Amicus Curiae Brief — United States ex rel. Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessy

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

SUBJECT INDEX

PAGE

OO 1

Summary Of afgumment..........--ccn----necnccnereeeeeneesereeeesssererersenenneneeneenetes 3

Public Law 601 upon its face is so vague and indefinite as to

permit a general roving inquisition into the affairs, beliefs,

opinions, and associations of private citizens by the House

Committee on Un-American Activities; and, all the acts,

conduct and investigations carried on by said Committee

in pursuance thereof establish conclusively that said law

purports to authorize such a general roving inquisition

contrary to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth

Amendments to the Federal Constitution................................

I.

The Committee has consistently utilized its powers to impose

political censorship upon opinion and expression....................

Il.

The fact that the Committee has construed and exercised the

authority conferred upon it as extending into what are

clearly political and non-legislative areas require a reversal

The Committee’s authority and exercise thereof infringes

upon the area of governmental authority possessed by a self-

governing people and reserved to them by the Ninth and

Tenth Amendments ..........................

IV.

The continued judicial support of this Committee, through the

trial court’s infliction of punishment for contempt (and the

repeated appellate affirmance thereof), does violence to our

Se IES - GIT csiniceetiaindereinnmmipeimaiataiesiaitinenite

Comlusion

14

17

ii.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Cases PAGE

American Annotated Cases, 1916-B, p. 1055..........-scesesereneesues 16

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 66 L. Ed. 817........ 21

Blakeslee v. Carroll, 64 Conn. 223, 29 Atl. 473, 25 L. R. A. 106.. 16

Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624........000060000 27

Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U.S. 470...2....cecseecseesnesnne 17, 22

Burnham v. Morrissey, 14 Gray ( Mass.) 226... 1§

Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 ......cccccccccccsecccessceveeeeveemeneeemens OO

Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Attorney General (Australia,

eS eA 2

Daugherty v. United States, 273 U.S. 175......--.-ccccmecmesneseeseees 16

Doyle, Matter of, 257 N. Y. 268... sseceniannaaatainataiciangiaiaiadiies a

Gilchrist, Application of, 224 N.Y. Supp. 225..........cccccceeceonen 16

Greenfield v. Russell, 292 Ill. 392...0........cccccccccsssesesereeeseesees pene 16

Grosjean v. American Trust Co., 297 U.S. 233 .....ccccccccccseesmue 18

le Ue 678 eee 16

fe. lO SE Ee SS

i A B® - » nee 15

Humphries Executors v. United States, 295 U. S. 602................ 21

Kilbourne v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168...........ccceccceeccen —

O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516... enn etic 21

Oliver, In re, 92 L. Ed. (Adv. Ope.) 49D ..0......cccccccccecceecceseeeeees 16

People v. Keeler, 99 N. Y. 482... pstiiien dante

People v. Webb, 5 N. Y. Supp. 855, 23 N. Y. St. oa’ 324....14, 15

Powe v. United States, 109 F. 2d 147, cert. den. 309 U. S. 679.. 18

Quarles, In re, 158 U. S. 532, 39 L. Ed. 1080................. aan 19

Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 .......0..cccccceeeeeessneeeeee 16

OE rer ee

Sees @. LA, BS GIR, Fi ccecgeneecinmmniiiiiins Te

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

—

PAGE

Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516............ 24

United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, 85 L. Ed. 1368............ 19

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542.......--ccccccsecseessessnnennsene 18

United States v. Owlett, 15 Fed. Supp. 736... 21, 23

Yarbrough, Ex parte, 110 U. S. 651, 28 L. Ed. 274......----.--0- 19

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356..0......--.--cccecsecseceensserscnnennsnneees 17

MISCELLANEOUS

Author's League Bulletin, March, 1948 ..000.0.0..0..0.-cceceesscesenerseeens 28

Atlantic Monthly, August, 1948, Boyd, Subversive of What?.... 31

Chaffee, Free Speech in the United States, pp. 234, 350-351,

——————eEE~ 20

Chaffee, Free Speech in the United States, pp. 360-361................ 19

83 Congressional Reco.d 7, p. 7578....----.scessscecsseeecssnneresensneeeeees 5

Congressional Record, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., Feb. 24, 1942,

Appendix p. 724.. a settmammenennin OO

Congressional Record, March 16, 1944, p. 2688... 10

Harper's Magazine (September 1947), Commager, What Is

the New Loyalty?...............-.....+- ocnhutieliinnetitalgaetapisienasnvatie 26

Hearings on Communists (1945), p. 31 ......cccccececseeneeeenecsnenennnenees 4

Hearings on Gerald L. K. Smith, Jan. 30, 1946, p. 2.00.0... 5

Hearings on Gerald L. K. Smith (1946), p. 23.......cccccecsseesneen 4

Hearings on O. P. A., p. 802.0... siaainieasatitaiaeneistiineiiinieainatan 7

Hearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion

Picture Industry, 194, pp. 49-5O.........-......-:::cseeeeseneenensseneeeeeeeeees 11

House Report 4 (1938), p. 2996........--.--.cce-cesseeesemenssessnrsersernreneenesees 4

Howse Repart $...cccccceccrncevesesoscccsessesersevereesoveresveepeenwvenseseesesessanenereesetene 13

House Report No. 17, p. 10226...........0..-secsesssescesssesrensssesenesnsroeerees 6

House Report No. 1311, 78th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 29, 1944,

Interim Report on Hearings regarding Communist Es~‘onage in

the United States, Aug. 28, 1948, p. 1S...ccccccscccccscensesennceeee DI

tv.

PAGE

January 3, 1939, Report, p. 10 7,8

January 3, 1939, Report, p. I1.................. 7

‘January 3, 1939, Report, p. 12............. 67

January 3, 1939,Repost, p. ¥.......... alate

January 3, 1959, Report, pp. 38, 39... c-seereseenvees a

January 3, 1939, Report, pp. 132, 133............ 9

Lawyers’ Reports Annotated, 1917-F...............-----—---- 16

May 29, 1946, Report, pp. 2D... ...-.---c--cescneveeseveeessenesenveessewerensemnenerens 9

New York Times, March 20, 1948... RT gp KD

inant Sicilia Weak Wiis, ss 6B. Siessenesennaltndiente 19, 2

Patterson, Free Speech and a Free Press, pp. 14, 134, 228... 20

I er a ain 5s saceseuetenetineniadnnineaionanasannesnsastinl 4, 13

Radio broadcast by William Wyler, October 26, 1947.0... 29

Report No. 271, 80th Cong., Ist Sess., April 17, 1947, p. 8... 7

Report No. 592, 80th Cong., Ist Sess., June 16, 1947, p. 4........

