Advanced Search
Salt mining
Salt mining
Open pit mining
Potash
Ext. & Int. mining coup
Open iron pit
Open pit mining
Mining
Unknown
Baron pit not used
Mine & entrance
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #991244 Salt beds
Mining mills
Mining
Wierton steel
Mining I from Neveda
Vulean iron mine complete
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.41.29] Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think this is perhaps the most important thing that -we have been debating since these current deliberations began. What is at. issue here is executive privilege. We know that throughout the Constitution there is the running theme of separation of powers, and checks and balances. There are three areas where the President has challenged executive privilege. One is against Congress -where there is a legislative purpose, and clearly he has a valid claim to executive privilege in that instance. He claimed it in the instance of the criminal prosecutions, and the Supreme Court has by a unanimous eight to nothing decision rejected his claim. If the Supreme Court rejected it in that instance, certainly the Supreme Court would reject his claim vis-a-vis the impeachment inquiry by this committee. I would not have. supported this article prior to the Supreme Court decision, but, now that we have it, there is no valid claim on the part of the President to ignore our subpenas. Now, heretofore I have had many discussions with my colleagues, Mr. Conyers of Michigan notably, who felt so very strongly about this and at that time the question of executive privilege was a debatable one. It no longer is. The historical precedent we are setting here is so great because in every future impeachment of a President. it is inconceivable that the evidence relating to that impeachment will not be in the hands of the executive branch which is under his controls. So I agree with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling if we do not pass this article today, the whole impeachment power becomes meaningless, Now, my friend from Wisconsin. Mr. Froehlich, says that we. should have gone to court to enforce our subpenas. Perhaps he is correct. Perhaps we should have. But in our system of justice, the individual who is mandated by the subpena has the right and the opportunity and the obligation, if he challenges that subpena, to move to quash the subpena. The President did not do that. He merely ignored it and having ignored it, the compulsion of our lawfully offered subpenas and still he has ignored them. I I would have hoped that, when the Supreme Court decision was handed down a few days ago he would have immediately delivered that Material to the House Judiciary Committee. He did not. So I urge that My colleagues support this article offered by Mr. McClory because if we do not, we will be for all time weakening the House of Representatives' power of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes and, incidentally , the Chair would like to state that its mathematics were not quite, right. The, gentlemen are entitled to 3 minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, I will yield my 35 seconds to the next speaker in support of the article. The CHAIRMAN. We -will recognize them. I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like at the, outset to say that I was one -who had not made up his mind, had no opinion, when the question -was put for or speaking either in favor of it or against this article. And to help me come to a conclusion, I would like to ask a couple, of questions, first of all, of counsel, and that is, if this-if there were no article III, what would be the effect in a trial in the Senate, of the Senate's ability to obtain the material that we have heretofore subpenaed? ? Mr. JENNER, Congressman--may I, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Jenner. Mr. JENNER. Congressman Fish, the. subpena facts discussed -would be admissible under article I Watergate and coverup, as part of the issue of continued coverup. However, since article I is Watergate and it does not afford an affirmative charge -with respect to the fact that the failure to respond to subpenas is an impeachable offense. In my judgment, if included under article I that would have made that article duplicitous So that if the committee is to recommend to the House an impeachment -with respect to the President's refusal to respond to the subpena, it is necessary that the committee state that in terms of a separate article. Mr. FISH. I thank the gentleman. My next question would be directed at the author, Mr. McCLORY. Mr. McClory, is it your view that if in the course of a trial in the Senate the--or before that, the President should voluntarily come forward with the material that we have heretofore subpenaed, that it would be possible for the managers on the part of the House to drop, this article? Mr. McCLORY. If the gentleman will yield, I will respond by saying emphatically yes. that the President has' been given all kinds of opportunities to come forward and even at that late stage if he came forward with the evidence there, is no reason why we could not drop the article III entirely. Mr. FISH. I thank the. gentleman. [00.47.30]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.52.41] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. SMITH. How much time did I have? The, CHAIRMAN. Three minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. SMITH. I thought, our side had more time than the other. I have 4 minutes, is that not so, Mr. Chairman? Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes. He is in opposition. