Miscellaneous materials

declared by former Committee Chairman Hatton W. Sumners in the impeachment proceedings against then Judge Halsted L. Ritter:

We take the position, first, that justice must be done to

the respondent. The respondent must be protected
against those who would make him afraid."

I believe and have submitted that the actions taken by the executive leading to my indictment and trial were actions that should make all judges afraid. Moreover and more important, I believe and have submitted that the decision by judicial of ficers to reinvestigate charges that had been rejected by a jury and the manner which they exercised their assigned powers in that investigation can only make judges afraid. When I wrote, I thought that the principle articulated by former Chairman Sumners combined with considerations of fundamental fairness and sound constitutional policy to make my request both responsible and reasoned. I continue in that view.

4. Fairness. Duty, and Power. I recognize that the power of the House in conducting impeachment inquiries is subject to few practical limitations other than such restraints as the House may impose upon itself based upon considerations that it determines are consistent with sound constitutional principle and policy. In that vein, I continue to believe that a decision to reinvestigate or reprosecute allegations that were fully tried before and rejected by a jury and that stem from events that occurred six years ago raises fundamental questions that would amply justify the House in concluding that such inquiries should not be pursued, out of deference for principles of fairness and respect for policies embedded in our Constitution. My submissions on these points have been intended to assure these issues were fully considered.

I would hope that you and your colleagues would, in turn, recognize that I too have certain duties that I assumed when I accepted my appointment as a United States judge and took the prescribed oath of office. In my view, my duty to defend the Constitution carries with it a special duty to defend the office of United States judge from what I see as unconstitutional encroachments. I have sought to execute this duty insofar as my abilities and resources have permitted for the past six years, and I shall continue to discharge this duty in the future. I would hope that you and your colleagues would also recognize that I have not endured the economic and psychological burdens of the past six years just so I could hang on to a job. Over that period, I have incurred costs and liabilities such that the fixed "Compensation" guaranteed a federal judge by the Constitution would not suffice to pay the interest on the total amount. Those efforts have also imposed burdens upon my court, my community, and my supporters of which I am fully mindful.

For the past four years, I have also been fully mindful that it was within my sole power to terminate the burdens and impositions and the proceedings

Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Trial of Impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter S. Doc. No. 200, 74th Cong. 2d. Sess. 610 (1936) (closing argument of the Hon. Hatton W. Sumners, Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, as a Manager for the House).

3 Add. 6

against me by resigning. I have not and shall not. I have acted and will act to defend my office with the hope that my efforts may prevent further encroachments upon the federal judicial office and upon principles that I view as necessary to maintain the proper separation of powers.

It is against that background that I must respectfully decline your suggestion that I abandon my opposition to the Committee's request for unilateral disclosure of grand jury records. Our shared desire for a prompt disposition cannot justify abandonment of a principle that seems important or abdication of a duty I assumed when I took office. I trust that you and your colleagues would neither tolerate nor seek to establish an environment that led federal judges to place expediency ahead of principle in their dealings with officers of a coordinate branch of government. I am confident that that you did not intend otherwise by your suggestion.

I again thank you for your assurances and trust that you and your colleagues will further consider my views as clarified. The need for prompt disclosure of the record as well as the report compiled by the judicial investigating committee and my separate and independent need for my counsel to have copies of these materials are matters of some immediacy and are pertinent to the Subcommittee's inquiry. Such information as might feasibly be supplied concerning the Subcommittee's schedule and agenda would aid me in scheduling trials and my counsel in scheduling their duties in a manner that might minimize disruptions in the business of my court and inconveniences to the citizens who appear before it and to the institutions and clients that my counsel are paid to serve. In accord with your invitation, I take this occasion to ask that these, as well as the other matters raised in this letter, be brought to the Subcommittee's attention.