—_ 5, 6, 7,9

Report No. 592, June 16, 1947, p. 5 .......---.-cc--ceessceeeeeeesseenenedy 9, 10

Report No. 592, June 16, 1947, p. 9........------ccccccceceeereeeeeesernaeeeeene 6

Report No. 592, Jume 16, 1947, p. WO... ccccceeeceenesceeenennneennns 7

Report No. 592, Jume 6, 1947, po 12......-..--cececeeeereeeeneeeeeeene 10

Report No. 1115, p. 9... panini = ee

Report No. 1115, Civil Rights ea p. 11, Nov. 17, 1947...

9, 10

Report No. 1115, p. 13, Nov. 17, 1947... . 10

Report No. 1311, March 29, 1944, p. 73... one —

Report No. 1311, 78th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 29, 1944, Re-

port on P. A. C., p. 82....... 7

Report No. 1311, p. 141. : jnsipaninenenienteininnntbanastaiel'

Report No. 1311, March 29, 1944, p. 143... 9

Report No. 1311, March 29, 1944, p. 168 vinttesiaiiantiad ae

Report No. 1996, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess., May 10, 1946, p. 3. 7

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

—_

v.

PAGE

Report No. 1996, May 10, 1946, p. 5.......-.... ee

Report No. 2233, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess., June 7, 1946, p. ) 5

Report No. 2233, June 7, 1946, p. 9...... 10

Report No. 2233, June 7, 1946, p. WO... n-ne 7, 10

Report No. 2233, Jume 7, 1946, p. VD ..---c-o--ccseeecsse-seeenneees weeeeennnes 7

Report No. 2233, Jume 7, 1946, po 12... ..------ceeeccoeeeees ceeeesneenecnnn 10

Report No. 2233, Jume 7, 1946, p. 35... eseevernennnneeeneeeeeeeereenlOy 7

Report No. 2277, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., June 25, 1942, p. 2...6, 10

Report No. 2277, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., June 25, 1942, p. 3...... 6

Report No. 2277, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess., June 25, 1942, p. 4...... 6

Report No. 2277, June 25, 1942, p. 7... —— o F

Report of June 7, 1946, Review of Communist ectneis

Radio Broadcasts . aaa 10

Report on American Youth for Democracy, No. 271, April 17,

1947, pp. 7, 8...

Report on Communist activity in consumer organizations, in-

corporated in Committee records, Dec. 3, 1939, released to

press Dec. 11, 1939... .------sceeecceessesscssesseaee 7

Report on Citations by Official Federal Government or State

or Municipal Agencies or Private Reliable Organizations Re-

garding the Character of Organizations Named, May 29,

Reports on Un-Amercian Activities, Hollywood hearings, 44, pp.

15, 17, 50-52, 61, 94-95, 114, 122-126, 225, 231-232, 234........ 13

STATUTES

United States Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 6, Clause 1.................... 24

United States Constitution, First Amendment............................... 20

United States Constitution, Fifth Amendment. .............. .. 10

United States Constitution, Ninth Amendment.................... 3, 17, 18

United States Constitution, Tenth Amendment................... 3, 17, 18

BLEED THROUGH

POOR COPY

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1948

No. 255.

GERHART EISLER,

Petitioner,

vs.

Tue Unitep STATEes oF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Brief of Herbert Biberman, Alvah Bessie, Lester Cole,

Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner, Jr., John

Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz,

Adrian Scott and Dalton Trumbo as Amicus

Curiae.

Statement.

These amici are ten motion picture writers, directors

and producers, themselves charged with contempt of the

House Committee on Un-American Activities arising out

of the alleged refusal during the course of the Hollywood

Motion Picture Inquiry in October, 1947, to answer ques-

tions concerning their trade union and political affilia-

tions. Two of these ten, John Howard Lawson and

Dalton Trumbo, have been convicted ; their cases are pend-

ing on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals

a

alias

for the District of Columbia. The remaining cases are

being held in abeyance in the trial court pending determi-

nation of the Lawson and Trumbo cases on appeal.

Before the Committee hearings on Hollywood began,

they were functioning artists working in their chosen

medium; when the Committee hearings ended, they were

blacklisted, broken men, driven from their life’s work by

this same Committee, all because they dared assert the

existence of constitutional guarantees as against the Com-

mittee’s claim of a limitless power of inquiry.

And equally tragically, those whose jobs in the film

world have not yet been directly affected by the conduct

of this Committee, carry on their work in fear and un-

certainty. The end result of the Committee’s Hollywood

hearing is this—the motion picture screen is weak and

anemic, reflecting only those “pure” ideas, which the

Committee considers “safe.” Those who challenged the

Committee’s power were visited by economic death; those

who dream of some day challenging that power fear for

their economic lives.

Therefore the interest of amici in this case; for al-

though the cases of those signing this brief and the instant

case are different in many respects, each raising points

not involved in the others, there are a number of funda-

mental questions common to all.

The consent for this filing has been obtained from the

parties to this case.

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

ww

anGne

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.

Public Law 601 Upon Its Face Is So Vague and

Indefinite as to Permit a General Roving Inquisi-

tion Into the Affairs, Beliefs, Opinions, and Asso-

ciations of Private Citizens by the House Com-

mittee on Un-American Activities; and, All the

Acts, Conduct and Investigations Carried on by

Said Committee in Pursuance Thereof Establish

Conclusively That Said Law Purports to Author-

ize Such a General Roving Inquisition Contrary

to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth

Amendments to the Federal Constitution.

The Committee has consistently utilized its powers to

impose political censorship upon opinion and expression.

