because I should point out the tape of September 15 when, as you recall, has been testified that I was first informed there was a coverup-that, of course, is there.

The tape of March 13, where it has been testified, as I pointed out in the answer to the Louisville Courier-Journal, where it has been testified that I was informed then of the demands for money for purposes of blackmail, that is available. And the tape of March 21, where we discussed this in great detail, as well as three other tapes in which Mr. Dean participated, three other conversations, are all available.

But as far as these two tapes are concerned, even though they were not considered by the Ervin committee to be an indispensable part of their investigation, the fact that they were not there was a great disappointment, and I just wish we had had a better system-I frankly wish we hadn't had a system at all, then I wouldn't have to answer this question.

Q. Mr. President, John Dougherty [Rochester TimesUnion], did you tell Mr. Cox to stay out of the Ellsberg case, and if you did, why, and do you think that the new Special Prosecutor should be kept from investigating the Ellsberg case?

THE PRESIDENT. I have never spoken to Mr. Cox at all; as a matter of fact, however, I did talk to Mr. Petersen about it, before Mr. Cox took over.

I told Mr. Petersen that the job that he had—and I would have said the same thing to Mr. Cox-was to investigate the Watergate matter, that national security matters were not matters that should be investigated, because there were some very highly sensitive matters involved, not only in Ellsberg but also another matter so sensitive that even Senator Ervin and Senator Baker have decided that they should not delve further into them.

I don't mean by that that we are going to throw the cloak of national security over something because we are guilty of something. I am simply saying that where the national security would be disserved by having an investigation, the President has the responsibility to protect it, and I am going to do so.

Q. Paul Poorman from the Detroit News. Are you personally satisfied. sir, that the investigation of the Watergate matter is complete, to your satisfaction, and if so, could you tell us what your plans are to tell the American people about the facts of the case with regard, again, to your credibility on this matter?

THE PRESIDENT. First, with regard to whether the investigation is complete, as you know, there is now a new Special Prosecutor, Mr. Jaworski. He is a Democrat. He has always supported the Democratic ticket. He is a highly respected lawver, former president of the ABA in

the year 1971. I may have met him. I have never talked to him personally and certainly have never talked to him about this matter. I refuse to because I want him to be completely independent.

He cannot be removed unless there is a consensus of the top leadership of both the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican: the Speaker and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House and the President pro tem, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate and the ranking two members of the Judiciary Committees of both the House and Senate, which, incidentally, gives you, as you can see, a very substantial majority, as far as the Democrats are concerned.

The second point, and the point I am trying to make is, one, he is qualified; two, he is independent, and will have cooperation; and three, he will not be removed unless the Congress, particularly the leaders of the Congress, and particularly the Democratic leaders who have a strong majority on this group that I have named, agree that he should be removed, and I do not expect that that time will come.

As to what I can tell the American people, this is one forum, and there may be others. As to what the situation is as to when it can be done, it is, of course, necessary to let the grand jury proceed as quickly as possible to a conclusion, and I should point out to you, as you may recall, Mr. Petersen testified before the Ervin committee that when he was removed from his position-you recall he was removed in April and a Special Prosecutor was put in-that the case was 90 percent ready. For 6 months, under the Special Prosecutor who was then appointed, the case has not been brought to a conclusion.

And I think that now, after 6 months of delay, it is time that the case he brought to a conclusion. If it was 90 percent finished in April, they ought to be able to finish it now.

Those who are guilty, or presumed to be guilty, should be indicted. Those who are not guilty at least should get some evidence of being cleared because in the meantime, the reputations of men, some maybe who are not guilty, have been probably irreparably damaged by what has happened in the hearings that they have appeared before publicly. They have already been convicted and they may never recover. And that isn't our system of government.

The place to try a man or a woman for a crime is in the courts and not to convict them either in the newspapers or on television before he has a fair trial in the courts.

Q. Mr. President, I'm Bob Haiman from the St. Petersburg Times in St. Petersburg, Florida. When Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Haldeman left vour Administration, you said they were guiltless in the Watergate affair, and they were, quote, two of the finest public servants you had ever known, end quote. After what has transpired

37-434 - 74-6

and been revealed since then, do you will feel the same way dest both men and both statements?

THE PRESIDENT. First, I hold that both men and others who have been charged are quilts until I have evidence that they are not guilty, and I know that every newspaper man and newspaper woman in this whole audience would agree with that statement. That is our American system. Serond, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman had been and were dedicated, fine public servants, and I believe, it is my belief based on what I know now, that when these proceedings are completed that they will come out all right.

On the other hand, they have appeared before the grand jury before, they will be appearing again, and as I pointed out in answer to an earlier question, it probably does not make any difference, unfortunately, whether the grand jury indicts them or not, whether they are tried or not, because, unfortunately, they have already been convicted in the minds of millions of Americans by what happened before a Senate committee.

MR. QUINN. Mr. President, may I suggest that you may have misspoke yourself when you said that you assumed Haldeman and Ehrlichman are considered guilty until proven not guilty.

THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I certainly did, if I said thatthank you for correcting me.

Q. Richard Smyser, from The Oak Ridger in Oak Ridge, Tennessce. Senator Mark Hatfield said recently that we demand so much of a President, we ask him to play so many roles that no man can hold that kind of responsibility without having to share that responsibility with all Americans.

To what extent do you think that this explains possibly how something like Watergate can occur?