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. I am sorry, the gentleman still has 25 seconds remaining. Mr. SMITH. Well, Mr. Chairman. I hope you did not take that out of my time. Of course, it will be said that this impeachment proceedings is not, a criminal case and, of course, it is not. But we must, admit it is in the nature. of a supercriminal case, since it involves charges of "treason, bribery. or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and the punishment, on conviction, requires removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy an office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States--truly a staggering punishment for any citizen. So, in the background of any court action to enforce our committee subpenas and, indeed, in the background of any proposed article of impeachment based on the President's partial 'failure to honor our subpenas there are at least the implications of the fifth amendment, that, the accused shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. The CHAIRMAN. The time, has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. Kastenmeier, for .3 minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this article of impeachment to preserve the power of impeachment which the Framers placed in the Constitution. Without the power to subpena papers, materials. things necessary. the Congress cannot meet its constitutional responsibilities. I submit that for a Chief Magistrate to prevent the Congress from meeting its congressional duty, its constitutional duty, is no different than when the President himself violates the Constitution. The offense is just as grave. It is a high crime in the classic sense which the Framers intended when Mr. when they used that phrase in the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, before it was indicated that the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. in presenting this article might, have been inconsistent in the sense that, whether or not he now feels or anyone feels that we need the material requested by this committee and statement would find affirmatively in fact on articles of impeachment claiming that, the, President had not given us material which we now would by implication say is unnecessary. In response to that I would say that this committee made a determination at the time we voted the subpenas and we voted the subpenas in May, in April, by votes of 37 to 1, 29 to 9, 34 to 4. This committee said at that time we, needed this material. The President at, that time said he would refuse to turn the material over to us. So we measure this particular article in the time in which it is seen, not, in terms of whether subsequent to that fact we have or have not acquired sufficient evidence to make the determinations we are set upon today. Furthermore, it has been suggested that in many areas we may not have sufficient evidence even to this date. Articles of impeachment which could be in areas such as ITT, dairy, and other areas, may not well be endorsed by this committee for the reason in fact that we do not have the materials which we found necessary to our inquiry but which the President has rejected. This article is the only answer this committee can give. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. [00.57.00]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.29.43] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead, for 4 minutes. Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, this particular article concerns me more than any of the others that have been filed against the President because I believe that a very important constitutional privilege-constitutional question is involved. The assertion by the. Congress that under the impeachment power it can exercise absolute power of impeachment or any ancillary matter in connection with impeachment without court review certainly would lay the groundwork for legislative abuse of power. I think that it is important that we do have a check and balance. Under our system, the courts are the final determiner of what the law is. There are many things about the power that was given to Congress that might well have to be interpreted by the court. There are other constitutional rights that have been set down under our U.S. Constitution. Those rights on occasion come into conflict with the power that -was given to the House of Representatives to bring impeachment proceedings. Those powers have to be weighed and balanced and it is the, courts that have been given that authority under our Constitution. I think that it is vitally important that this committee, before it considers impeaching a President for failure to follow their demands in a subpena, to take the matter to court as I and some of the other members on this committee voted to do. Some have said there no longer is a privilege of confidentiality in the President. But in the United States vs. Nixon the court said specifically as to the case they -were deciding: In this case we must weigh the importance of the general privilege of 'confidentiality of Presidential communications in performance of his responsibilities against the inroads of such a privilege on the fair administration of the, criminal justice. But they did not rule out the claim in all cases to the privilege. Later on they said: Moreover a President's communications and activities encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of any ordinary individual. It is therefore necessary the public interests to accord Presidential conversations confidentiality the greatest protection consistent with fair administration of justice. The need for confidentiality even as to idle conversations with associates in which casual references might be made concerning political leaders within the country or foreign statesmen is too obvious to call for further treatment. It is important that the President or any other citizen of the United States have a right to have a judicial determination of the validity of any section of the Constitution or any law before places himself in jeopardy of being impeached. I ask for a no vote.