No legislative committee may use the coercive powers or-

dinarily granted to it to pursue such non-legislative pur-

poses. Ours is a government of delegated powers, with

the people reserving and exercising the powers of the

sovereign under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The

primary function of the people with relation to govern-

ment is that of expressing their political views, which

includes, of necessity, their associating together for politi-

cal activity, with a full opportunity to hear and to debate

the positions of others, so that the people, as rulers, may

decide justly.

What the Committee has done consistently and design-

edly is not only to step out of the area of power delegated

to it, but to step into the domain reserved to the people.

If this is allowed to continue, the principle of popular

self-government will be no more; government by the peo-

ple, for the people, of the people, will become only an

historical phrase.

"al

a

And even more tragically, the continued judicial sup

port given to this Committee, through the infliction (an

the appellate upholding) of punishment for contempt o:

citizens haled before it who challenge the limitless powe:

does violence to our basic democratic traditions. It shouk

be halted.

I.

The Committee Has Consistently Utilized Its Power:

to Impose Political Censorship Upon Opinior

and Expression.

Never before in the history of this republic, have any

groups of men claimed and exercised the power to invade

the sanctuary of every citizen’s mind and, by “exposure,”

villification and economic reprisals, to destroy those ideas

(as well as those men holding them), which do not con:

form to their test of Americanism. This Committee has

functioned in no petty manner. No dictator has ever as-

serted greater right to control the minds of his subjects

During its entire existence the Committee has consid.

ered its authority under Public Law 601 and preceding

resolutions, identical in language, to be sufficiently broad

in scope to permit investigation and examination of ever)

kind of organization, whether fraternal, social, political

economic, or otherwise, and of every kind of propagandz

including unrestricted inquiry into any and all ideas, opin

ions and beliefs held or promulgated and the association:

of any and all individuals. (House Report 4, 1938, p

2996.)' Hearings Gerald L. K. Smith, 1946, p. 23

Hearings on Communists, 1945, p. 31.

7Except where otherwise indicated all references to Reports ar

to reports or hearings of the House Committee on Un-Americat

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

bl a”

Although the Committee has never been able to agree

upon a specific definition of the terms, “un-American

propaganda that . . . attack the principle of the

form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution,”

it has conducted its hearings, drawn its findings and con-

clusions, determined the pertinency of questions and in-

quiry, summoned witnesses and conducted investigations,

upon the assumption and basis that the said terms included

the following ideas and beliefs:

1. Political opinions generally considered “new deal”

because championed by the late President Roosevelt. On

one occasion Chairman Thomas, speaking authoritatively

for, and on behalf of, the entire Committee, said that the

propaganda being disseminated by agencies of our na-

tional Government is “just as un-American as the propa-

ganda that is being spread by those so-called un-American

groups.” (83 Cong. Rec. 7, p. 7578; Report No. 592,

80th Congress, Ist Session, June 16, 1947, p. 4.)

2. The opinion that the Committee on Un-American

- Activities is undesirable. (Report No. 592, 80th Congress,

Ist Session, June 16, 1947, p. 4; Report No. 592, June

16, 1947, p. 5; Report No. 2233, 79th Congress, 2nd Ses-

sion, June 7, 1946; Report No. 2233, 79th Congress, 2nd

Session, June 7, 1946, p. 31; Report on Citations by Offi-

cial Federal Government or State or Municipal Agencies

or Private Reliable Organizations Regarding the Charac-

ter of Organizations Named, May 29, 1946, p. 2; Hear-

ings on Gerald L. K. Smith, January 30, 1946, p. 2;

House Report No. 1311, 78th Congress, 2nd Session,

March 29, 1944, pp. 44, 45.)

3. The opinion that incumbent members of Congress

should be defeated and others elected in their place.

a

_

(H.-17, p. 10226.) The Committee in one of its reports

States that “the essence of totalitarianism is the destruc-

tion of the parliamentary or legislative branch of govern-

ment” and that through “criticizing individual members of

Congress” there exists a “widespread movement to dis-

credit the legislative branch of our government.” (Re-

port No. 2277, 77th Congress, 2nd Session, June 25,

1942.) Time Magazine was declared to have been en-

gaged in un-American activities because it “gives a two-

page spread to the attack made upon Congress by the

Union for Democratic Action.” (Rep. No. 2277, 77th

Congress, 2nd Session, June 25, 1942, p. 4; Rep. No.

2277, 77th Congress, 2nd Session, June 25, 1942, p. 3;

Rep. No. 2277, 77th Congress, 2nd Session, June 25, 1942,

p. 2.)

4. The following ideas and beliefs concerning eco-

nomics :

(a) To be in favor of a planned economy;

(b) To oppose monopoly ;

(c) To attack “the Standard Oil Company of New

Jersey and other responsible industrial organiza-

tions” ;

(d) To “viciously attack cartels”;

(e) To say that landlords have highpowered law-

yers while tenants do not;

(f£) To attack private ownership;

(g) To believe in the abolition of inheritance;

(h) Skepticism as to advertising ;

(1) To defend sit-down strikes.

(Rep. No. 1311, March 29, 1944; January 3,

1939, Report, p. 12; Report No. 592, June 16,

1947, p. 9; Report No. 2233, June 7, 1946,

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

anilliials

35; Report No, 2233, June 7, 1946, p. 35; Re-

port No. 2233, June 7, 1946, p. 11; Hearings

on O. P. A., p. 80; Report No. 2277, June 25,

1942, p. 7; January 3, 1939, Report, p. 12; Re-

port on Communist activity in consumer or-

ganizations, incorporated in Committee records,

December 3, 1939, released to press December

11, 1939. Rep. No. 1311, 78th Congress, 2nd

Session, March 29, 1944, Report on P. A. C.,

p. 82.)

5. The following political opinions:

(a) Opposition to the present system of checks and

balances in the Constitution ;

(b) Opposition to the method of choosing members

of the legislature in New Jersey;

(c) Advocacy of the formation of a national farmer

labor party;

(d) Advocacy of the Geyer anti-poll tax bill.

(January 3, 1939, Report, p. 10; January 3,

1939, Report, pp. 38, 39; from testimony set

forth in full in the Report because of the Com-

mittee’s belief in its importance (b) above);

January 3, 1939, Report, p. 30; Report No. 592,

June 16, 1947, p. 4.)

