"Nothing Is Inviolate"

The night that Special Watergate Prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired, his senior aides stripped all personal pictures from their office walls. They thought that their investigation had ended and that they would soon be evicted. Even after Leon Jaworski was appointed special prosecutor, the pictures stayed down. Last week they were back--an eloquent sign that he has been accepted by the men and women that Cox left behind. Nor has Jaworski been disappointed in the staff he inherited. He declares: "These are people of unusual caliber."

Two weeks into his job, Jaworski last week talked with TIME Correspondent Hays Gorey. Questions and answers:

What documents or tapes are you seeking from the White House?

We will seek everything that Cox asked for--and more. So far, we have not been refused anything. We will get what we asked for. But there have been some problems in locating some of the material. The White House will put in writing a full explanation if there is anything they can't produce.

Do you regard "presidential papers" as inviolate?

Nothing is inviolate. We would respect certain confidential communications. But I have been given an absolute, unquestioned promise that there would be no restrictions.

Who gave you that promise?

General Alexander Haig [White House chief of staff]. I talked with him and made my position clear. He left me to tell the President and came back to say I had the assurances I had insisted upon.

What if the White House claims some of the material must be withheld for reasons of "national security "?

I will make the final decision. I still have top-secret clearance [dating from his service as a prosecutor during Nazi war-crimes trials] and will know exactly what is on the portions of tapes or documents for which the claim is made.

What if material is still withheld?

I'll take it to court.

Would not an independent prosecutor --one appointed by Congress or the courts --be better able to win public confidence?

I would not contest an independent prosecutor if one were established by law, but the important question is what happens in the meantime. There would be a long period of uncertainty--it might be a year before the constitutionality of such a law could be decided in court.

But how can investigation by the Executive Branch of the Executive Branch win public confidence?

It's a question of the public following what we do. Take the staff here. They could have viewed me with the greatest skepticism. Yet there is a sense of ease now, something you would not have if the constitutionality of what they are doing was doubtful.

Could you exonerate anyone without an outcry?

The greatest burden is simply this:

Are the facts there to justify an indictment?

What if you find evidence implicating the President? Would you indict him or send the evidence to the House for consideration of impeachment?

Those are the alternatives, and there have been discussions with the staff on which course to take if it comes to that. But we have not made any decision.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.