perfectly clear to all
of us that the rest of the world is now
developing production techniques and
methods which could make America a
second-rate economic power in the next
decade.
I am submitting into the RECORD today
Mr. Bartlett's excellent column because
I believe it should-serve as a basis for a
national dialog on how ,we Americans
slough by election time. They will soon begin
some new anti-in#iationary gestures but
these are stage-dressirq"
American labor leades, seeing no solution
short of controls, describe their rank-and-
file as increasingly se;:sitive to the threat
of unemployment. Bus they nevertheless
press for big wage gain, because they find it
hard to-pay their bills.
Dismay over the arduous pursuit of sta-
bility which lies ahead is prompting some
to question whether tt.e Full Employment
Act of 1946 should not be amended to put
the objective of price stability ahead of
economic growth. The idea draws enthusiasm
from the environment i.ists, who see afflu-
ence and consumption a:, enemies,
"I confess I am not cl..Lrmed," John Stuart
Mills wrote 100 years ago, "with the ideal of
life held out by those who think that the
normal state of humal: beings is that of
struggling to get on; that the trampling,
crushing, elbowing, ana treading on each
other's heels are most (lesirable lot of hu-
man kind."
Mills added that this rind of life prevails
particularly in the northern and middle
states of America when,, "The life of the
whole of one sex is devoted to dollar-
hunt-ing,-and of the other .o breeding dollar-
U-
TION OF WILLIAM O.
DOUGLAS
HON. CHARLES H. GRIFFIN
Francesco di Giorgio. God the Father Sur- dilstrfal output and also address our- 414 1 ' HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES rotsnded by Angeles and Cheribim.-(Samuel selves to the whole question of quality Monday, Augu=t 3, 1970
H. Kress Collection) Gallery 5. Tues, through Production. Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Speaker, several
Sal;. 12:00 & 2:00; Sun. 3:30 & 6:00. No one in this Nation is nrn:,i,a(?n?
introduction to the Coueetlon.-Rotunda,
Mon. through Sat. 11:00, 1:00 & 3:00, Sun,
2:30&5:00.
SUNDAY LECTURE
Modern Art: Chagall and Dubuffet.-
Speaker: Troy Thomas; Staff Lecturer, Na-
tional Gallery of Art, Auditorium 4:00.
SUNDAY FILM
A. Gallery of Children,-1:00.
WEEKDAY FILMS
A Gallery of Children, 2:00.-in Search of
Revtbrandt, 4:00.
Inquiries concerning the Gallery's educa-
tiorial services should be addressed to the
Ed:cation.al Office or telephoned to (202)
737.-4215 ext.272.
FOOTNOTES
' 11" x 14" reproductions with texts for
sale this week-150 each. If mailed, 25?
each.
JAPANESE PROJECTIONS STARTLE
U.S. ECONOMISTS
HON. ROMAN C. FUCINSKI
OF ILLINOIS
1.14' THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, August 3, 1970
Mr. PUCINSKI, Mr. Speaker, the Chi-
cago Sun-Times carried a column last
week by the distinguished journalist,
competition from most of the world, and -_ -'k' u" uIvtwwgi'Fe wnether im-c
hment that competition can be met. I have no brought t against proceedings should William O. Douglas,
s,
doubt in the American system or the Associate Justice of tie U.S. Supreme
dedication of the American worker. But Court,
it does occur to me that we must try to Serious questions hat,. been raised over
bring about a greater degree of under- Justice Douglas' behat-ior while on the
standing of the challenge that lies ahead, Court and I strongly feel that the Amer-
and a greater degree of cooperation be- lean people are entiti I to a full and
tween labor, industry, and government to complete inquiry. Thai. is why I joined
meet that challenge. in the Introduction of a resolution to
Mr. Bartlett has performed a notable create a select committse of six Members
public service by calling the Japanese of the House to investigate and deter-
study to the attention of the American mine whether Associate. Justice Douglas
people. - has committed high crimes and misde-
JAPANESE PROJECTIONS STARTLE U.S, constitution. -_ _ wYN~ula 111 Lne
ECONOMISTS After the introductitt'l of the afore-
WAsxnwaroN,-The Japanese Finance Min- mentioned resolution, t e Committee on
istry,- has startled economists here by pub- the Judiciary announec'tI that it would
lishing economic projections which foresee
per capita incomes in Japan of $16,426 by conduct an investigation based on an
1991 and $55,267 by the end of the century, impeachment resolution that had been
The Japanese anticipations for the United introduced,
States are far more conservative. A per capita Mr. Speaker, many oF' us have been
income of Merely $14,161 is predicted for anxiously awaiting MSUlis of the inquiry
2001, considerably less than all the Euro- by the Judiciary Commit tee which is now
pear countries except Great Britain, in its fourth month. We have had no
The modest estimate for the United report of the committee's progress.
