Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.55.13] Mr. BARKER. Mr. Chairman, just for the purpose of the record, I would just like to clarify the ruling of the committee, then, Mr. Stans is appearing here today under subpena, in order to protect, his right, of fair trial. has not volunteered to be here today. And now the committee had directed him under the penalty of citation of contempt. of Congress to proceed to testify. Is that correct. Mr. Chairman? ? Senator ERVIN. The committee has directed him to testify and the committee recognizes, as you as one learned in the law, that a refusal to testify under these circumstances without an invocation of the constitutional principle set out in the fifth amendment, would subject the witness to the possibility that the Senate might order the issuance of a citation for contempt of the Senate if' He refuses to testify. Mr. BARKER. Is it the position of this committee that if Mr. Stans did not proceed to testify they would seek a citation for contempt, against _Mr. Stans? Senator ERVIN. Well, that would be a matter that the committee Would have to Consider. Since that condition has not arisen, we have not, passed on that but I would say that it would be certainly within the prerogative of' the committee to recommend to the Senate in the event the witness refused to testify without invoking the fifth amendment, that he be cited by the Senate for contempt of the Senate. Mr. BARKER. Mr. Chairman, the point I am trying to make, I Would like at this point, for the record, our letter to you dated June 4, concerning Mr. Stans' appearance to be made part of' the record at this- time. Senator ERVIN. That will be done. Mr. BARKER. And, Mr. Chairman, what I AM trying to make a Matter of record, that Mr. Stans is not doing anything voluntarily which would waive his right to test in the proceeding in New York whether He can get a fair trial and whether the indictment should be on the grounds it is impossible For him to get a fair trial. And I want to be clear that you are ordering him to testify, and that he is not proceeding under circumstances which would waive that right. Senator ERVIN. Well, in the absence of any objection to the contrary from any member of the committee, I would state as chairman of the committee, that you have made it perfectly clear. [Laughter.] Please refrain from laughing. You made it perfectly clear and Mr. Stans has made perfectly clear to the committee that he is not voluntarily appearing to testify and that any testimony he may give to the committee is given to the committee merely because the committee orders him to give such testimony. Mr. BARKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take just a moment to check with Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stans will proceed under those circumstances. Senator ERVIN. I think there may be some other member of the committee who may want to make some remarks at this time before we proceed further. Senator Baker. Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. for the opportunity to make one brief remark which has nothing to do really, with the legal maneuvering which has gone on here. I fully understand the importance of these exchanges. I simply wanted to say on, I believe, on behalf of the committee, certainly on behalf of this Senator, that the committee is not insensitive to the rather delicate position in which Mr. Stans finds himself. We are. not insensitive to the whipsaw between the judicial system and the legislative system which would appear on the surface. But I think two or three observations might be appropriate to set the stage and to create the right, atmosphere for our going forward at this time. We are not ordering Mr. Stans to testify simply to serve the purposes of this committee's desire to proceed. We are, as a coordinate branch of the Government, proceeding with the mandate given us by the Senate. The case, the Delaney case to which counsel referred if my memory serves me, was a case that tested this theory and went out on the question of whether or not the court under these circumstances should delay and continue criminal prosecutions until after the legislative proceedings had been concluded. I do not suggest that the U.S. district court for any district in the State of New York, or that in which this case is pending, should grant a continuance. I rather say, nor do I suggest that you should ask for a continuance. I rather say that there are remedies other than disposing of this witness without his testimony and without suspending the proceedings of this committee in view of the coordinate branch of conflict which is presented. [01.00.27]