# Brief for the United States — Gojack v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0284%3A6

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Brief for the United States
- **Published:** January 1, 1966
- **Citation:** 384 U.S. 702

## Text

lied ys Pm on fe
om rae 4
S: pe gee Nl TRE Ez ais x itt 3
es GUAT Te eT ese i teas
+3 ede, |

weer eee eacesueseocs Seocba o-
of pay ryad’s vipa
~- -----
- :

excites.

mt od) 1o 9) 3 tgatimony! ni ise privi-
alan a ial Jeged) in ‘aid of an investigation
ye ied | inte atiy proper subject of con-

i segoliaca g. ae
get x »o |) tional security against subver-
me a no? enegvaameties of the Communist
mh 1hiM Party in general—and such ac-
heh ©) -tevities in the labor movement
8 ecg) i particular—is a proper sub-
ge RICH TED ND Only} ee erenienel considera-

8. An yen “ot Communist
0 Snfiteration of labor unions is.
&.Ofl) PoMas “therefore,” > hoe Congress’ .

power:
B, The purpose of the questioning of peti
pres tioner was to elicit information relevant
“4 -. to @ valid subject of legislation—rather
_. than to expose him for the sake of

S erechag sotnd os sont aad

(safe,
by the First Amendment... cae
II. The procedures of the investigating committee in _
this case were regular and proper, and furnish
no ground for reversing Petitionen's contempt —
conviction. .....-

A. The Committee approved the investiga-
tion. .of which the hearings at which
petitioner appeared were a part... __.

B. There was a proper delegation to the sub- _

_, committee of authority to conduct the _

hearings_ ;
C. Petitioner's claim that he was not ap-
prised by the Committee of the per-
tinency of the questions that he refused
‘to answer is not properly before this
Court and, in any event, lacks merit_. -

1. Having failed to challenge the
pertinency of the questions be-
fore the Committee, petitioner
cannot now claim that he was
not apprised of their pertinency.

2. Petitioner was apprised of the
pertinency of the questions. ---

D. Petitioner was adequately apprised that
his objections, to the Committee’s juris-
diction had been rejected

III. The indictment sufficiently alleged the authority |
of the subcommittee__.....-..-...---------

eens

; Amen (imino Aine vi needa 339 US.

30, 31, 32, 36, 39, 58, 59
al In re, 366 US. 82 34
* Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204 24
. Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 34
Arizona vy. California, 283 U.S. 423_...22.--.....-.. 41
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 US. 109 16,
| - 18, 19, 21, 41, 42, 49, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61,
65, 73, 75, 76, 80.
sg United States ex rel. Ounningham, 279 U.S.

aoaer United States, 167 F. 2d 241, certiorari denied,

334 U.S. 843__..2- anne atts wes oe yale (46, 87
Bart v. United States, 349 U.S. 219 84
Beilan v. Board of Publie Education, 357 U.S. 399__.. 34, 58
Braden v. United States, 365 U.S. 431 16,

21, 51, 56, 57;'58, 59, 61, 66
Briggs v. MacKellar, 2 Abb. Pr. 30
Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524
Chapman, In re, 166 U.S, 661
Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board,
OT Rite i AT BaR. wntulis dadcds 21, 33, 35, 58
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277 ,

DeGoagery.v. New Hampshire, No. 396, this Term, de-
cided April 4, 1966

Dennis v. United States, No. 502, October Term, 1965,
pending on writ of certiorari. ---

Dennis v. United States, 171 F. 2d 986, affirmed on
other grounds, 339 U.S: 162

Dennis v. United States, 341-U.S. 494

Flemming v. Mai 363 U.S. 603
Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522

t Garende ¥. Baird of Sugervioors, 361. U2. 90.2. Jae
“Gibeen ¥. rey oo, tie auth rm
21,97,

Gejeck ¥. etied Satie: 200 B. avdis.......2 ee,
Hale v. Henkel, 201 UB OB. Sivteuiesiel. ial

5

Jurney v. MacCracken, 204 US. 125_...- 2.222222.