States comes almost as reassurance at a
time when the upward sweep of wage settle- The Jackson, Miss? Daily News, on
ments is promising to prolong the inflation. July 27, 1970, carried the Allen-Gold-
The new teamsters contract in Chicago nth syndicated column which discussed
(Which may ultimately mean, food chain the status of the Judiciary Committee
economists say, a 4 per cent rise in food probe. Asa part of my remarks, I include
costs) and the ominous start of the auto this column and the text of the resolu-
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
August 3, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks
tion introduced by over one-fourth of That's why it is taken as a forgone con-
the clusion that the probers will ask for a:: the
the Members in th9
S Judiciary Committee will approve-another
CELLER PiOBE O V DOUGLAS RAISES DOUBT OS 60-day extension.
4XNCERi'rY And that isn't all.
(By Robert S. Allen and John A. Goldsmith) House members are openly voicing the
WASHINGTON, D.C.-Increasingly critical - strong suspicion that the secret aim of Celler
doubts are being raised as to just how sin- and other subcommitteemen is to stall mak-
cere that special House Judiciary subcom- ing a report until after the Nov. 3 congres-
mittee is in making a thorough and forth- sional elections. By that time, Congress may
might investigation of Justice William O. have wound up its work and quit.
Douglas. That would mean nothing could be done
So far, there is little indication that very about Douglas until the new Congress con-
much has been done-if anything. venes in January-when, under the rules, the
In the three months the probe has been investigating committee would have to be
underway, the backstage record is one of reconstituted and the probe started all over
persistent foot dragging and dawdling. again, assuming that is demanded. In view of
As a consequence, with the investigators the fact that Celler set up the special panel
due, to report to the full House in three only when forced to do so, it's highly con-
Weeks (Aug. 20), both their intent and non- jectural what he will do in the next Congress.
chalant proceedings are being bluntly ques-
tioned by fellow legislators. There is consid- H. RES. 925
erable evidence to support these indignant Whereas, the Constitution of the United
complaints and misgivings, as follows: States provides in Article III, Section 1, that
The subcommittee, headed by Rep. Eman- Justices of the Supreme Court shall hold
uel Celler, D-N.Y., 82, has held no hearings=, office only "during good behavior", and
private or public. Whereas, the Constitution also provides in
NO SUBPOENAS YET Article It, Section 4, that Justices of the
No subpoenas have been issued, add no Supreme Court shall be removed from Office
one has been questioned under oath. Last on Impeachment for High Crimes and Mis-
month, three staff members of the committee demeanors, and .
spent a day in Los Angeles talking to Albert Whereas the 'Constitution also provides in
Parvin, head of the foundation by that name Article VI that Justices of the Supreme Court
which paid Douglas around $100,000 Osten- shall be bound by "Oath or Affirmation to
sibly as a "director." The foundation derives support this Constitution" and the United
much of its income from Nevada gambling States Code (5 U.S.C. 16) prescribes the fo1-
interests. Pardin was not put under oath, lowing form of oath which was taken and
and no subpoena was served on him for files sworn to by William Orville Douglas prior to
and records, The staffmen were content to his accession to incumbency on the United
examine the documents he showed them. States Supreme Court:
The same casual procedure was followed "I, William Orville Douglas, do solemnly
in questioning Robert Hutchins and Harry swear that I will support and defend the
Ashmore, who run the leftist Center for the Constitution of the United States against
Study of Democratic Institutions at Santa all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will
Barbara. Douglas got $6,800 from this outfit bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
as a "director." He _ls not, head of a newly that I take this obligation freely, without
created executive committee at $75 per diem any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,
and expenses. It is unknown how much he and that I will well and faithfully discharge
has received under this arrangement. the duties of the office on which I am about
No special counsel has been employed by to enter. So help me God."
