Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Whereas Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., et al., on March 8, 1967, filed a sult in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, naming as defendants certain Members and officers of the House of Representatives, and contesting certain actions of the House of Representatives; and

Whereas this suit raises questions concerning the rights and privileges of the House of Representatives, the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of the Government and fundamental constitutional issues: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States is hereby authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of such special counsel as he may deem necessary to represent the House of Representatives, its Members and officers. named as defendants, in the suit filed by Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., et al. in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as in any similar or related proceeding brought in any court of the United States; and be it further

Resolved, That any expenses incurred pursuant to these resolutions, including the compensation of such special counsel and

. March 9, 1967

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE

any costs incurred thereby, shall be paid from the contingent fund of the House on vouchers authorized and signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and approved by the Committee on House Administration; and be it further

Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives transmit a copy of these resolutions to the aforementioned court and to any other court in which related legal proceedings may be brought.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana Mr. BoGGs), is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Louisiana yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

I yield for the purpose

Mr. BOGGS. of an inquiry. Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to withhold yielding for a moment. I would first like to make a brief statement, and then I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I am certain that all of you listened to the reading of the resolution by the Clerk. The resolution speaks for itself. The language is clear. It authorizes the Speaker of the House to employ counsel to defend the action which has been brought against the Speaker and certain other Members of this body and certain officers of the House of Representatives. I would say that this resolution is offered in the hope that it will be adopted and adopted by an overwhelming majority if not unanimously. It was drafted with the cooperation of the leadership on both sides of the aisle. I am making the presentation because I am not a party defendant.

However, I would like to say that we have consulted with representatives of the Department of Justice and the reason why the action is requested here today in the form of this resolution is because involved here is a very fundamental question, the fundamental constitutional question of the separation of powers, that is, the separation of the legislative from the executive and from the judicial. It was the feeling of the leadership that this matter so goes to the heart of representative government that this body as a body should be rep

resented independently by independent

counsel to be designated and chosen by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Now I will yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry. Does the adoption of this resolution waive the constitutional rights of each Member who has been served here?

The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman repeat?

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Does the adoption of this resolution in any manner waive the immunity that you and I as Members of this House have under the Constitution not to be sued under civil action during the time that we are coming to and from our duties here? I mean this action taken here by this

resolution. The Constitution says that you and I and all other Members are not subject to civil suit while we are here. Does the adoption of this resolution-my parliamentary inquiry is, Does the adoption of this resolution waive that right?

The Chair will state

The SPEAKER. that there is nothing involved in the present proceedings that waives the constitutional rights of any Member of the House. The Chair could see nothing involved in that question as far as our present situation is concerned.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry. Does the fact that you are authorized to hire counsel waive any right that I may have as a Member of this body in a civil suit which I am not made a party of but which you are and which you would be required apparently to follow the dictates of the court in? Am I bound by what the court may tell you under this resolution?

The SPEAKER. The Chair sees nothing involved in the question at this time raised by the gentleman from Colorado. The Chair considers this to be a procedure that is consistent with the privileges of the House since the legislative branch is a coordinate and coequal branch of our Government.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Colorado will state his parliamentary inquiry

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Does the

fact that you, as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, are authorized under this resolution to pay the expenses of an attorney, does that in any manner waive any right of you, Mr. Speaker, or that we waive any right to assert our rights and your rights under the Constitution?

6041

It seems to the Chair that it would be an orderly step to follow.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Louisiana yield to me at this point?

Mr. BOGGS. Well, I shall yield to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. GERALD R. FORD, in just a moment

However, I would like to say that the resolution, as I read it, would simply authorize the Speaker of the House of Representatives to employ counsel.

Paid out

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. of the money which the House of Representatives may make available?

Mr. BOGGS. Is the gentleman suggesting that counsel be hired without being paid? No such procedure would be sensible.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. But the point is that in any legal action, and as every lawyer in this body knows, you would be most concerned that the counsel may very well acknowledge the jurisdictional question.

Mr. BOGGS. Well-excuse me for just a moment, if the gentleman does not mind. He might fall-he can determine whether or not the plaintiff has any right to know or whether the plaintiff can be called into court, which is the point made by the gentleman from Colorado; but, without counsel, the argument could not even be made, and that is what this resolution seeks to do

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. BOGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri for that purpose.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Missouri will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Chair as to whether or not this counsel, if employed, will have as his first duty upon any appearance in court on behalf of this body, to represent this body, bearing in mind the fact Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, will the that there is a body of jurisprudence that gentleman yield?