Kilbourn v. Thoimpeon, 103 US. 168_... 28, 24, mms
Koenigsberg v. State Bar; 366 US. 36-_... 22.2... 22: u
Kune v. New York, $40 US. 200.2... 2..--- Geral gy |
Latweon v. United States, Aves es; certiorari denied,

NAACP. v. nbicaii Sa U.S. 415

Norris v. United States, 257 U.S. 77

Osman v. Douds, 339 U.S. 846.-.1-.22 2202S. 0.222 é Fy

People v. Keeler, 00 N.Y. 463.2. -2- Qos lk SS SHSS sus.

Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 |

Russell v. United States, 369 US. 749... .1, 4, 15, 20; 86,

Sacher v. Lalted: Siatey): 298 F- 2d 828, ‘toversed, S00 |

257%

Gidlee ¥. United States, 367 U.S. 2032_0-lu Gh. Dane 2 WS

Shelton v. United States, 280 F. an day sbduncedeal
other grounds sub nom, gate vi ee States,
369 US. 39-2. 24 --+ nuk whkGlo. paus. Lu tea

mares No Bomanas: sane
Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 US. 367
Townsend v. United States, 95'F. elog. rib cottiereat
denied, 303 U.S. 664212. 2.1 20. .u o2

salad

tot

Viv

om Oostnnel _ Rese
United States;v. Brown, 381 Us a see) 3, 35, 48
ge oat 58, reversed, 174 F.
9 US 323... ...-...-.. 46, 58, 72, 73

: ~ oat Z na 1Co.,304U.S.144.... 64
: hae ri 246US. 374... cimek
United States v. Fleischman, 339 US. 349_....... 46, 72, 73
» A nited States -v,: Josephson, 165:F. 24 82, certiorari.»
denied, 335 U.S. Shih ooeth demsaiss ee om te ee i 57
"United States vy. Kamin, 136 ¥. Supp. Msiatisia«e _ 58, 73
United States v. Lamont, 236 F. 2d 212.......... 85, 90, 91
United States v. Lattimore, 215 F. 2d 847 Si peas: GE i... &
United States v. Lovelt, 3228 U.S, 303. .3:-..--. 222-21 48
United States v: Orman, 207 F. 2d 148. paieshtonces allie 57
United States v. Rumely, 345 US. 41.........-.. 25, 27, 28
United States v. Seager, 303 F.2d 478. -.. 69, 85, 01, 92
Uphaue v. Wyman, 360 U.S. 72... ......... 45, 51, 54, 58
Watkins v. United States, eT er eee 22,
» 88, 42, 45, 50, 51, 55, 62, 64, 73
\Whitman v. United States, No. 10, October Term, 1961. °° 86
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357__.-..----- woo talicn QE
Wilkinson v. United, States, 365 U.S. 399......-.-... 16,
21, 41, 49, 51, 56, 50, 61, 66
Constitution: .
MOTE b, COCUI Bac caccwnnecesnes » 2 i 5 &
Revised Statutes, 102, 3USC.} eed a, ey 19, solan
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Rule 7(c)-. 22. 3a
Rules of Procedure of the House Committee on Un- | hy

- American Activities:
‘Rule I... -- AUS ABLE IO 3, 19,8
Rule XI of the House of Representatives, 60 Stat.
OG ese tL be ae 3, 4, 18, 49, 50, 68, 9
Congressional materials: ©
Hearings before the Committee on Un-American ”

Ast. Sess., ner Investigation of Commnaiien®

Miecellcneous,
House a on Un-Amerioan Activities, 1984

Oupiakilagl
Power of Investigation, 40 Harv. L. Rev. 153__ 23, 24, 25,8

eo cael
from the CIO, compiled by the

Pouleie Dept., CIO (Sept. 1954, p. 18). .....--.2. “8

tia

- ee oy SES ee 8 eS Fee Oe eS

ypeeios Uses. fossa ¢e} i ce LE ced sd
pA ’ > Ms
belt sat Hoidteey. aE

9 ih

nt of eed Sai
Corona "Teta, 19655 *

Seats Tt Gotaor, PETITIONER
v.

Uxrem fais OF Anmmnr0a.

