"Whatever the Result, Let Us Proceed"

I have what I consider the most solemn and substantial assurances of my absolute independence. There are absolutely no restraints on my freedom to seek evidence, including presidential tapes and documents.

-Special Watergate Prosecutor Leon Jaworski, Nov. 8

Solemn assurances have a way of evaporating under pressure in Richard Nixon's White House, as Prosecutor Jaworski discovered to his dismay last week. With Nixon pursuing yet another twist in his survival strategy;this time one of delay and resistance to continuing demands for Watergate evidence -a new clash loomed between President and prosecutor. Echoing Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor Nixon had fired last October for refusing to desist from pursuing presidential evidence, Jaworski said that he will not hesitate to go into court to get whatever White House documents and tapes he considers vital to his investigation (see box next page).

Jaworski conceded in an ABC television interview that much evidence had been acquired from the White House-a quantity later detailed by Deputy Presidential Press Secretary Gerald Warren as 17 tapes and some 700 documents. But the special prosecutor disputed Nix on's public statement that all of the material had been surrendered "voluntarily." Said Jaworski: "Any idea that this material has been spoon-fed to me is in error. I have had to go after it. I have had to designate precisely what I wanted." It is, of course, the nature of specific evidence, rather than mere quantity of documents, that is significant to a prosecutor.

Historic Vote. In his tug of war with the President, Jaworski held a strong advantage. The previous legal battle waged for similar documents by Cox had been victorious on two court levels-and likely would succeed again. Nor could Nixon afford to risk another public explosion by firing Jaworski, as he had Cox. The President apparently is gambling on the White House belief that the public, weary of Watergate, wants the affair swiftly resolved. Despite Nixon's State of the Union declaration that "one year of Watergate is enough," however, no quick resolution-short of resignation-is likely.

If there had been any doubts about that, they were convincingly erased last week in an historic vote by the House authorizing its Judiciary Committee to "investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America."

Although by no means a test of sentiment on whether Nixon should, indeed, be impeached, the overwhelming vote of 410 to 4*was a powerful demonstration that the House is united on the need for an inquiry. Only the second such move in U.S. history, the vote was one of the highest "yea" counts ever recorded on a major issue before the House.

With galleries only half filled despite the portentous occasion, House Judiciary Chairman Peter Rodino introduced the authorizing resolution by aptly quoting what British Statesman Edmund Burke had said in 1771 when the British Parliament was considering an impeachment case. "We stand in a situation very honorable to ourselves and very useful to our country, if we do not abuse or abandon the trust that is placed in us," said Rodino.

The resolution gives the Judiciary Committee full subpoena power to demand the delivery of all evidence and the appearance of all witnesses necessary to its inquiry-including the President. "If a subpoena is to be issued to the President, only the full committee shall authorize it," Michigan's Edward Hutchinson, the ranking Republican on the committee, told the House. Rodino said this might be done if needed "to complete this inquiry and to assure a fair and responsible judgment." Interrupted New Hampshire Republican Louis Wyman: "The gentleman from New Hampshire hopes it will not become necessary." Rapidly replied Rodino: "And so does the gentleman from New Jersey."

Right Course. Fully aware that the resolution would carry by a large margin, Republican House leaders made no effort to challenge it. They discouraged amendments because they knew that such attempts, too, would fail and the votes might be interpreted as a test of actual impeachment sentiment-to Nixon's disadvantage. Thus G.O.P. attempts to set an April 30 cutoff date for the inquiry were opposed by such Republicans as Minority Leader John Rhodes. Also arguing against an arbitrary cutoff, Judiciary Committee Democrat William Hungate of Missouri said wryly: "We must not find ourselves in the position of the sky diver whose chute failed to open and he found he had jumped to a conclusion."

Summing up the predominant mood of the House, Rodino solemnly and eloquently declared: "Whatever the result, whatever we learn or conclude, let us now proceed, with such care and decency and thoroughness and honor that the vast majority of the American people, and their children after them, will say: That was the right course. There was no other way."

Whether the White House will be disposed to turn any evidence over to the Judiciary Committee is not yet clear. Nixon has promised cooperation "consistent with my responsibilities for the office," implying that he might claim Executive privilege on some presidential papers. The Judiciary Committee doubts that such a move would be sustained by any court. Nixon has ordered his chief Watergate counsel, James St. Clair, to open discussions on this point with the impeachment inquiry's counsels John Doar and Albert Jenner.

The Senate Watergate committee, not surprisingly, voted last week to cooperate fully with the Judiciary Committee, agreeing to make all of its massive evidence available to the impeachment study. The transfer of records has already begun. The Ervin committee suffered its own judicial rebuff, however, in its longstanding battle to acquire some of Nixon's Watergate-related tapes. Federal Judge Gerhard A. Gesell in Washington dismissed the committee's subpoenas for five such recordings. Judge Gesell ruled that any public use of the tapes by the Ervin committee might have a "prejudicial effect of pre-trial publicity" in pending Watergate criminal cases. Apparently, Gesell believed that with the special prosecutor and the House Judiciary Committee vigorously pursuing the case, the Ervin committee should allow the process to work without interference.

Although it won a battle in Gesell's court, the White House lost a different fight before Judge John Sirica. He rejected a plea by St. Clair that the technical experts, who had been appointed jointly by the White House and the special prosecutor's staff, be ordered not to examine any more of the tapes already turned over to Jaworski and the grand jury. Sirica told the panel, which had concluded in effect that an 18 %minute gap in one Nixon conversation could not have been accidental, to proceed in its search for any other tampering with the tapes.

Major Indictments. Despite the new signs of White House reluctance to supply requested evidence, both Jaworski and Rodino were pushing ahead with their parallel investigations. Jaworski is expected to ask the grand jury to offer up major indictments within a week or two. Some of Nixon's closest former aides are expected to be cited. Meanwhile, such potential defendants as John Ehrlichman, H.R. Haldeman, John Mitchell, Charles Colson and Herbert Kalmbach have been holding secret discussions with the prosecutors. Apparently the only one who so far is fully answering all questions is Kalmbach, Nixon's personal attorney, who handled payoffs to the low-level Watergate burglars and also knew much about the President's dealings with such campaign contributors as leading milk producers.

The President plunged into a flurry of activity last week to show that he was too immersed in such concerns as the energy crisis, the truckers' strike, his budget and foreign affairs to pay much heed to Watergate. He held a meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko, and aides suggested that there might be a June conference in Moscow between Nixon and Soviet Party Boss Leonid Brezhnev.

Rallying to the President's support, Nixon's son-in-law David Eisenhower insisted: "His spirits have really climbed. He seems to be happy. Impeachment is just not going to happen. He's never going to resign. He won't be talked out of office just because there's suspicion." David did, however, admit to one problem about such optimistic forecasts. "I've been consistently wrong on this since last April," he conceded ruefully. "I keep feeling 'Well, that's behind us...' "

"The four all Republicans, are Carlos Moorhead of California. Ben Blackburn of Georgia, Earl Landgrebe of Indiana and David Treen of Louisiana.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.