6. The following opinions on foreign policy:

(a) Advocacy of withdrawal of American troops

from China;

(b) Belief in the desirability of the dissolution of

the British Empire:

(c) Calling for civilian use of atomic energy and

criticizing military use thereof ;

-_

(d) Advocacy of the plan advanced by former Sec-

retary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr.,

with respect to our policy in Germany;

(e) The belief that the cause of the Spanish Loyalist

Government was just and that the government of

Franco Spain is not democratic.

(Report No. 271, 80th Congress, Ist Sess.,

April 17, 1947, p. 8; Report No. 2233, June 7,

1946, p. 10; Report No. 1996, 79th Congress,

2nd Sess., May 10, 1946, p. 3; Report No.

1996, May 10, 1946, p. 5; Report No. 592, June

16, 1947, p. 10.)

on American Youth for Democracy, No. 271, April 17,

7. Opposition to universal military training. (Report

1947, pp. 7, 8.)

8. The following ideas and beliefs with respect to our

society :

(a) Absolute racial and social equality;

(b) Opposition to a belief in the divine origin of

the rights of man;

(c) Unity regardless of race, creed, and color for a

common goal of peace and prosperity.

(Report, January 3, 1939, Un-Amierican, p. 10;

January 3, 1939, Report, pp. 10, 11.)

9. Ideas and beliefs favorable to the defense of civil

liberties :

(a) Acting as counsel for the Communist Party in

civil liberty cases;

(b) Protesting the denial of a meeting place for a

speech by Henry A. Wallace;

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

—C Ee

(c) Protesting the denial of the right of Paul Robe-

son to speak in Albany and Peoria;

(d) Signing an open letter for Harry Bridges;

(e) Supporting the Scottsboro, and Sacco and Van-

zetti cases;

(f) Joining in a resolution signed by such persons

as President Woolley of Mount Holyoke, Pro-

fessor Chafee of Harvard, Professor Fairchild

of New York University, Bishop McConnell of

the Methodist Church, and Dean Fleming James

of the Divinity School of the University of the

South, which opposed outlawing the Communist

Party.

(Report No. 1311, March 29, 1944, p. 168;

Report No. 592, June 16, 1947, p. 5; Report

No. 1311, March 29, 1944, p. 143; release of

subcommittee of the Un-American Activities

Committee dated December 11, 1939, p. 6, in-

corporated into the Committee’s records on De-

cember 3, 1949; Rep. No. 592, 80th Congress,

Ist Session, Report on Southern Conference for

Human Welfare, June 16, 1947, p. 5; Report

No. 1115, p. 11; Report No. 1115, p. 9; Report

No. 1311, March 29, 1944, pp. 73 ff.; January

3, 1939, Report, pp. 132, 133; Report No. 592,

June 16, 1947, p. 4: May 29, 1946, Report, p.

20.)

The promulgation of any and all ideas whatsoever by

books or by newspapers or by radio is considered by the

Committee to be an activity falling within the scope of its

lawful power; it has condemned books and newspapers

with which it disagreed, and it has threatened (and de-

a

—10—

stroyed) radio commentators who expressed verboten

ideas. (Report No. 1311, p. 141; Report No. 592, June

6, 1947, p. 12; Report No. 592, June 16, 1947, p. 5; Re-

port No. 1115, Civil Rights Congress, p. 11, Nov. 17,

1947; Report No. 1115, p. 13, Nov. 17, 1947; Report No.

2277, June 25, 1942, p. 2; Cong. Rec. March 16, 1944,

p. 2688; Report of June 7, 1946, “Review of Communist

Developments,” “Radio Broadcasts”; Report No. 2233,

June 7, 1946, pp. 9, 10; Report No. 2233, June 7, 1946,

p. 12.)

Out of 207 names sent by the Committee to the De-

partment of Justice as subversive, 7 were included solely

because their names were carried in the files of the ‘“Wash-

ington Committee for Aid to China,” 42 solely because

they were listed as members of the “Washington Book

Shop,” 33 solely because they were at one time members

of the “League for Peace and Democracy,” and 73 for

the sole reason that their namzs were on a list of the

“Washington Committee for Democratic Action.” (Cong.

Rec. 77th Congress, 2nd Session, February 24, 1942, Ap-

pendix p. 724, ff.)

The most recent extension of the Committee’s idea of

what is “un-American, subversive and Communistic” is

that it includes the assertion of the protection guaranteed

by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States:

“Among these is the new Communist tactic of evad-

ing detection and impeding the processes of legislative

investigation through an unwarranted and unjustifi-

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

a

able misuse of the protections which the fifth amend-

ment to the Constitution rightfully provides for those

unjustly accused or those decent, patriotic Americans

who may at times find themselves required to defend

themselves in a court of law.”—/nterim Report on

Hearings regarding Communist Espionage in the

United States, August 28, 1948, p. 15.

All those who have not fully conformed to the Com-

mittee’s concept of Americanism have been labeled Com-

munists. The Committee has acted upon the assumption

that its reason for existence is to destroy all ‘““Communist”’

influences in America. Thus, during the course of the

hearing on “Communist Infiltration into the Motion Pic-

ture Industry” conducted in Washington in October, 1947,

by the Committee, a member of the Committee urged the

Motion Picture Producers Association “to concern itself

with cleaning house in its own industry. . . . I don’t

think you can improve the industry to any greater degree

and in any better direction than through the elimination

of the writers and the actors to whom definite Com-

munistic leanings can be traced.” The Committee’s coun-

sel joined in the demand that “Communistic influences

and I say Communist influences; 1 am not saying

Communists,” be eliminated from the industry by cutting

“these people off the payroll.” (Hearings Regarding the

Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry,

194, pp. 49-50.)

The number of American people whose right to speak

and think has thus been challenged is so large that it can

~~ ae

truly be said that no American, except perhaps the con-

sistently most reactionary, can be sure that what he said

yesterday or will say tomorrow will not place him on the

Committee’s “subversive” list. The Committee has since

its inception maintained records and files which now con-

tain over a million names of persons and one thousand

names of associations deemed by the Committee to be un-

American, subversive or Communistic; these records are

growing; the files are made available to Federal and State

and other government agencies; names for the records are

obtained from various sources, including persons desig-

nated as subversive by individuals whom the Committee

deemed reliable.