The SPEAKER. There is no constitutional right enjoyed by any Member waived by this resolution.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Louisiana yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. RIVERS]

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, in so many words, does this mean that you as the presiding officer of this body are submitting to the jurisdiction of this court, following up what the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. ROGERS) has said?

The SPEAKER Will the gentleman repeat his parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. RIVERS. Does this mean that you as the presiding officer of this House of Representatives, keeping in mind the separation of powers, are submitting to the jurisdiction of this court in this matter?

[blocks in formation]

holds that one is not held to be subject under certain circumstances to the further jurisdiction of the court, but by another body of jurisprudence under the jurisdiction of the court, should we contemplate that if counsel were employed he would have power to enter a special appearance?

The SPEAKER. If the resolution is adopted, the counsel is empowered to represent the House of Representatives Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOGGS. I shall be very happy to yield to the distinguished minority leader. the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. GERALD R. FORD 1.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD Mr. Speaker. on this precise point I believe the resolution itself authorizes the Speaker to employ counsel who would appear without any prejudice whatsoever to any of the rights of any of the Members of this body, or its employees.

The second point I wish to make is that I was present when the Speaker was served, and I heard what was said to the Speaker in the process, and what the Speaker responded at the time he was served the paper, and I can assure you

[blocks in formation]

that no sacrifices of the rights of this House under any circumstances were made in either the service or the receipt of that service. Therefore in my judgment the questions raised by the gentleman from Colorado Mr. ROGERS] are well handled under the circumstances of the resolution.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I might point out further to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan Mr. GERALD R. FORD that the action here is not unprecedented. We have authorized the employment of counsel on several occasions heretofore One that comes to my mind involves, if I remember correctly, some action brought in Los Angeles County, Calif., against the House Committee on Un-American Activities. There have been others. I have not researched the question.

But certainly the employment of counsel in those cases not only did not constitute any waiver of rights or any acceptance of jurisdiction. Quite to the contrary, they were employed to defend rights wherever they may have been included, and the lack of jurisdiction, if that may have been the case.

Mr. MACGREGOR Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. BOGGS. I will be happy to yield for a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr MACGREGOR. The Speaker has indicated a few moments ago that under the precedents Members cannot respond to a summons without the consent of the House. My parliamentary inquiry is this, Mr. Speaker: Will the adoption of the Boggs resolution constitute that consent of the House which is necessary so that the Members sued in this action may fully respond to the summons?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state there is nothing in the resolution which authorizes the Members to do anything.

Mr. MACGREGOR A further parliamentary inquiry, if the gentleman will yield for that purpose.

Mr. BOGGS I will be happy to yield. The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. MACGREGOR Mr. Speaker, is it permitted under the rules of the House, since no Member, to my knowledge, has seen the resolution until it was read a few moments ago, to lay this matter over unti! Monday so that we may have a chance to carefully consider this very important question?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that is a matter for the House to decide. The Chair might say to the gentleman that this has been gone into in depth by the leadership on both sides. It is not a question of whether the leadership on one side of the aisle concedes to this procedure The resolution is with the collective consideration and judgment of the leadership on both sides, and of other ranking members of the committee on both sides.

Mr. MACGREGOR Would the patient gentleman from Louisiana yield for one more parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. BOGGS. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.

The SPEAKER The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

HOUSE

Mr. MACGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, do I understand that it is contemplated in the summons that those sued shall have 20 days within which to respond, or 60 days within which to respond?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that in reading from one of the summonses it says 60 days.

Mr. MACGREGOR. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. BOGGS. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, for a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. WHITENER. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is this:

If this resolution is adopted would it then be necessary before the Speaker or any other officer or Member of the House submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the court, and make an appearance in the court, to first have the consent and approval of the Members of the House by resolution subsequently adopted to the one we are discussing?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the gentleman from North Carolina has asked a very pertinent question, and the answer to that question is "Yes."

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for one further parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. BOGGS. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, would this include the fact that they would not be authorized to make a special appearance without the further consent of this House even if that special appearance is for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction?

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state that the House of Representatives can always protect its prerogatives at any time.

Ordinarily the procedure would be to refer the matter to the Attorney General. But, in view of the serious implications involved, it was felt, after consultation with the Department of Justice, that this procedure should be followed.

The resolution is before the House as the result of profound consideration on the part of responsible Members of the House. Of course, ail Members of the House are responsible, but the Chair is referring to those Members in the responsible positions of leadership on both sides.

The Chair would make the personal observation that the simple question involved here is whether we really ought to follow the ordinary procedure and send a letter to the Attorney General or by the adoption of this resolution authorize the Speaker to select counsel, in view of the serious implications involved. to represent the House of Representatives.

