Q: I think his point was that your defense of Nixon was good law because you were securing delays and withholding evidence...

A: You see, therein I part company, because I am not securing delays. I am trying to accelerate proceedings and I have been, I think, successful in doing so. If we had responded to each and every request made by the varying staffs that have sought information from us, these matters would have been prolonged to an unreasonable extent. And a more close analysis by Mr. Dershowtiz, I think, with the recent events, would probably persuade him that we are not seeking to delay but in fact trying to bring matters to a speedy, fair and just conclusion.

Q: The President, in one of his earlier battles, said that he would obey a "definitive" ruling of the Supreme Court. Now he is again before the Supreme Court on the tapes issue, and there was some speculation that he might not obey a ruling of the Court. I think the White House refused to comment the other day on whether he would. The question is: a. Would he? and b. If he applies the "definitive" standard again, what does he mean and what do you mean--if you support that standard--by a "definitive" ruling.

A: Well, since the matter is pending in the Supreme Court, it would be, I think, improper for me to speculate directly or indirectly on the outcome of these proceedings. And therefore, I'm not prepared to answer your question and I have taken this position with other news media people, simply by saying our arguments will be presented in our briefs. We're confident that the Court will support our views. However, I'm not prepared to discuss it further since I think any such discussion inevitably involves speculation as to the outcome, and I think that would be inappropriate.

Q: If a president refuses to obey a Supreme Court order, is that an impeachable offense?

A: Well, I think that's a very hypothetical question that I'm not prepared to discuss because that's really another way of asking the same question.

Q: The last question I have is something the President said in Houston March 19. He was talking about the definition of impeachment, and he said: "It is the Constitution that defines what the House should have access to and the limits of its investigation. And I am suggesting that the House follow the Constitution. If they do, I will." That last bit--"if they do, I will"--is interesting. Does that mean that if the President concludes that by impeaching him the House acted on evidence that was not relevant or considerations that weren't germaine--that they were not maybe following the Constitution--would the President at any point ever entertain the idea of maybe appealing a Senate conviction or a House impeachment?

A: Well, I don't anticipate either of those events transpiring. I don't see that it's realistic to consider any reference of this matter either by the Congress or by the President to the courts. The Constitution does invest the responsibility to the Congress rather than the Courts.

* * *

James St. Clair was born 54 years ago in Akron, Ohio. His father was a mechanical engineer whose work took the family from city to city with disruptive regularity (St. Clair attended four high schools). But the constant uprooting apparently did not bother him.

"He seemed to find himself a congenial social group whenever we moved to a town," says his younger sister Janice, a portrait painter in Riverside, Conn.

St. Clair, his sister says, was "very even-keelish" as a boy: "I would say Jim was what you'd call intellectually dominated. That is, he always seemed to do what was the logical, good think to do. I guess that's what prevented him from having escapades. He never shot arrows in the air, or whatever."

St. Clair was a good student, but he never had to work hard for high grades, leaving time for golf and tennis (he made varsity in high school), and an active social life.

He went to Augustana College in Rock Island, Ill. For two years before transferring to the University of Illinois. After a year at Harvard Law School, St. Clair joined the Navy. He spent the war in San Pedro, Calif., training crews in the use of PC77 patrol crafts. In California he met Billie Nestle, the daughter of a Bank of America vice president, married her, and returned to Cambridge in November 1945.

He graduated from the Law School in February 1947 (before leaving, St. Clair and a partner won the prestigious Ames Competition), and joined Hale and Dorr, one of Boston's top law firms. He has been there ever since (although he submitted the customary resignation when he left to work for Nixon in Washington).