the subcommittee to direct the investigation. and
Also, no extra help has been hired. Chair- Whereas, integrity and objectivity in re-
man Celler has insisted on using only the spect to issues and causes to be presented to
regular staff of the Judiciary Committee- the United States Supreme Court for final
already overloaded with a large accumulation determination make it mandatory that Mem-
of important pending legislation. Nominally, bers thereof refrain from public advocacy of
six staff members were assigned to the a position on any matter that may come
Douglas probe, but reportedly only half that before the High Court lest public confidence
number have worked on it at any one time- in this constitutionally co-equal judicial
despite the fact that several hundred thou- body be undermined, and
sand documents have been submitted by the Whereas, the said William Orville Douglas
Justice Department, Internal Revenue Serv- has, on frequent occasions in published writ-
ice and other government agencies. ings, speeches, lectures and statements, de-
This do-nothing record explains why irate clared a personal position on issues to come
House members are saying it is virtually before the United States Supreme Court in-
certain the subcommittee will have to ask for dicative of a prejudiced and non-judicial at-
another 60-day extension to do its job. That titude incompatible with good behavior and
will be the second. contrary to the requirements of judicial de-
When the investigation was first an- corum obligatory upon the Federal judiciary
nounced by Celler, longtime chairman of the in general and members of the United States
full Judiciary Committee, in a diversionary Supreme Court in particular, and
move to prevent a probe by the full House, Whereas, by the aforementioned conduct
he solemnly promised to report in 60 days. and writings, the said William Orville Doug
But shortly before that deadline, he had the las has established himself before the public,
Judiciary Committee grant a 60-day exten- including litigants whose lives, rights and
sion, future are seriously affected by decisions of prepared, authored, and received payment
That expires Aug. 20-when under present the Court of which the said William Orville for an article which appeared in the March
plans, the House won't even be in session. Douglas is a member, as a partisan advocate 1969 issue of the magazine, Avant Garde, pub-
With the. House well caught up with its and not as a judge, and lished by Ralph Ginzburg, previously con-
legislative calendar (thanks to no protracted Whereas, by indicating in advance of Su- victed of sending obscene literature through
"debates" over a meaningless Cooper-Church preme Court decisions, on the basis of de- the United States Mails, (see 383 U.S. 463)
anti-Cambodia amendment, the Hatfield-Mc- Glared, printed, or quoted convictions, how at a time when the said Ralph Ginzburg
Govern end-the-war ' resolution and other he would decide matters in controversy pend- was actively pursuing an appeal from his
politics-inspired Proposals), bipartisan lead-' ing and to become pending before the Court conviction upon a charge of malicious libel
erg have decided to take a three-week sum- of which he is a member, the said William before the Supreme Court of the United
mar recess-starting around Aug. 15. 'Under Orville Douglas has committed the high mis- States, yet nevertheless the said William
that arrangement, ' the House will be shut demeanor of undermining the integrity of Orville Douglas, as a sitting member of the
down when the subcommittee is supposed to the highest constitutional Court in America, Supreme Court of the United States, know-
submit its Andings-if anyl and has wilfully and deliberately under- ing full well his own financial relationship
mined public confidence in the said Oouri,
as an institution, and
Whereas, cnntrcry to his Oath of Office as
well as patently in conflict with the Canons
of Ethics for-the Judiciary of the American
Bar Association, the said William Orville
Douglas nevertheless on February 19, 1970,
did publish and publicly distribute through-
out the United States, statements encourag-
ing, aggravating and inciting violence, an-
archy and civil unrest in the form of a book
entitled "Points of Rebellion" in which the
said William Orville Douglas, all the while
an incumbent on the Highest Court of last
resort in the United States, stated, among
other things, that:
"But where grievances pile high and most
of the elected spokesmen represent the
Establishment, violence may be the only ef-
fective response." (pp. 88-89,, "Points of Re-
bellion," Random House, Inc., February 19,
1970, William O. Douglas.
"The special interests that control gov-
ernment use its powers to favor themselves
and to perpetuate regimes of oppression, ex-
ploitation, and discrimination against the
many." (ibid, p.92)
"People march and protest but they are
not heard." (ibid, p. 88)
"Where there is a persistent sense of futil-
ity, there is violence; and that is where we
are today." (ibid, p. 56)
"The two parties have become almost in-
distinguishable; and each is controlled by
the Establishment. The modern day dis-
senters and protesters are functioning as the
loyal opposition functions in England. They
are the mounting voice of political opposi-
tion to the status quo, calling for revolu-
tionary changes in our institutions. Yet the
powers-that-be faintly echo Adolph Hitler."