Japan Continues To Dig Out
Japan Continues To Dig Out. Fresh storms have compounded the misery in Japan as 12,000 troops pitch in to try to dig the country out from under 12 foot walls of snow. New storms are adding to the misery of Japan. Snow everywhere. MCUS - Icicles hanging from the roof of a house MCUS - Several people shoveling. MCUS - People walking down the street and the snow is piled about 6 -ft high. MCUS - More pictures of more snow only these piles are 15 to 20 ft high. MS - Men on top of roof tops shoveling snow. MS - Box cars hooked up to a train just loaded with snow
Erin Go Boom
The Irish join the Space Race as some unknown Dubliners send the statue of Lord Nelson into orbit. The memorial to the British sea hero is demolished in the middle of the night and the Irish mourn - sort of. Dublin, Ireland High Angle Shot of downtown Dublin. CUS - The statue of Lord Nelson was reduced to rubble. CUS - A pile of rock that once was a statue. CUS A group of Irish people looking up at an empty space with big smiles on their faces.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.46] Mr. CONYERS. Now, too many members have are beginning to think that we are casting the final decision on impeachment in the Judiciary Committee. Well, let me remind you that there are 400 other members that are going to decide this and I resent any implications of people on the committee suggesting what, ought and what ought not to be introduced now that we have two articles of impeachment, because anyone that does not like whatever other articles-including this one that is presented to them--has their obligation to vote against them. But I do not think that they intimidate or curtail the views of any member or, this committee as to what they are supposed to do. NOW, I introduced the first motion that would have accelerated the impeachment procedure by taking to the floor immediately an article for the refusal of the President to comply, because if there is anything we must pull out of this impeachment process, it is the impeachment process itself, which the President himself now challenges by raising the spurious concept that he has raised here. executive privilege has _no basis in an impeachment proceeding, and most scholars have said so repeatedly. And so with those words, Mr. Chairman, I fully and strongly support this article and hope that it will be reported by the largest number possible on this committee, and that it will be sustained by the majority of our colleagues on the floor. Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. CONYERS. Yes, 1 will. Mr. SEIBERLING. What this really comes down to is, does this committee mean what it says about conducting an impeachment inquiry, and mean it about the powers of Congress, or when we are really faced by a stonewall in the White House, do we just say "poof" and collapse? The CHAIRMAN./ The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis, is recognized for 4 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, 'Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, articles I and II can be debated on the law and on the facts as, indeed, they have been and will be. But this proposed article -we have before us now is utterly without merit. The President, in this instance, asserted what be claimed to be a constitutional right based on executive privilege and the separation of powers, and it is a right, incidentally, which under certain circumstances has now been recognized by the Court in the course of its recent opinion. We took a different position, and now we are going to say, without any resolution of that question, that because you, Mr. President invoked a constitutional position, we are going to impeach you. Now, that argument ought to carry its own answer. We elected never to test the question. We never went to the floor of the House and asked the House to vote a contempt as we might have done, and should have done if we thought he was in contempt. We elected by vote of this committee not to test the matter in the Court, as we have done, and even though as the Court reiterated the other day, the courts are emphatically the province to determine what the law is. We could have been parties to the recent suit or a similar suit, and we would probably have prevailed, and we know that the President would have complied, and we would have this evidence if we just had gone and asked for it in the proper forum. But, we refused to do that. Now, the full right to impeach does not carry with it the sole right to determine what the Constitution means. It does not make us the sole arbitrator of the Constitution. There is a bootstrap operation here, ladies and gentlemen, and we are in effect trying to say to the President that if you do not agree with our view of the Constitution we are going to impeach you. Now, that is not a reasonable position to take. The Court, in Nixon against Sirica the other day said this: "If a President concludes that compliance with a subpena would be injurious to the public interest he may properly invoke a claim of privilege." That is exactly what the President did. And it will reflect no credit on this committee if we try to impeach him for doing that. [01.14.43]
India Celebrates "Republic Day"
India Celebrates "Republic Day." What is usually a joyous occasion - India's "Independence Day" - takes on a somber air in the face of threats from Red China. India celebrates her Independence by having a gala parade. MS - The President S.Radakrishnan exits out of a carriage and is greeted by Prime Minister Nehru as he arrives to review the parade. MCUS - India's army marching past the President and Prim Minister Nehru. MCUS - Some heavy armament, tanks, missiles. MSOH - Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers march in the parade. MCUS - Elephants, brightly decorated and carrying several people at one time on their backs
Air Disaster In Turkey
Air Disaster In Turkey. One hundred people are dead in Ankara as two planes collide and plunge into the heart of the City. The smoking ruins of two planes mark the scene mark of the middle east of the worst air disaster. Two planes one a passenger airliner and a military craft met head on over Ankara, Turkey. Both plummeted Ola square right in the heart of the city. Killing scores upright and trapping others in buildings that burst into flames. MS - Firefighters and rescue workers fighting the flames on burning buildings and the smoldering fires of the pieces of planes scattered all over. MS - A piece of the wing of one of the planes and firemen in the back ground fighting fire. MS - Firemen and rescue workers taking a fire hose inside a burning building. Camera pans up - Burning building. MS - A large crowd of fire fighters and rescue workers. LS - A lot of people running around and you see the water coming out of a hose, aimed at a house burning. MS - Firefighter fighting a smoking blaze in a store. Some of the plane wreckage scattered all over.