THE PRESIDENT. I could stand here before this audience and make all kinds of excuses, and most of you probably would understand because you are busy also. '72 was a very busy year for me. It was a year when we had the visit to China, it was a year when we had the visit to Moscow and the first limited nuclear ban on defensive weapons, you recall, as well as some other very significant

events.

It was a year, too, when we had the very difficult decisions on May 8, the bombing and mining of Haiphong and then the negotiations and then in December, of course, the very, very difficult—perhaps the most difficult decision I made of the December bombing, which did lead to the breakthrough and the uneasy peace, but it is peace with all of the Americans home, all of our POW's home, and peace at least for a while in that period.

Now, during that period of time, frankly, I didn't manage the campaign. I didn't run the campaign. People around me didn't bring things to me that they probably should have because I was frankly just too busy trying to do the Nation's business to run the politics.

My advice to all new politicians, incidentally, is always run your own campaigns. I used to run mine. and I was always criticized for it, because you know whenever you lose you are always criticized for running your own campaign. But my point is Senator Hatfield is correct, whether you are a Senator or a Congressman, you are sometimes very busy, you don't watch these things. When you are President, you don't watch them as closely as you might. And on that, I say if mistakes are made, however, I am not blaming the people down below. The man at the top has got to take the heat for all of them.

*

Q. May I ask one other question, sir?
THE PRESIDENT. Sure.

Q. Do you feel that the executive privilege is absolute? THE PRESIDENT. I, of course, do not. I have waived executive privilege with regard to all of the members of my staff who have any knowledge of or who have had any charges made against them in the Watergate matter. I have, of course, voluntarily waived privilege with regard to turning over the tapes, and so forth.

Let me point out it was voluntary on my part, and deliberately so to avoid a precedent that might destroy the principle of confidentiality for future Presidents, which is terribly important.

If it had gone to the Supreme Court—and I know many of my friends argued, “Why not carry it to the Supreme Court and let them decide it?"—that would, first, have had a confrontation with the Supreme Court, between the Supreme Court and the President. And second, it would have established very possibly a precedent, a precedent breaking down constitutionality that would plague future Presidencies, not just President.

I could just say in that respect, too, that I have referred to what I called the Jefferson rule. It is the rule, I think, that we should generally follow—a President should follow-with the courts when they want information, and a President should also follow with committees of Congress, when they want information from his personal files, Jefferson, as you know, in that very, very famous case, had correspondence which it was felt might bear upon the guilt or innocence of Aaron Burr. Chief Justice Marshall, sitting as a trial judge, held that Jefferson, as President, had to turn over the correspondence. Jefferson refused.

What he did was to turn over a summary of the correspondence, all that he considered was proper to be turned over for the purposes of the trial.

Presidential Tapes and Documents

The President's Letter to Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, in Response to the Committee's Subpoenas. January 4, 1974

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This letter is in response to the three subpoenas issued by you as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities and received on my behalf by White House Counsel on December 19, 1973. These subpoenas call upon the President to produce all of the material in his "custody or possession, or the custody of the Executive Office of the President, or the White House, actual or constructive . . ." which are described in extensive attachments. Only six months ago, your Committee concluded that recordings of five conversations were necessary for your legislative determination. Now, in one subpoena alone, you list, with widely varying precision, some 492 personal and telephone conversations of the President ranging in time from mid-1971 to late 1973 for which recordings and related documents are sought; and, in addition, in the same subpoena, recordings and related documents are sought for categories of Presidential conversations, identified only by participants and time spans measured in months and years. A second subpoena seeks production of thirty-seven categories of documents or materials, one of which is "President Richard Nixon's Daily Diary' for January 1, 1970, to December 19, 1973," a period of approximately four years.

As I stated in my letter to you of July 6, 1973, "Formulation of sound public policy requires that the President and his personal staff be able to communicate among themselves in complete candor, and that their tentative judgments, their exploration of alternatives, and their frank comments on issues and personalities at home and abroad remain confidential.” I anticipated that even quite limited, selected disclosures of Presidential recordings and documents "would inevitably result in the attrition, and the eventual destruction of the indispensable principle of confidentiality of Presidential papers."

To produce the material you now seek would unquestionably destroy any vestige of confidentiality of Presidential communications, thereby irreparably impairing the constitutional functions of the Office of the Presidency. Neither the Judiciary nor the Congress could survive a similar power asserted by the Executive Branch to rummage through their files and confidential processes. Under the circumstances, I can only view your subpoena as an overt attempt to intrude into the Executive to a degree that constitutes an unconstitutional usurpation of power.

As you are aware, substantial numbers of materials have been provided to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for possible use with grand juries. With respect to whatever portions of the materials covered by your subpoena may be relevant to matters now subject to grand jury investigation, and potentially, criminal trials, disclosures to you, and through you to the public, could seriously impair the ability of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to complete its investigations and successfully prosecute the criminal cases which may arise from the grand juries.

Incurring these adverse consequences by complying with your subpoena would, on the other hand, serve no legislative purpose which I can discern.

I recognize that in the current environment, there may be some attempt to distort my position as only an effort to withhold information, but I take this position to protect the Office of the President against incursions by another Branch, which I believe, as have my predecessors in office, is of utmost Constitutional importance.

Accordingly, in order to protect the fundamental structure of our government of three separate but equal Branches, I must and do respectfully decline to produce the materials called for in your subpoenas.

Sincerely,

RICHARD NIXON

[The Honorable Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Chairman, Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510)

NOTE: The text of the letter, was released at San Clemente, Calif.

10 Presidential Documents 11-12