Cox’s dismissal ruled illegal

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33384, 16 November 1973, Page 9

Cox’s dismissal ruled illegal

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) WASHINGTON, November 15. Judge Gerhard Gesell ruled today that the Acting Attorney-General (Mr Robert Bork) acted illegally in dismissing Mr Archibald Cox as special Watergate prosecutor.

The ruling came after a hearing in which it was made clear that Cox, who returned to his job at the Harvard University law school after being dismissed on October 20, does not want the job back. Judge Gesell issued the ruling on a suit brought by a Ralph Nader-backed group which contested on constitutional grounds the firing of Mr Cox by Mr Bork on the night of October 20. The Attorney-General, Mr (Elliot Richardson, and the Deputy Attorney-General, William Ruckelshaus, both had refused an order by President Nixon to carry out the dismissal, and Mr Richardson resigned and Mr Ruckelshaus was dismissed. Mr Bork, then SolicitorGeneral, carried out the order. Judge Gesell overruled arguments by the Justice Department that the case was made moot by Mr Cox’s public statement that he did not want the job back. “The discharge of Mr Cox precipitated a widespread concern, if not lack of confidence, in the administration !of justice,” Judge Gesell said jin his ruling. I Judge Gesell based his ruling that Mr Cox was fired illegally on the ground that the former Attorney-General, Mr Richardson, had issued a regulation saying that Mr Cox could be dismissed only for committing “extraordinary improprieties” or by mutual agreement that the Watergate investigation was completed. He turned down a Justice Department argument that ’Mr Bork had as much authority to abolish the regulation and dismiss Mr Cox as Mr Richardson had to issue lit. Judge Gessel said that such I

regulations had the force of law and could not be abolished except through full legal procedure. However, Judge Gesell also dismissed arguments by the plaintiffs that the dismissal violated an agreement Mr Richardson had made with the Senate at the time of his confirmation as AttorneyGeneral that the special prosecutor would be independent from White House control. Judge Gesell refused to issue an injunction to prohibit Mr Cox’s successor. Mr Leon Jaworski, from taking any action which would interfere with Mr Cox’s returning to the job. But the Judge said that he was ruling on whether the firing was lawful, even though Mr Cox did not want the job back. After the hearing, a Nader lawyer, Mr Alan Morrison, said that he believed one effect of the ruling that the Cox dismissal was illegal was to serve notice on the President that Mr Jaworski could not be summarily fired. Mr Morrison said that the ruling in effect would give Mr Jaworski “job security.” Judge Gesell ruled that Mr Nader did not have standing to file tile suit but that the members of Congress did. The suit originally was brought by Mr Nader, the consumer advocate, but was later joined in by three members of Congress seeking to have Mr Cox reinstated as special prosecutor. Tlie members of Congress who joined in the suit were Senator Frank A. Moss (Democrat, Utah) and two members of the House of Representatives, Mrs Bella Abzug (Democrat, New York), and Mr Jerome Waldie (Democrat, California).