Nor have the Committee’s activities been limited to at-

tacks upon individuals because of their ideas. The Com-

mittee has assumed for itself the direct authority to censor.

Thus, the Committee called upon the motion picture in-

dustry to eliminate from pictures anything which the Com-

mittee considered Communistic or un-American or sub-

versive propaganda. The Committee chairman and other

Congressmen, members of the Committee, recognizing that

“it would be very foolish for a Communist or a Com-

munist sympathizer to attempt to write a script advocat-

ing the overthrow of the government by force or violence,”

found un-American propaganda in “innuendoes and double

meanings, and things like that” in “slanted lines” in “sub-

version” inserted in the motion pictures “by a look, by an

inflection, by a change in the voice.” Among the sub-

versive manifestations in motion pictures specified by the

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

_——

online

Committee were reference to some “crooked’”’ members of

Congress, to dishonest bankers or senators, to a minister

shown as the tool of his richest parishioner, and to

presentation of bankers as unsympathetic men. (Holly-

wood hearings, 44, pp. 15, 17, 50-52, 61, 94, 95, 114,

122-6, 225, 231-2, 234.)

These are not sporadic manifestations of this Commit-

tee activity. They are the substance and the sum (as well

the end purpose) of this Committee’s activity under its

construction of the vague language of the Public Law

601.

So drastic an investigational power cannot lightly be

presumed to have been lodged in this House Committee by

H. R. 5, nor should it be read by implication into that

resolution, for to do so raises grave constitutional ques-

tions. Despite the willingness of courts to construe liber-

ally the sweep of the Congressional investigatorial power,

they have not yet approved so dangerous an extension of

that legislative prerogative.

It is no exaggeration to say that judicial support of

such power threatens the fabric of our democratic society.

And thus far, tragically, this Court has not spoken out

definitely with respect to the constitutional bound of this

Committee’s power. It should do so now.

=

Il.

The Fact That the Committee Has Construed and Ex.

ercised the Authority Conferred Upon It as Ex.

tending Into What Are Clearly Political and Non-

legislative Areas Require a Reversal of the Con-

viction Herein.

The presumption of regularity of a Congressionai in-

vestigation is not conclusive; a defendant may show that

the Committee has exceeded its powers. Whether it has in

fact done so is a judicial question; if the court finds that

it has, the court must so declare, and the defendant must

be acquitted. This judicial task may be delicate and diffi-

cult; but neither delicacy nor difficulty should become ef-

fective barriers to the proper exercise of the judicial

function.

The nature of the judicial task in determining whether

a legislative committee has acted in excess of its power

is discussed in People v. Webb, 5 N. Y. Supp. 855, 23 N.

Y. St. R. 324:

“Assuming therefore, as we must under the au-

thorities that the legislature has no general judicial

powers, and that it can confer none upon its commit-

tees, and that its power to punish contumacious wit-

nesses is confined strictly to examination for legis-

lative purposes, we are forced in this case to the con-

sideration of the question, was the investigation in

which the special committee of the House was en-

gaged, when the relator refused to answer and pro-

duce papers, for legislative purposes?

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

—15—

“As we have seen, a legislative committee may sum-

mon and examine witnesses in legislative matters; but

when they seek to enforce obedience by proceedings

for contempt, they must be acting strictly within the

limitations of their delegated authority.”

In the Webb case, the resolution of the investigating com-

mittee declared that the investigation was “for the purpose

of remedial legislation.” To the assertion that this declara-

tion established conclusively the lawlessness of this Com-

mittee’s purpose, the Court replied (at p. 861):

“* * * But such declaration alone, unsupported

by any fact, could not confer jurisdiction. If it could,

then, by incorporating such a declaration in a resolu-

tion, a legislative committee could invade private

rights, and thus inquisitorially proceed to investigate

all the transactions of an individual or a community,

under the delusive pretense of remedial legislation

* * * The rule is elementary that the mere asser-

tion of jurisdiction does not confer it upon a tribunal

of special and limited authority.” (Emphasis sup-

plied. )

‘“* * * The courts should and will be quick and

firm in halting the exercise of those powers for ir-

relevant, illegitimate or oppressive examinations or

purposes.” —Hirschfield v. Henley, 127 N. E. 252.

Burnham v. Morrissey, 14 Gray (Mass. 226), a leading

case, held:

“The house of representatives is not the final judge

of its own powers and privileges in cases in which

the rights and liberties of the subject are concerned;

om i,

but the legality of its action may be examined and de-

termined by the Court. * * * Especially is it com-

petent and proper for this court to consider whether

its proceedings are in conformity with the Consti-

tution and laws, because living under a written con-

stitution no branch or department of the government

is supreme; and it is the province and duty of the

judicial department to determine, in cases regularly

brought before them, whether the power of any branch

of government and even those of the legislature in the

enactment of laws, have been exercised in conformity

to the Constitution; and if they have not, to treat

their acts as null and void.”

See also: Application of Gilchrist, 224 N. Y. Supp.

225; People v. Keeler, 99 N. Y. 482; Daugherty’s case,

273 U. S. at 175; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.

S. 263; In re Gunn, 32 Pac. 470; State v. Guilbert, 78

N. E. 931; Greenfield v. Russell, 292 Ill. 392; Stockton v.

Leddy, 55 Colo. 24; and cases collated in American An-

notated Cases, 1916-B in the note entitled “General Pow-

ers and Privileges of Investigating Committees,” at p.

1055. See, also, L. R. A. 1917-F and the cases there col-

lated; Blakeslee v. Carroll, 64 Conn. 223, 29 Atl. 473;

25 L. R. A. 106; In re Oliver, 92 L. Ed. (Adv. Op. p.

491).

If the principles enunciated in these cases are to be

sustained, a judicial determination must be made as to

whether the Committee on Un-American Activities has

functioned within or outside the limitations imposed upon

legislative bodies. It is submitted that the record is clear.

This Committee has consistently pursued non-legislative,

irrelevant, illigitimate and oppressive purposes. Such

usurpation of power should not receive judicial support.

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

—17—

III.

The Committee’s Authority and Exercise Thereof In-

fringes Upon the Area of Governmental Authority

Possessed by a Self-Governing People and Re-

served to Them by the Ninth and Tenth Amend-

ments.