(ibid, p. 57)
"Yet American protesters need not be sub-
missive. A speaker who resists arrest is act-
ing as a free man." (ibid, p.8)
"We must realize that today's Establish-
ment is the new George III, Whether it will
continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not
know. If it does, the redress, honored in
tradition, is also revolution." (ibid, p.95)
and thus wilfully and deliberately fanned
the fires of unrest, rebellion, and revolution
in the United States, and
Whereas, in the April 1970 issue of Ever-
green Magazine, the said William Orville
Douglas for pay did, while incumbent on the
United States Supreme Court, publish an
article entitled Redress and Revolution, ap-
pearing on page 41 of said issue immediately
following a malicious caricature of the Pres-
ident of the United States as George III, as
well as photographs of nudes engaging in
various acts of sexual intercourse, in which
article the said William Orville Douglas again
wrote for pay that:
"George III was the symbol against which
our Founders made a revolution now con-
sidered bright and glorious. . . . We must
realize that today's Establishment is the
new George III. Whether it will continue
to adhere to his tactic, we do not know.
If it does, the redress, honored in tradi-
tion, is also Revolution."
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010013-7
E 7282 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks Av g ust 3, 1970
wtth this litigant before the Court, sat in
judgment on the Clinzburg appeal, all in
clear violation and conflict with his Oath
of.O#9ce, the C of Judicial Ethics, and
Federal law (396 U.S. 1049), and
Whereas, while an incumbent on the
United States Supreme Court the said Wil-
liam Orville Douglas for hire has served and
is reported to still serve as a Director and
as Chairman of the Executive Committee
of the Center for the Study of Democratic
Ifu titutions in Banta Barbara, California, a
politically oriented action organization
which, among other things, has organized
na-,ional conferences designed to seek detente
with the Soviet Union and openly encouraged
student radicalism, and
Whereas, the said Center for the Study
of Democratic Institutions, in violation of
the Logan Act,, sponsored and financed a
"Pacem in Terris II Convocation" at Geneva,
Switzerland, May 28--31, 1967, to discuss
foreign affairs and U.S. foreign policy in-
cluding the "Case of Vietnam" and the "Case
of Germany", to which Ho Chi Minh was
publicly invited, and all while the United
States was in the midst of war in which
Communists directed by the same Ho Chi
Minh were killing American boys fighting
to give South Vietnam the independence
and freedom from aggression we had prom-
ised that Nation, and from this same Center
there were paid to the said William Orville
Douglas Sees of 4500 per day for Seminars
and Articles, and
Whereas, paid activity of this type by a
sitting Justice of tine Supreme Court of the
United States is contrary to his Oath of
Office to uphold the United States Constitu-
tion, violative of the Canons of Ethics of the
American Bar Association and is believed
to constitute misdemeanors of the most
fundamental type in the context in which
that term appears in the United Staes Con-
stitution (Article It, Section 4) as well as
Sailing to constitute "good behavior" as
that term appears in the Constitution (Ar-
ticle III, Section 1), upon which the tenure
of all Federal judges is expressly conditioned,
and
Whereas, moneys paid to the said William
Oreille Douglas from and by the aforemen-
tioned Center are at least as follows: 1982,
$903; 1963, $800; 1965, $1,000; 1986, $1,000;
1963, 1,100; 1969, $2,000; all during tenure
on the United States Supreme Court, and
all while a Director on a Board of Directors
that meets (and met) biannually to deter-
mine the general policies of the Center, and
Vrnereas, the said William Orville Douglas,
contrary to his Sworn obligation to refrain
therefrom and in violation of the Canons of
Ethics, has repeatedly engaged in political
activity while an incumbent of the High
Cot.rt, evidenced In part by his authorization
for the use of his name in a recent political
fund-raising letter, has continued public ad-
vocacy of the recognition of Red China by
the United States, has publicly criticized the
military posture of the United States, has
authored for pay several articles on subjects
patently related to causes pending or to be
pending before the United States Supreme
Court in Playboy Magazine on such subjects
as i:avasions of privacy'and civil liberties, and
most recently has expressed in Brazil public
criticism of the United States foreign
policy while on a visit to_ Brazil in 1969,
plainly designed to undermine public con-
fideace in South and Latin American coun-
tries in the motives and objectives of the
foreign policy of the United States in Latin
America, and
'Whereas, In addition to the foregoing, and
while a sitting Justice on the Supreme Court
of the United States, the said William Orville
Douglas has charged, been paid and received
$12,,00 per annum as President and Director
