Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T19:54:15.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presidential Papers as a Political Science Concern

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2022

Clement E. Vose
Clement E. Vose*
Affiliation:
Wesleyan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the modest number of widely-accepted generalizations about American history is the proposition that many subjects that were once ignored altogether or dealt with privately here, over the decades, come to be regarded as societal problems regulated best, or at least inevitably, by the national government in Washington. Whatever its applications otherwise, this description appears to fit the handling of the papers of Presidents of the United States from 1789 onwards. A backward step in this trend seemed to be signified on Pardon Day, September 8, 1974, when Philip W. Buchen, Counsel to the President, released two legal documents that expressed President Ford's conclusions about the Presidential materials of Richard Nixon. The bottom line was that the papers and other records, including tapes, retained during the Administration of former President Nixon in the White House offices “are the present property of Mr. Nixon.”

Beginning with these documents, this report will describe each of the key events from September, 1974 to the end of January, 1975 concerning the wise handling of Presidential materials. The chief focus will be on the litigation challenging Nixon's ownership, especially the participation as a party by The American Political Science Association. We will examine the initial judicial phase of this controversy including the ruling of Judge Charles R. Richey on January 31, 1975 favorable to the Association and its allies.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Winter 1975 , pp. 8 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Clement E. Vose of Wesleyan University has represented the American Political Science Association as a member of the National Archives Advisory Council since 1971.

References

1 News conference of Buchen, Philip W., Sept. 8, 1974. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 10 (Sept. 16, 1974), p. 1108.Google Scholar

2 For a selective bibliography, see Neustadt, Richard E., “Presidential Government,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (1968), vol. 12, p. 456.Google Scholar

3 See Shelley, Fred, “Manuscripts in the Library of Congress: 1800–1900,” American Archivist, vol. II (1948), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 The program was authorized by P.L. 87–263 (1957). See the published indexes and Shelley, Fred, “The Presidential Papers Program of the Library of Congress,” American Archivist, vol. 25 (1962), p. 429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 The basic, essential history is Jones, H. G., The Records of a Nation: Their Management, Preservation and Use (New York: Atheneum, 1969).Google Scholar On the vital role of one historian, see Shelley, Fred, “The Interest of J. Franklin Jameson in the National Archives: 1908–1934,” American Archivist, vol. 12 (1949), p. 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 See Leland, Waldo Gifford, “The Creation of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library: A Personal Narrative,” American Archivist, vol. 18 (1955), p. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar References to related articles will be found there.

7 For a thoughtful statement about the changing status of archivists, see Kahn, Herman, “Some Comments on the Archival Profession,” American Archivist, vol. 34 (1971), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 That historians continued their interest in the National Archives at all crucial steps since its founding in 1934 is well documented in Jones, Records of a Nation.

9 Ibid., pp. 40–65.

10 Ibid., p. 273.

11 Ibid. p. 286.

12 Recent events, however, have led a charter member of the Council to assert the need for independence of the National Archives from GSA. Rodman W. Paul, “Historical Advisory Committees: NASA, the National Archives, and some others” (Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association, Chicago, Dec. 28, 1974), p. 12. Paul believes advisory committees have value perhaps falling between the pessimistic judgment stated by Perl, Martin L., “The Scientific Advisory System: Some Observations,” Science, vol. 173 (Sept. 24, 1971), p. 1211 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, and the view that advisory activities of scientists have great political impact, for which see Hippel, Frank von and Primack, Joel, “Public Interest Science,” Science, vol. 177 (Sept. 29, 1972), p. 1166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13 GSA Order ADM 5420.25, July 29, 1968; revised as ADM 5420.25B, Apr. 12, 1974. This was an internal order and, hence, was not published in the Federal Register. Also, see “Regulations of Formation and Use of Federal Advisory Committees,” Ex. Ord. No. 11007, Feb. 26, 1972, 27 F.R. 1875. This Presidential legislation will also be found in the United States Code, 5 U.S.C. 901.

14 On the confidentiality of census information, see “Records of the Bureau of the Census (Record Group 29),” by Katherine H. Davidson and Charlotte M. Ashby, National Archives Publication No. 65–3 (Washington: NARS 1974), pp. 96. The declassification program was authorized by Executive Order 11652, signed by President Nixon on Mar. 8, 1972. For a progress report, see “Declassified Records,” Prologue: The Journal of the National Archives, vol. 5 (Fall, 1973), p. 190.

15 At Wesleyan University, for example, in 1972 Robert Wolfe, Chief of NARS Captured Records Branch, held a seminar on the “Trials of Nazi War Prisoners: Validity and Applicability of the Trials at Nuremberg,” and in 1973 the staff of the Kennedy Presidential Library assisted and participated in a film festival and panel on campus and in a seminar conducted by the author on “The Kennedy Presidency as a Research Field.”

16 For an absorbing account of the destructive size and impact of the fire (actually in Overland, Missouri), with photographs, see Stender, Walter W. and Walker, Evans, “The National Personnel Records Center Fire: A Study in Disaster,” American Archivist, vol. 37 (1974), p. 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Support for an “Archival Security Program” being sought by the Society of American Archivists from the National Endowment for the Humanities was endorsed by the Archives Advisory Council, Dec. 7, 1974.