Under the Constitution, the federal government exer-

cises certain delegated powers only; the remaining gov-

ernmental powers are reserved to the states and the people.

Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the

United States.

The people hold a two-fold position. They are the

sovereign, the source of all delegated governmental! powers ;

at the same time they, as the sovereign, perform essential

and separate governmental functions.

Among the governmental functions reserved to and ex-

ercised by the people is participation in the myriad forms

of action, including political discussion and association, em-

braced within the electoral and legislative processes. As

the Supreme Court said in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.

S. 356, “Sovereignty remains with the people,” as the “‘ul-

timate tribunal of public judgment,” acting either through

“the pressure of opinion or by means of suffrage” and

exercising the most fundamental governmental functions,

because they are “preservative of all rights.” Just as the

courts interpret and apply the law in judicial proceedings,

so the people exercise their governmental powers of vot-

ing, of speech, of petition, and of assembly and associa-

tion, to bring about such changes in the law and its ad-

ministration as they deem necessary, wise, or just.

Bridge Co. v. U. S., 105 U. S. 470, 482.

—18—

As the sovereign, the people reserved to themselves and

to the states the powers not delegated to the federal gov-

ernment; the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were adopted

to make explicit what was already implicit. So, too, free-

dom of speech, press, and association, those indispensable

corollaries of the powers reserved to the people were

spelled out by the Bill of Rights.

Grosjean v. American Trust Co., 297 U. S. 233;

Powe v. U. S. (C. C. A. 5th), 109 F. 2d 147 (cert.

den. 309 U. S. 679).

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, the

court said:

“The government thus established and defined is to

some extent a government of the States in their

political capacity. It is, also, for certain purposes,

a government of the people. . . . The right of

the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes

existed long before the adoption of the Constitution

of the United States. In fact, it is and always has

been one of the attributes of citizenship under a free

government. . . . It was not, therefore, a right

granted to the people by the Constitution. The Gov-

ernment of the United States, when established, found

it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the

States to afford it protection. . . . The right was

not created by the (First) Amendment; neither was

its continuance guaranteed, except as against congres-

sional interference . . . the right of the people

peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning

Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything

else connected with the powers or duties of the Na-

tional Government is an attribute of national citizen-

ship and, as such, under the protection of and guaran-

teed by, the United States.” (See also U. S. v. Classic,

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

—{19.

313 U. S. 299, 85 L. Ed. 1368; Ex Parte Yarbrough,

110 U. S. 651, 28 L. Ed. 274; In re Quarles, 158 U.

S. 532, 39 L. Ed. 1080.)

“In a system of popular government the existence

of this liberty (freedom of speech and of press) ts

imperative; because, when people frame their consti-

tutions and laws they necessarily reserve to themselves

the power to alter or amend them and to change their

representatives and officials and even their government

at will, Where individual citizens participate in the

framing of laws and the selection of officials, they

must necessarily be permitted to express their opinion ;

in order to formulate opinions, they must know the

facts and circumstances which justify or fail to justi-

fy the enactment or repeal of statutes or constitutional

provisions, and the merits and demerits of those who

aspire to political office . . . Government by the

people is utterly inconsistent with a press not free

and universal suffrage becomes a farce unless speech

is free. The conception of lese majeste and of the

Divine Right of Kings has long since disappeared

and we must not make the mistake of substituting

therefor a Divine Right of the Majority.” Patterson,

“Free Speech and a Free Press,” pp. 6-7. (Emphasis

added. )

“These judges know that statutes, to be sound and

effective, must be preceded by abundant printed and

oral controversy. Discussion is merely legislation in

the soft. Hence drastic restrictions on speeches and

pamphlets are comparable to rigid constitutional limi-

tations on law making.” Chaffee, pp. 360-361. ( Em-

phasis added. )

A hundred and fifty years ago in a period of history

remarkably similar to the present in its fear of ideas

and its justification for their suppression, Madison’s Vir-

-_~

ginia Resolution opposed the American Sedition Act of

1798 because under it Congress would exercise powers

which the people did not delegate to it and which were

expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. The reso-

lution stated “that such powers more than any other ought

to produce universal alarm because it was leveled against

that right of freely examining public characters and meas-

ures, and all free communication thereof, which has ever

been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every

other right.” Patterson, in his “Free Speech and Free

Press” (p. 134), calls attention to the fact that Madison —

was chairman of the committee of Congress that drafted

the first ten amendments and the preamble to the statute

proposing them, and that, therefore, “his argument as-

sumed more than usual importance.”’ See also Patterson’s

“Free Speech and Free Press,” pp. 6-7, 14, 228; Chaffee,

“Free Speech in the United States,” p. 234, 350-1, 550-

63.

The critical balance between limitless power, which is

tyranny, and a constitutional democracy can be maintained

by constant popular supervision, and then only if the

people can exercise their governmental powers without ob-

struction or interference by the agencies supervised.

The power of Congress to represent the people cannot

be used to invade the power of the people over their own

representatives. If any one of the branches, exercising

delegated powers oversteps its authority, the power of,

and opportunity for, correction remain in the people; but

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

- sre

if the power of the people as the sovereign is invaded,

democracy disappears.

In the case of O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U. S.

516, holding that the legislature could not reduce judicial

salaries because such power would provide the means for

its control of the judiciary, the court said:

“If it be important thus to separate the several

departments of government and restrict them to the

exercise of their appointed powers, it follows, as a

logical corollary, equally important, that each depart-

ment should be kept completely independent of the

others—independent not in the sense that they shall

not co-operate to the common end of carrying into

effect the purposes of the Constitution, but in the

sense that the acts of each shall never be controlled by,

or subjected, directly or indirectly, to the coercive in-

fluence of either of the other departments.” (Humph-

ries Executors v. United States, 295 U. S. 602.)

The same principles apply where the federal government

interferes in matters reserved to the state governments.

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. 5. 20, 66 L. Ed.

817. Similarly, it is established that a state may not in-

vade the area delegated to the federal government. In the

case of United States v. Owlett (D. C. Pa., 1936), 15 Fed.

Supp. 736, the state legislature was enjoined when it began

an investigation of the functioning of the federal Works

Project Administration. The court held that an attempt

in any manner to “impede or obstruct” the federal govern-

ment in the exercise of a federal power is unconstitutional.