Beyond that there is nothing else at this time that is involved by this resolution.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOGGS. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. ALBERT. Of course, the question involving the prerogatives of the House of Representatives is involved here. We

March 9, 1967

thought it was better we have our own counsel than that another department of the Government furnish counsel.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. GERALD R. FORD], the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker,

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I appreciate the time given to me by the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset, I agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations that have been made and that are included in this resolution.

I fully concur in the observations made by the distinguished majority whip and by the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives as to the need and the necessity for us to take this action.

Mr. Speaker, as was anticipated, the former Member who was excluded from this body on two occasions by majorities of the magnitude of 6-to-1 and 3-to-1 has now challenged our action in the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia. It is, of course, the right of every citizen to seek redress of grievances, real or not, in the courts. But the question now is, what shall this House do about it?

After much deliberation and full debate of a quality and caliber that has rarely been surpassed during my years in this body, the House voted by two very substantial majorities to exclude a Member-elect from a seat in this Congress. On January 10, opening day, we voted 364-to-64 in effect to exclude the Member-elect temporarily, while a select committee examined the law and the facts and afforded him an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him; and on March 1, by a rollcall of 307-to116, we voted finally to exclude the Member-elect and declare the seat vacant.

I do not propose to replow old ground. Whatever may have been the views of each of us on these questions, and I am sure every member had opportunity to express them, the House acted in an orderly and lawful manner with full cognizance of its rules and traditions to carry out its responsibility under the Constitution.

All of us were extremely conscious. I am certain, of the grave constitutional issues involved, and the several opinions and precedents bearing upon these fundamental rights and duties were fully and expertly argued. Then the House worked its will which is, in the absence of a national referendum, the closest approximation to the will of all the people which exists under our form of representative Republic.

Therefore I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the difficult and complex case which has thus far dominated this first session of the 90th Congress has moved on to higher and historic ground. On January 10 many of us argued that the House must be firm and fair to the Member-elect, Mr. Powell. Today I say that the House of Representatives must be firm and fair to itself and to future Members of this, the greatest forum for the voice of democracy in all the world. The integrity of the House must be preserved, protected, and defended from without as well as from within. And only we, who have the honor to serve here, can do this.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Speaker, in Government as well as in engineering, the most solid and steady structure rests upon three equal bases. The framers of our Constitution, having behind them the experience of the Roman Republic and of the British parliamentary evolution, as well as their colonial governments and the Articles of Confederation, wisely wrote into the Constitution the permanent and inviolable separation of Federal power among the coequal legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It is worth passing note that the Congress was established in the first article.

While, in general, legislative power is shared by the House and the Senate, and limits are placed upon it both by Executive powers and judicial precedents, the two legislative bodies have internal organizational powers that are separate and specific and are not, in my judgment, subject to any superior power. Among these is article I, section 5, which provides for the censure, punishment and, by a two-thirds vote, expulsion of a Member, and also states that

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.

In short, if this body is the judge in these matters, there cannot be any other judge nor any higher appeal. We did not legislate in H.R. 1 nor in HR. 278we rendered a judgment. That judgment is, in my view, final unless it is changed in the future by this House of Representatives.

[blocks in formation]

was exemplary and I commend it to the
attention of every Member.

President Johnson said:

No, I would have no comment on that matter, other than what you have been given before-that is a matter for the members of the House that is reserved for them by the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, what the chief spokesman of the executive branch said is, I submit, precisely and absolutely correct. I would hope that substantially the same statement would be made by the judicial branch in this matter. But we cannot rely on hope when faced with such an historic challenge. The integrity of the House and of the legislative branch of this Government can only be defended in this instance by the House itself, step by step as the circumstances require.

Mr. Speaker, though trained in the law, I have no intention of pleading the constitutional cause of the House of Representatives here today. I believe that every Member of this body, from yourself, Mr. Speaker, to the most junior new Member of the 90th Congress, regardless of his vote on the decision we have taken and irrespective of his position in the majority or minority, has an equal stake and an equal interest in preserving, protecting, and defending the rights and privileges, the independence, and integrity of this House. I yield to no one in my love for this House and I ask no one to yield to me.

When I urge that the House face up

6043

the gentleman to agree or disagree-is whether or not the House of Representatives authorizes the Speaker of the House to employ competent counsel to represent the House in this action.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. The answer is "Yes," and I will plead strongly that it must be done today. Time is of the

essence.