18 Vose, Clement E., “In a Gift Horse's Mouth,” New York Times, Dec. 28, 1973, p. 29.Google Scholar

19 The asserted value of the materials was challenged in each instance. Convicted of filing false returns for both 1969 and 1970, Henderson was sentenced to six months in prison and fined $10,000 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. New York Times, Jan. 18, 1975, p. 21. A hearing in the Kerner case was held in the U.S. Tax Court in Chicago, Nov. 12–13, 1974 and a ruling is expected soon. Society of American Archivists, SAA Newsletter, Jan. 1975, p. 8.Google Scholar

20 Hearings on H.R. 16902 and Related Legislation before the Subcommittee on Printing of the House Committee on House Administration, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess., 39–40 (1974).

21 44 U.S.C. sec. 2108(c).

22 44 U.S.C. sec. 2701.

23 Opinion by the Attorney General dated Sept. 6 and released by the White House Sept. 8, 1974. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 10 (Sept. 16, 1974), p. 1106.

24 Index to the William Howard Taft Papers (Washington: Library of Congress, 1972), p. vi. This refers to the essay on the provenance of the papers by Paul T. Heffron. Also, see Patterson, James T., Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1972), p. vii.Google Scholar

25 Kirkpatrick to Vose, Jan. 7, 1975.

26 Nixon v. Sampson, CA. 74–1518, Reporters Committee v. Sampson, CA. 74–1533, and later Hellman v. Sampson, C.A. 74–1551, were the three consolidated cases. See Washington Post, Oct. 22, 1974, p. 1.

27 All these details have been conveyed to me by a Trustee of the Reporters Committee. Jack Landau to Vose, Jan. 24, 1975.

28 This memorandum is reprinted in Hearings, op. cit., p. 226.

29 Lloyd, , “The Harry S. Truman Library,” American Archivist, vol. 18 (1955), p. 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Ibid., p. 101.

31 Kahn, , “Who Shall Have Access?” Yale Alumni Magazine, vol. 35 (Mar., 1972), p. 6.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., p. 8.

33 (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956).

34 Kahn, op. cit., p. 11.

35 Ibid. Kahn does not name the book, Mason, , Harlan Fiske Stone, Pillar of the Law (New York: Viking Press, 1956)Google Scholar, but there is little doubt of the reference. Justice Black asked that “conference notes” be destroyed and this was done before his death. The Black family included much from the Justice's judicial career, however, in their gift of his papers to the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress in 1972. An authoritative report on this gift states: “Case files containing correspondence, memos, drafts of opinions, and related materials for every case in which Justice Black participated form a large segment of the papers.” Staff of the Division, “Recent Acquisitions of the Manuscript Division,” Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress, vol. 30 (1973), p. 310.Google Scholar

36 Mason, Elizabeth B. and Starr, Louis M., eds., The Oral History Collection of Columbia University (New York: Oral History Research Office, 1973), p. 205.Google Scholar

37 The date is 50 years from the date in 1964 that heirs of Harding filed suit in Ohio to prevent publication of the letters. New York Times, Dec. 30, 1971, p. 1.

38 See note 14, supra.

39 See Wickman, John E., “John Foster Dulles' ‘Letter of Gift’,” American Archivist, vol. 31 (1968), p. 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Kahn, op. cit., p. 9.

41 Hearings, op. cit., p. 94.

42 Ibid., p. 93.

43 Eisenhower, John S. E., “Those Presidential Papers,” New York Times, Jan. 12, 1975, sec. 4, p. 17.Google Scholar Eisenhower also made a statement and sent letters to the Brademas Committee, for which see Hearings, op. cit., pp. 73, 77 and 123.

44 This résume is drawn largely from Brief of Richard M. Nixon on Motions for Preliminary Injunctions in Nixon v. Sampson, C.A. No. 74–1518, and consolidated cases in U.S.D.C. (D.C.).

45 United States v. Nixon, 94 S. Ct. 3090 (1974).

46 Memorandum of Plaintiffs in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, p. 2, in Nixon v. Sampson, C.A. No. 74–1518, and consolidated cases in U.S.D.C. (D.C.).

47 Ibid., p. 6.

48 Ibid., p. 7.

49 Ibid., p. 4, note 1.

50 Ibid., p. 5.

51 Ibid., pp. 57–64. Also, see Freedom of Information Act of 1967, P.L. 90–23, 81 Stat. 54, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552, sec. 3.

52 Ibid., p. 95.

53 Vose to Bonderman, Oct. 29, 1974, quoting from Taft to White House, found in Heffron, “Provenance,” Index to the Papers of William Howard Taft.

54 Hearings, op. cit., p. 61.

55 Ibid. For a fuller statement, see J. Frank Cook, “‘Private’ Papers of Public Officials: An Analysis of the Archivist's Dilemma” (Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archivists, Toronto, Canada, Oct. 2, 1974), reprinted in the Hearings, Ibid.

56 P.L. 93–526, 88 Stat. 1695. For the signing statement, see Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, vol. 10 (Dec. 23, 1974), p. 1595.

57 “Preservation and Protection of and Access to the Presidential Historical Materials of the Nixon Administration,” 41 C.F.R., ch. 105–63, 40 Fed. Reg. (Jan. 14, 1975), 2670.

58 Nixon v. Sampson (U.S.D.C, D.C.) Jan. 31, 1975, preliminary print, pp. 47–48. For summaries, see New York Times, Feb. 1, 1975, pp. 1, 10, and Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1975, p. 1.