- a

It stated that the attempt of the State Committee “to in-

vestigate a purely federal agency is an invasion of the

sovereign powers of the United States of America,” and

that such assertion of power “is in contravention of our

dual form of government and in derogation of the powers

of the federal province.” An Australian case to the same

effect is Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Attorney General

(1914), A. T. 237.

Although the doctrine of separation of powers has most

generally been enunciated in controversies involving dele-

gated branches of government, the principles underlying

it are all pervasive and must be applied wherever govern-

mental power is to be found.

The Constitution protects the governmental powers of

citizens, including the right of association in a political

party; accordingly the legislature may not prescribe politi-

cal orthodoxy, and may not condemn any political philoso-

phy, just as the judiciary may not interfere in the exercise

by the legislature of the powers conferred upon it. Even

an attempt to interfere must be stricken down.

“It would be an abuse of judicial power for the

court to attempt to interfere with the constitutional

discretion of the legislature.” (Bridge Co. v. U. S.,

105 U. S. 470, 482.)

The California 1897 Direct Primary Act permitted

political parties to require persons, as a condition of voting

at the primary, to give an oath that they would thereafter

support the nominees of that party. That statute was

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

ll <.

declared unconstitutional and the Supreme Court, in Spier

v. Baker (1898), 120 Cal. 370, said at page 379:

. And the moment you recognize the existence

of power in the legislature to create tests in these

primary elections, you recognize the right of the

legislature to create any test which to that body may

seem proper. While the test prescribed in this act

may be said to be a most reasonable one, yet the right

to make it carries with it the right to make tests most

unreasonable. If the power rests in the legislature

to create a test, then the power is found in a Demo-

cratic legislature to make the test at a primary elec-

tion a belief in the free coinage of silver at the ratio

of sixteen to one, and the same power is found in a

Republican legislature to make the test a belief in the

protective tariff. If such a power may be sustained

under the constitution, then the life and death of

political parties are held in the hollow of the hand by

a state legislature.”

The case of United States v. Owlett, 15 Fed. Supp. 736,

recognizes the same principle :

“The investigation (of WPA by a state committee )

is an interference with the proper governmental func-

tion of the United States of America. The complete

immunity of a federal agency from state interference

is well established.”” (Emphasis added. )

The immunity of the federal agency there is no greater

than the immunity of the private citizen here, for all citi-

zens have complete immunity in the exercise of their gov-

—24—

ernmental functions from any interference by any branch

of the government exercising delegated powers.

When exercising governmental functions, the people

enjoy an immunity which can be compared to that con-

ferred upon legislators, and for similar reasons. Article

I, Section 6, clause 1, of the Constitution states with re-

spect to congressmen: “. for any speech or debate

in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other

place.” This protection stems from a deep public interest

in encouraging congressmen to participate freely and with-

out limitation in their legislative function. The Constitu-

tion protects legislators even against their own misconduct,

for fear that otherwise they might fail to conduct them-

selves with courage on proper occasion. Kilbourne’ v.

Thompson, 103 U. S. 168.

Just as the congressmen must select for themselves what

they will rely upon in statements made by their fellow

congressmen, so the people must select for themselves what

they will accept in the marketplace of ideas.

“But it cannot be the duty, because it is not the

right of the state to protect the public against false

doctrine. The very purpose of the First Amendment

is to foreclose public authority from assuming a

guardianship of the public mind through regulating

the press, speech, and religion. In this field every

person must be his own watchman for truth, because

the forefathers did not trust any government to sepa-

rate the true from the false for us.” (Thomas v.

Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 545.)

The people’s sovereignty, so long jealously guarded by

the courts, now hangs in the balance in this case,

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

Zi ~~

IV.

The Continued Judicial Support of This Committee,

Through the Trial Court’s Infliction of Punish-

ment for Contempt (and the Repeated Appellate

Affirmance Thereof), Does Violence to Our Basic

Democratic Traditions.

American democracy is no accident; it is the majestic

product of a vigorous, experimental and passionate history.

This nation came into existence as the result of a purpose-

ful struggle against governmental tyranny. The heritage

of Thomas Jefferson—‘Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience

to God”—remains with us, embodied in our institutions

and traditions. The spirit of Inquisition, which was ab-

jured in the Declaration of Independence, has always been

obnoxious to our political and social life. Equally, it has

found no tolerance in our legal codes, our legal traditions,

our juridical morality. Due process has meant a fair,

legal process. Liberty has meant genuine, concrete liberty

for the individual citizen—his right to freedom from

search and seizure, his right to privacy, his right to be

free of persecutory inquisition on grounds of race, color,

creed, political opinion or association.

This traditional, tolerant, flexible democracy must not

be sapped, calcified or corrupted. A few men, temporarily

in the seat of government, have promulgated the validity

of inquisitorial procedures into the lives and beliefs of

citizens. Armed with their own prejudices, with their

own rules of procedure, with the power and dignity of

Congress, they tried to become the censors of the nation’s

thovght. That which the sobriety of our law, the majesty

of our Constitution, the heart-blood of our tradition, all

reject—was practiced with impunity in the stifling atmos-

phere of a fomented hysteria.

—26—

The daily newspapers attest to the resurrection in

America of the infamous Star Chambers of England.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities sits in

judgment upon the conduct and opinions of all citizens,

assuming the license to conduct trials by headline, to ren-

der verdicts without evidence or cross-examination, to

prosecute, vilify and promote the economic blacklist of

individuals in its disfavor—and all of this under the guise

of an inquiry for the purpose of proposing legislation.

This public infamy is neither capricious nor the acci-

dental by-product of other effort. The conduct of this

committee over years reveals a sober, calculated and sinis-

ter purpose, namely: to frighten and coerce the citizenry

into a new concept of loyalty to the state. The nature of

this new, demanded loyalty has been well described:

“What is the new loyalty? It is, above all, con-

formity. It is the uncritical and unquestioning ac-

ceptance of America as it is—the political institutions,

the social relationships, the economic practices.”

(Prof. Henry Steele Commager, Harper’s Magazine,

Sept., 1947.)