Mr. BOGGS. May I ask the gentleman one or two other questions. Does the gentleman have any doubt whatsoever, of any kind, of the remotest kind, that this waives any right or privilege of any Member of this body?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. In my judgment this resolution waives no right as far as any individual Member nor as to the House as a whole.

Mr. BOGGS. The gentleman will also recall that there was discussed at the meeting the provisions of section 118 title II. United States Code, which seta forth that in any action brought against any officer of the House the US. attorney for the district involved shall defend the action.

In this case there is a joinder of Members of the House and officers of the House. Now, in the event that there were no defense offered by the Members, such as the distinguished gentleman, who is a defendant, the officers of the House, under the express language of the statute, would go down and would have the US. attorney representing them, while the Members of the House, under the terms of the subpena which they

Neither the Senate, squarely to its duty and responsibility. have now been served, would be defaulted

within the legislative branch, nor any court created by the Constitution or by the Congress in the judicial branch nor any officer of the executive branch, has any jurisdiction here.

Mr. Speaker, I can assert without reservation that one of the most fundamental and precious principles-perhaps the most important principle which has preserved the liberties of our people and insures the welfare of our posterity-is this constitutional provision of the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It is true that at various periods of our history one branch or another has sought to overextend its power and authority. Every schoolboy knows how President Andrew Jackson declared: John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.

Nor has the Congress been guiltless. During the post-Civil War period, Representative Thaddeus Stevens, a Member of the House, thundered at President Johnson-Andrew Johnson

Though the President is commander-inchief. Congress is his commander, and God willing. he shall obey. This is not a government of kings and satraps, but a government of the people, and Congress is the people.

to the oath each of us has taken to sup-
port the Constitution of the United
States and its fundamental doctrine of
divided powers, I do not speak selfishly or
out of a narrow desire to prove ourselves
in the right. Obviously, the House is not
always right any more than the decisions
of a democratic people are always right.
They are merely, as Sir Winston Church-
ill observed, the least often wrong of
any system yet devised.

If it is not quite true that Congress is
the people, it is the closest thing to the
people that we have particularly here
in the House of Representatives. So
when we defend this House we defend
the people's House. We have heard and
doubtless will continue to hear much
argument as to whether we have the
right to exclude a Member-elect from
this body. I submit that this question
already has been pleaded before the only
court of competent jurisdiction under
the Constitution, the House of Repre-
sentatives; and judgment has been
passed by substantial majorities, on two
rollcalls, that we do have that exclusive
right and power. I believe this accords
with the intent of the Founding Fathers
and the rules and precedents of the
House. This Judgment has been chal-
lenged and must be vigorously and ably

But, fortunately, whenever any one of defended. This is our simple duty to the

our three independent branches of Government has overreached itself, time and the lively conscience of the American people have redressed the balance.

After the action of the House on March 1, our present Chief Executive was asked by the press for comment on the exclusion of Mr. Powell. His reply

past and to the future.
Mr. BOGGS
gentleman yield?

within 60 days because there would be no answer filled. Is that a correct statement?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. The gentleman from Louisiana is correct.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. RIVERS. Let me ask the gentleman a simple question.

Suppose you go downtown and tell a lawyer, which you select, "Somebody served these papers on me: will you advise me of my constitutional rights under the separation powers theory?"-and under that magnificent statement the gentleman made. that judgment has been final and he tells you, "Pay no attention to it; judgment is final." What are you going to come back and tell us?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. As a practical matter, there has to be someone to go down and tell them that it is none of their business.

[blocks in formation]

The SPEAKER The time of the gentleman from Michigan has again expired.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker. I yield the gentleman 3 additional minutes.

Mr. RIVERS. I do not understand that we have yet submitted to this jurisMr. Speaker. will the diction What about this lawyer? You obviously do not want to trust the DeMr. GERALD R. FORD I yield to partment of Justice-for lots of reasons. the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen sat in on conferences involved in this resolution. The issue before the House, as I understand it and I want

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. May I correct a statement there, because I do not want the wrong impression left. Mr. RIVERS You said, because of the separation of powers.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I want that clear, that we are asking for a separate counsel, for the Speaker to have the right to make that recommendation, because we want someone representing one of the three coequal branches without depending upon the skill and ability of another.

Mr. RIVERS. Now, what if he tells you. "They do not have jurisdiction, nor can they get it." What are you going to tell the House?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I yield to the with the assumption they do not have jurisdiction, but someone has to go down and represent us; otherwise, a default judgment could be taken against us.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. We start out gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. ALBERT. On the question which the gentleman from South Carolina asked prior to his last question, regarding the jurisdiction of the Attorney General coming into the matter, this was done after consultation with representatives of the Attorney General. We did not fail to call in the Attorney General's office because of any reason other than the separation of powers and the wisdom of doing so in this case.

