Advanced Search
Cabins for worker
Tractor- on tunnel
Construction (not homes)
Surveyor
Thick-billed Murre and Chick
Master 2110, Tape 1 CU Thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia) perched on rock ledge. 1 murre in the center shelters a chick underneath it.
Ext. roofing store
Surveying - construction
C.U. crane
Carpentering
Parakeet Auklets
Master 2110, Tape 1 CU 2 Parakeet auklets (Aethia psittacula) perched on cliff. The birds look around.
Misc. dam construction
Misc. constr. with jungle b.g.
Dam construction
Aerial dams
Thick-billed Murre against lichens
Master 2110, Tape 1 MS Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) standing on rock covered with lichens. The murre looks around.
Dam - highway under construction
Misc. construction dams/bridges
Dam construction
Misc. dam construction
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.15.38] MR. McCLORY. I recall. when the President came before the joint session Of the Congress in January he said words to the effect that he wanted to provide full cooperation with the Judiciary Committee consistent only -with the operation of his office. Now, I suppose that qualification was more significant than it seemed to be at that time because the words that came across to us were full cooperation with the House Judiciary Committee. Now, -where is that full cooperation with the House Judiciary Committee? Well, -we have had some tapes and we have had some transcripts, The transcripts we got, of course, were transcripts that were issued to the public, not issued in response to this committee, but publicized, the edited transcripts as they are called, or the White House transcripts. And the tapes, -where did they come from? Well, they did not come from the White House, they came from the grand jury and they came from the Special Prosecutor's office. As a matter of fact, of the 147 tapes that we requested, we did not receive a single one from the White House. Now, if you ever saw an example of stonewalling, the prime example of stonewalling is right there, and now that is an expression that comes out of the White House, but where is the stonewalling occurring? It is occurring with regard to the Congress of the United States and with regard to this committee. Now if we do have the sole power of impeachment, and if we do have the authority to investigate, then it is important of course, that we do receive the kind of cooperation that I thought would be forthcoming. I have done everything I could to try to impress upon the White House the importance of this cooperation. Now) the President has raised the question of confidentiality of the taped material, and so we suggested that this material would be received not only under our rules of strict confidentiality, but that the President himself, or the President's counsel could participate with our counsel in screening out national security information. But, the President's position has been that he should be the sole arbiter of what he should turn over, and what he should not turn over. Well, if he is the sole arbiter, then how in the world could we conduct a thorough and a complete and fair investigation? Well, we just could not, Now, since we began this inquiry, of course, the President has been involved in litigation, and the case went to the Supreme Court. And, he made the same kind of a plea to the district court that he has made to us, that he should have the sole right, that there was an absolute executive privilege -which prevailed, and that he had the absolute right to determine what he would turn over and what he would not, turn over. Now, that doctrine was knocked down. That was knocked down effectively insofar as the court was concerned. Now, it is true that -were not involved in that proceeding. Some people thought we should have been, and perhaps we should have been. But, anyway, the doctrine was knocked down and the doctrine of absolute executive privilege has fallen. As a matter of fact, I have felt, and a number of my colleagues here on the committee have felt that the, doctrine of executive has no application whatsoever in an impeachment inquiry, because it would be impossible for the President or any other person being investigated to have the right and privilege to determine what was to be submitted in the course of the investigation and what was not to be submitted. In other words, we would be falling foul of the maxim enunciated by Lord Coke that person cannot be the judge of his own cause, and consequently, that doctrine cannot possibly prevail. Otherwise our authority would be frustrated completely. Now, I say this is fundamental and basic to our inquiry and I mean precisely that. I mean that if we are going to set a standard and a guide for future Congresses, for future impeachment inquiries, there is no more, important standard and guide than the one that we will determine with respect to article III, because if -we refuse to recommend impeachment of the President on the basis of this article TIT, if we refuse to recommend that the President should be impeached because of his defiance of the Congress with respect to the subpenas that we have issued, the future respondents will be in the position where they can determine themselves what they are going to provide in an impeachment inquiry and what they are not going to provide, and this would be particularly so in the case of an inquiry directed toward the President of the United States. So, it not only affects this President but future Presidents. And it might be that a Republican Congress would be investigating in an impeachment inquiry a Democratic President in a future instance. I hope we do not have any more impeachments, but in the case we did, the precedent that we might establish here would be, effective then. So, it seems to me that there is no greater responsibility which befalls us at this time than that to determine this question of the President's responsibility with respect to our subpenas. Now, earlier I had the thought and I set it forth publicly that I felt that when the President did not respond to our subpenas that we should take action to hold the President in contempt, or that we should censure the President, or we should have a resolution of inquiry, to get some action on the part of the House. I was discouraged in that respect. I was discouraged from leaders on both sides of the aisle, I might say, and I emphasized at that time that while I was withholding the action that I intended to take then, that I would face, a very serious dilemma at this stage, and so while we did not take action under the, contempt authority that we had, which in a Sense is quite difficult to enforce and to apply. [01.22.09]