The bitter price of these inquisitorial activities, if left

uncurbed, will be paid by the entire nation. The current

victims of this Committee (and of its increasing number

of emulators in city, county and state), are only the first,

minor casualties of a vaster tragedy to come. The latter

has already been envisioned by the Supreme Court:

“Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent

soon find themselves eliminating dissenters. Com-

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

—

«lle

pulsory unification of opinion achieves only the uni-

fication of the graveyard.” {Board of Education v.

Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 641-642 (1943).)

The impact of these inquisitorial procedures, and of the

atmosphere they engender, is already seriously destructive

to the national fabric. Tolerance yields before svepicion,

mob violence, censorship. In Philadelphia the police raid

book-stores without warrant; in New York hitherto ac-

ceptable volumes are suddenly removed from school li-

braries ; in a dozen umiversities learned men are dismissed

for holding “wrong” opinions; radio commentators inimi-

cal to the House Committee are dropped from networks.

These are but a few examples of the plague spots now

visible on the body of the community.

Particularly in the fields of ideas, of scientific investiga-

tion, of cultural and literary production, our traditional

free exchange and free creation are rapidly giving way to

suspicion, fear, silence, withdrawal. This situation is

attested to by the leading professionals within those fields.

“Atlantic City, N. J.. Mar. 19, 1948.

“Five of America’s leading scientific societies, meet-

ing here as constituent members of the Federation of

American Societies for Experimental Biology, adopted

resolutions at membership meetings today ‘deploring

the actions and procedures’ ot the Congreseional Com-

mittee on un-American Activities as ‘inimical to the

nation’s goods . . . “The effective use of scientific

manpower in Government positions is endangered

(N. Y. Times, March 20, 1948.)

—28—

This calamitous impact in the field of science has its

counterpart in literature and the arts:

STATEMENT By 132 MemBers OF THE NATIONAL

INSTITUTE oF ARTS AND LetrTers, Fes., 1948,

“To the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Sir:

We, the undersigned, a group of members of the

National Institute of Arts and Letters, an honorary

organization of American writers, artists and musi-

cians, protest against the methods employed by the

Committee on un-American Activities in its exami-

nation of certain writers recently summoned before it.

The right of any American to think as he

pleases and to say what he thinks is a right of par-

ticular importance to us because upon it rests the

freedom of the creative artist and, by consequence,

the vitality of the creative arts. The methods em-

ployed by the Committee on un-American Activities

result in an indirect form of censorship. This is

proved by the recent action of the motion picture

industry in blacklisting the writers who defied the

committee. Such censorship, even in the case of those

whose political beliefs we vigorously oppose, endan-

gers the very structure of our traditional free art and

free literature in the United States.” (Author's

League Bulletin, March, 1948.)

Sentiments similar to the above have been vigorously ex-

pressed by the Authors League of America, by assembled

professionals in the arts all over the nation. The concrete

result of this intimidation and indirect censorship by the

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

Dm

House Committee has best been expressed by William

Wyler, distinguished motion _ picture director, winner of

the 1946 Academy Award for direction of the film, “The

Best Years of Our Lives”: “I wouldn’t be allowed to

make ‘The Best Years of Our Lives’ in Hollywood today.”

(Radio broadcast, October 26, 1947.)

Conclusion.

The issue is momentous, of far-reaching implication,

and the ruling of the Court will be a categorical impera-

tive whose cumulative effect will be seen only in the full-

ness of time.

“Nothing less is involved than that which makes

for an atmosphere of freedom as against a feeling of

fear and repression for society as a whole. The

dangers are not fanciful. We too readily forget

them. Recollection may be refreshed as to the hap-

penings after the first World War by the ‘Report

Upon the Illegal Practices of the United States De-

partment of Justice,’ which aroused the public con-

cern of Chief Justice Hughes (then at the bar) and

by the little book entitled ‘The Deportations Delirium

of Nineteen-Twenty’ by Louis F. Post, who spoke

with the authoritative knowledge of an Assistant

Secretary of Labor.” (Frankfurter, J., dissenting,

Harris v. U. S. (1947), 331 U. S. 145, 173.)

At this truly grave moment in our nation’s growth it is

in the power of this Court to speak forthrightly in the

language of Coke, Camden, and Bradley, in the language

of the many illustrious jurists for whom the frenzy of the

< me.

political market place never blurred the meaning of free-

dom.

“Under our constitutional system courts stand

against any winds that blow as havens of refuge for

those who might otherwise suffer because they are

helpless, weak, outnumbered, or because they are non-

conforming victims of prejudice and public excite-

ment. * * * No higher duty, nor more solemn

responsibility, rests upon this Court, than that of

translating into living law and maintaining this con-

stitutional shield deliberately planned and inscribed

for the benefit of every human being subject to our

Constitution—of whatever race, creed or persuasion.”

(Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 241 (1940).)

What is required at this moment of this Court is not

innovation, but rather a restatement of the glowing prin-

ciples by which the history of the western world has given

dignity to its citizens:

“Historical liberties and privileges are not to bend

from day to day because of some accident of imme-

diate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feel-

ings and distorts the judgment.._.A community whose

judges would be willing to give it whatever law might

gratify the impulse of the moment would find in the

end that it had paid too high a price.” (Cardozo, J.,

Matter of Doyle, 257 N. Y. 268.)

Only thus can there be a reaffirmance of our great

democratic tradition perhaps best epitomized by the con-

cept of Jefferson that in order for democracy to survive

“The people must be free to form their own opinions and

POOR COPY

BLEED THROUGH

—§i-—

to exercise their native reason untrammeled by authority.”

(Boyd, “Subversive of What?” Atlantic Monthly, August,

1948.)

Respectfully submitted,

KENNY AND COHN,

By Ropert W. Kenny,

Bartiey C. Crum,

MARGOLIS AND McTERNAN,

Successor to GALLAGHER, MAr-

GOLIs, McTeRNAN & Tyre,

By Ben MARGOLIs,

Cuar_es J. Katz,

Wotr, Popper, Ross & Wo tr,

By MArTIN Popper,

SAMUEL ROSENWEIN,

Attorneys for Herbert Biberman, Alvah Bessie, Lester

Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner, Jr., John

Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz,

Adrian Scott and Dalton Trumbo as Amicus Curiae.