Sie

ee ae

ON WRIT OF CBRTIORARI TO THE UNITBD STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OIROUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
OPINIONS BELOW
The opinion of the court of appeals on the judg-
ment under review (R, 419-424) is reported at 348
F. 2d 355; the district court’s opinion (R. 206-208) is
not reported. The first opinion of the court of ap-
peals is reported at. 280 F. 2d 678, and the opinion
of this Court reversing the court of appeals’. first

decision (sub nom. Russell v, United Aen 9 is re-
ported at 369 U.S. 749.

® ysupRisprcrron

The judgment of the court of appeals (R. 424) was
entered on May 27, 1965, and a petition for rehearing
was denied on July 23, 1965 (R. 435). On July 30,
1965, Mr. Justice White extended the time for: filing

(1)

a petition for a writ of certiorari to and ix
September 21, 1965 (R. 436). The acai va

wie $i Bn pe jab i

invoked under 28-1J9.C, 1245(1),,...

Petitioner was convi¢ted ‘of contempt of Congres
by reason of having refused (not on: self-incrimin
tion grounds) to testify at a hearing of a subcom-
mittee of the’ Odrminittée on Un-American Activities
ee
ene OTR x er needy Bis Mik iod

if

1. Whether the octane Pend! the power
of Gieupretin” vei Abaca acted "wsdnw boii
legislative purpose but Was conducted solely for A
sake of exposure.

2. Whether. subpoenaing petitioner to testify at the
hearing constituted a ‘forbidden bill of attainder.~

"8. Whether Rule XT of the House of Represents |
tives~the thandate of the House Un-American Activ :
ties Corimittee—is unconstitationally vague.

4. Whether petitioner’s refusal to testify was pt
tected by the First Amendment.

IT

5. Whether the Committee (a) authorized the tb
vestigation in question and (b) delegated au i0ri
to condtict it to the ‘subcommittee ‘before which ot
tioner appeared.

iy ae ‘
ree
ee 8

oo: Whether petitioner’ wat adequately apprised of
neers soca que that he refused to

sneer. SEATS

r ei etdtbbebtiniieie’ ‘stequalily apprised that the

eee At ke eeeninnd es sone

ing the questions. ©

Tit
8. Whether the indictment sufficiently alleged the
seboomamitten: 's authority. .

STATUTES AND RULES INVOLVED

en aes

The pertinent portions of 2 U.S.C. 192, Rule XI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule 7(c)
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and
Rule I of the Rules of Procedure of the House Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities are printed in the
appendix to petitioner’s brief. See, also, p. 89, n. 58.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner was summoned as a witness before a
hearing conducted early in 1955 by a subcommittee of
the Committee on Un-American Activities of the
House of Representatives as part of an investiga-
tion of Communist activities in the labor field: He
refused to. answer a number of questions put to him
by the subcommittee, on a number of different grounds
(not including self-incrimination). He was convicted
upon an indictment returned in December 1955, of
having wilfully refused to answer six questions per
tinent to matters under inquiry by the Committee, in

4

violation of 2 U.S.C, 192. The conviction was’

turned by this Court sub nom. Russell v. Unite
States, 369 U.S. 749, on the ground that the -iz
ment was defective. He was reindicted for the sam
offense and again convicted. The court of appek
affirmed, and the case is here on certiorari.

Bhi
I, THE . FACTS

A. THE BACKGROUND OF THE INVESTIGATION )

As part of a continuing investigation into Com
munist activities in the labor field, including infiltr.
tion into labor organizations and- dissemination-¢t
Communist labor propaganda, the House Un-Amer
ican Activities Committee had been engaged inter
mittently in investigating alleged Communist
activities by officials of the United Electrical, Raia
and Machine Workers of America (U.E.) from
August 1949 until February 1955 when petitioner
appeared before the Committee (GX 11, 13; R. I);
It had received sworn testimony in 1951 from om
Decavitch, a long-time district president of the U.B
and a former member of the Communist Party, that
the Communist Party had infiltrated the union to the
extent that, of its important officials, ‘‘99.9 percent”
were “pure Communist Party members” (R. 17-18).
In July 1953 another former Communist Party
member, Jack Davis, who had been an organizer for

7 Rule XI of the House of Representatives, 60 Sta

H. Res. 5, 84th Congress, authorizes the Committee to investi
gate un-American and subversive propaganda and

It is set forth in pertinent part at p. 89, n. 58, infra

> eee

5

the UB, testified that all of the U.E. organizers who
attended meetings were members of the Communist
Party (R. 18-19). Before petitioner was sub-
poenaed, the Committee had information that he was
a vice-president of the national union and the presi-
dent of District 9 (R. 19).