The Archives of War: World War Two --The Battles (Tape Three)
(Continued from 492 pt. 1) "Battle of the Convoys" On Master 5572 "US Army Nurses Train Under Fire" On Master 7841 "Battle For Rabaul" On Master 5595 "Action on Tarawa" On Master 5593 "Invasion of the Marshalls" On Master 5596 "Yesterday's Big Story (Normandy)" On Master 1712
Milwaukee Festival: Five-Mile Parade Highlights Celebration
A glorious, horse-drawn circus parade is a highlight of the "Old Milwaukee Days" festival. It features fifty antique, genuine circus wagons drawn by teams of purebred draft horses. A recreation of a horse-drawn circus parade. Marching sailor band. CU of a little girl in a straw hat wiggling in her mothers lap as the parade continues. High Angle Shot - Tigers in an old time horse drawn circus cage. A Cole Bros Circus horse drwan wagon. Llama pulling a wagon as a clown walks along beside it. CUS - Children waving to the camera. Elaborate Christy Bros circus wagon. Old fashion horse drawn circus carraige cage as a tiger paces inside. High Angle Shot - Clowns pulling a little toy bi-plane. Robbins Bros Circus animal wagon. An elephant leading a hippopotamus down the street. . A parade of of at least four elephants walking with silk blankets draped over their backs. High Angle Shot - People and kids applauding the parade. A horse drawn float pulling a recreation of the statue of Liberty or Miss Liberty.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.26.30] Mr. JENNER. I think that provision of article I would not prevent the introduction of evidence in the area. But the problem presented is whether that it is sufficiently specific in a charging sense to be able, to assert that the failure to respond to the subpena is itself an impeachable offense. Mr. THORNTON. Well, based on that answer then, it seems that we are faced with the very real issue of giving a proper consideration to the failure of the President to comply with our subpenas. I think that it is important that in approaching this we should be aware that here we are dealing with directly and intimately a matter which can have a bearing upon the constitutional basis of power between the three departments of Government, and that what we may do with regard to the adoption of this article is going to in one way or another possibly affect the future of those balances. If we do nothing, we may indeed limit the authority of the legislative branch to make a proper inquiry as to the misconduct under the impeachment provision of individuals in either the executive or judiciary branches of Government. If, on the other hand we draw too broadly upon our power and authority, we might distort the balance of power to give the legislative branch under its impeachment clause the authority to constitutionally investigate and determine the actions of members of the executive or judicial branches of Government For this reason it seems to me that, if this article is to be given consideration, it must be sharply limited and defined to the presence. of offenses established by the other evidence which might rise to the level of impeachable offenses. And that is the purpose and effect of the perfecting amendment which I have offered and which I ask the members to adopt, because it seems to me that we are confronted with the very serious problem in Presidential noncompliance with our subpenas, but that we must draw carefully limiting language to prevent a distortion of the balance of power between the executive and the legislative branch. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. FROEHLICH. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Froehlich. Mr. FROEHLICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and the gentleman from Arkansas, no matter how sharply limited and defined you try to draw this article, this is clearly an indication of alleged absolute power of the President versus the alleged absolute power of the Congress, a classic, case in separation of powers. The President claims constitutional and historic tradition of executive privilege and the Congress claims --exclusive power of impeachment. What reasonable men would not properly place this Impasse before the third branch, the courts for final arbitration and decision in both in the interests of obtaining information or substantiating the President's compliance or noncompliance under the Constitution. Clearly, the President has asserted his constitutional responsibility vested in him in article II to protect the office of the Presidency against, the infringements of other branches. This argument was also advanced by the President in responding to subpenas sought by the Special Prosecutor. In fact the President used the courts all the way up to and including the Supreme Court to advance his position. What the Supreme Court said in the United States v. Nixon in response to the President's argument is vitally important for this committee to understand. It said that in the performance of assigned constitutional duties, each branch of the Government must initially interpret the constitution and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due respect from the other. [01.31.26]
News in Brief: Body Armor
News in Brief: Body Armor Ottawa, Ontario, Canada "Woven nylon stops bullets, bayonets, poison-stakes, even sub-machine gun fire. It's the newest thing in "body armor", from Canadian inventor Jan Weinberger. It's slated for future use in Vietnam and among police in several U.S. cities." CU boots lined with the new "body armor." CU woven nylon pouch. Inventor Jan Weinberger demonstrates its effectiveness. Weinberger firing bullets into swatch of body armor. CU of bullet trapped in woven nylon. CU hand against woven body armor. Bullet proof material.