of the i'arvin Foundation from 1960 to 1969,
which Foundation received substantial in-
come from gambling interests in the Free-
mont Casino at Las Vegas, Nevada, as well
as the Flamingo at the same location, ac-
companied by Innumerable conflicts of in-
terest and overlapping financial maneuvers
frequently involved in litigation the ultimate
appeal from which could only be to the Su-
preme Court of which the said William Or-
ville Douglas was and is a member, the ten-
ure of the said William Orville Douglas with
the Parvin Foundation being reported to have
existed since 1960 in the capacity of Presi-
dent, and resulting in the receipt by the
said William Orville Douglas from the Parvin
Foundation of fees aggregating at least
$85,000, all while a member of the United
States Supreme Court, and all while refer-
ring to Internal Revenue Service investiga-
tion of the Parvin Foundation while a Jus-
tice of the United States Supreme Court as
a "manufactured case" intended to force
him to leave the bench, all while he was
scill President and Director of the said
Foundation and was earning a $12,000 an-
nual salary in those posts, a patent conflict
of interest, and
Whereas, it has been repeatedly alleged
that the said William Orville Douglas in his
position as President of the Parwin Founda-
tion did in fact give the said Foundation
ins advice, with particular reference to mat-
ters known by the said William Orville Doug-
lass at the time to have been under investiga-
tion by the United States Internal Revenue
Services, an contrary to the basic legal and
judicial requirement that a Supreme Court
Justice may not give legal advice, and par-
ticularly not for a fee, .and
Whereas, the said William Orville Douglas
has, from time to time over the past ten
years, had dealings with, involved himself
with, and may actually have received fees
and travel expenses, either directly or in-
directly, from - known criminals, gamblers.
and gangsters or their representatives and
associates, for services, both within the Unit
ed States and abroad, and
Whereas, the foregoing conduct on the part
of the said William Orville Douglas while a.
Justice of the Supreme Court is incompatible
with his constitutional obligation to refrain
from non-judicial activity of a patently un-
ethical nature, and
Whereas, the foregoing conduct and other
activities on the part of the said William
Orville Douglas while a sitting Justice on
the United States Supreme Court, establishes
that the said William Orville Douglas In
the conduct of his solemn judicial respon-
sibilities has become a prejudiced advocate
of predetermined positions on matters in con-
troversy or to become in controversy before
the High Court to the demonstrated detri-
ment of American jurisprudence, and
Whereas, from the foregoing, and without
reference to whatever additional relevant in-
formation may be developed through in-
vestigation under oath, it appears that the
said William Orville Douglas, among other
things, has sat in judgment on a cause in-
volving a party from whom the said William
Orville Douglas to his knowledge received
financial gain, as well as that the said Wil-
liarn Orville Douglas for personal financial
gain, while a member of the. United Sta:,es
Supreme Court, has encouraged violehce to
alter the present form of government of the
United States of America, and has received
and accepted substantial financial compen-
sation from various sources for various duties
incompatible with his judicial position and
constitutional obligation and has publicly
and repeatedly, both orally and in writings,
declared himself a partisan on issues pend-
ing or likely to become pending before the
Court of which he Is a member: Now, there-
fore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) The Speaker of the House shall within
fourteen days hereafter appoint a select com-
mittee of aft Members of the House, equally
divided between the majority and the
minority parties and shall designate one
member to serve as eha -man, which select
Committee shah proceed to investigate and
determine whether Associate Justice William
Orville Douglas has committed high crimes
and misdemeanors as tut phrase appears
in the Constitution, Artit,le II, Section 4, or
has, while an incumbent, failed to be of the
good behavior upon wiTh-h his Commission
as said Justice is condit o?ned by the Con-
sti'ttftioa, Article II, Section 1. The select
committee shall report tt the House the re-
sults of its investigation:, together with its
recommendations on thus resolution for im-
peachment of the seid W-111am Orville Doug-
las not later than ninety days following the
designation of its full atembership by the
Speaker.
(2) For the purpose of carrying out this
resolution the oosnmittee or any suboommit-
tee thereof, is authorized to sit and act dur-
ing the -present Congress at such times and
places within the United States whether the
House is sitting, has re;-assed, or has ad-
journed, to hold such h ,arings, and to re-
quire by subpena or tvtha,rwise, the attend-
ance and testimony of auch witnesses and
the production of such b