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. The majority leader is exactly right.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GERALD R FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. You have very eloquently outlined the separation of powers and said here that the action taken by the House of Representatives was final. that nobody can question it. What would be wrong with the Speaker writing a little letter down here to the judge and saying, "I am a Member of the House, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and I am not subject to this suit. Will you therefore excuse me and the remainder of the Members?" Why can we not do that?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. My answer to the gentleman from Colorado would be and he is a lawyer of long expertence that he knows that is not the way to handle a lawsuit.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. I know. but on the other hand why should we spend the taxpayers' money going into an area which you say has already been made final and I agree with you. So why should we spend any time with it? Suppose that the Speaker did go down and the court said. "Well, now, Mr. Speaker, you have got to give the oath to Adam Clayton Powell."

Am I bound by that?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Will the gentleman let me respond to that? The gentleman from Colorado has tried many lawsuits and has represented many clients. I am sure he has represented clients where the plaintiff, he knew as the defendant's attorney. did not have a case, but he could not take the gamble not to go down there and represent his client as the defendant.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. If you did not have jurisdiction, then it has no effect whatsoever, and the court here does not have it.

The SPEAKER.

[blocks in formation]

The time of the gentleman from Michigan has again expired. Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Michigan yield?

March 9, 1967

House is concerned or any of its Members?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. That would be my interpretation of the resolution. Mr. CELLER. And is it not further true by the passage of this resolution we

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I yield to the do not yield any right of immunity of gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. BOGGS. I would say in response to the gentleman from Colorado that assuming the simple procedure he spelled out a moment ago, namely, that the distinguished Speaker address a letter, is followed, it might very well be that counsel after the examination of all the law would advise the Speaker to do just that. Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Well, now

Mr. BOGGS. The other answer, of course, is equally obvious. In my Stateand I can only speak to my own Statethe plea of jurisdiction is a very frequently used one. We go in and say that the court has no jurisdiction and no other issue is debated or argued until that one is resolved.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. I want to express wholehearted approval of his distinguished outline of the philosophy of the House of Representatives in this case.

I would like to ask-and, if I may, I will ask the gentleman from Michigan, and perhaps we can get assistance from the gentleman from Louisiana-if he is not aware of the fact that there are jurisdictions in which you come in and enter a special appearance in which you challenge the jurisdiction, and when that is determined adversely to you, then you are subject to the jurisdiction. That may not be true in Louisiana or some States, but it is true in other States. If you are in a lawsuit in which they do not have Jurisdiction over your client and then you voluntarily come in to contest jurisdiction and it is ruled adversely to you, then you would be in the lawsuit.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has again expired.

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Michigan 2 additional minutes to respond to that inquiry.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

the House or any of its Members?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I would agree with the gentleman's statement.

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to attempt to clarify the answer to a question which I believe you gave the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. BOGGS), a moment ago. He asked you whether or not it was your opinion, if this resolution passed, that the House would be employing, through its Speaker, counsel to represent the House in this matter. The gentleman replied that that was his opinion. Would it not be more proper to say that if this resolution passes, the House is employing counsel through the Speaker to advise the House, because even if this resolution passes, it will be necessary for the House to pass an additional resolution authorizing the Speaker and those others here in the House and the officers of the House to appear in court?

Mr. GERALD R. FORD.

Mr. Speaker,

[blocks in formation]

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I yield to CELLER), and the answers that those the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ROGERS of Colorado. It has been suggested that the judge to whom this case may be assigned can certainly take judicial notice of the fact that the chief parties defendant are all Members of the House of Representatives and upon that basis he could certainly follow his own duty and responsibility and say, "We will have nothing to do with it."

Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary [Mr. CELLER].

Mr. CELLER. I would ask the gentleman this question for the record: Am I correct in saying that by the passage of this resolution we do not forfeit the right to challenge the jurisdiction of this court over these proceedings as far as the

questions so propounded brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that this resolution does not enter an appearance by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, or by any Member of the House of Representatives in court. It simply authorizes the Speaker to employ counsel to proceed, at least, in the initial stages in this matter and to protect the interests of the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, it is elementary law, as I recall it, that limited appearances are not unusual in the Federal courts and that they are not unusual in most, if not all, of the State courts. And, Mr. Speaker, if there is a pleading fileda dilatory motion-or a motion testing the jurisdiction of the court, that does

« PreviousContinue »