On February 9, 1955, at a meeting of the Gani
mittee held from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. that day, seven
members present, a motion was made and passed that
petitioner be subpoenaed to appear “before a Sub-
committee of the Committee on Internal Security’’
(sic) in open hearings at Fort Wayne, Indiana. At
the same meeting, the Chairman of the Committee
(Congressman Walter) appointed a subcommittee to
conduct the Fort Wayne hearings (GX 5, R. 212-213;
R. 10). On January 20, 1955, the Committee, in
executive session, eight of the nine members being
present, had adopted a resolution that its Chairman
be authorized to appoint subcommittees “for the pur-
pose of performing any and all acts which the Com-
mittee as a whole is authorized to perform” (GX 4,
R. 209).

On February 9, 1955, the Committee announced that
hearings would begin in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on
February 21 (R. 94, 123-124). A newspaper account
mentioned petitioner, who was a resident of Fort
§ Wayne, as a prospective witness (R. 123, 407). On
February 10, Congressman Walter received a tele-
gram from petitioner protesting on behalf of the
union the scheduling of the hearings for February
21, in view of a National Labor Relations Board elec-
tion scheduled to be held at the Magnavox plant on

February 24, 1955, involving the U-E. and rival
(GX 9, R, 125-127). The telegram claimed, among
other things, that the hearing would be a “flagrant
use of a Congressional Committee for union-busting’
that “we have every right to ask whether the May
navox Company is paying for this: Congressional »
sistance in union-busting,’’ and that the Committ,
was run by ‘‘publicity-mad. zealots” who ‘‘tarnigh”

On February 14, 1955, George Goldstein, U.B
Washington. representative, sought a continuaneg of
tioner’s telegram, Mr. Goldstein’s request was heani
before the Committee at a recorded session (R. 5- §
116, 119), at which the Chairman told Mr. Goldstea
that the Committee had first learned of the NLRB
election when the Chairman received petitioner’s tek
gram (R. 116). The following exchange then -
place (R. 116).

Mr. Gotpsrern. Let me just say this. ist
as I am concerned, this visit of mine was ‘sim
ply for the purpose of asking the question thi
I mentioned a moment ago, whether or not you
were aware of [the NLRB] election, and if ba
to tell you about it, and to say this: that 1
looked to us and it would look to a lot of pa
ple as though the coincidence of the two was
more than a coincidence. Now, I am saying
that without accusing you.

Chairman Water. I docznt-eare:if.yaie
cuse me or not. I do not care what you haw
to say about me. -But this telegram said yey
definitely that this was a case ©: lis

?
Now, there is no one on this committee inter-
-; ested. in busting unions. All of us have very
© sible reat bt ll of us are inte

Although repeatedly asked to do so (R. 117-119), Mr
Goldstein refused to state any definite knowledge he
might have about an NLRB election. The Committee
adjourned without any action being taken (R. 119).

Petitioner’s subpoena to appear at the February 21
hearing, dated February 10, was served upon him on
February--15,-1995_-(R.-14, -95).—-The next--day,-the
eounsel for the Committee, Frank Tavenner, received
a telegram from an attorney representing petitioner
whieh requested a continuance until “any time after
next week” because of the attorney’s heavy schedule
and the impending NLRB election at the Magnavox
Company (R. 14). The request was at first denied:
But, after further communication between counsel,
Mr, Tavenner inquired into the proposed election and
explained the situation to Chairman Walter, who
agreed that the hearings be postponed (R. 15). By
Committee resolution of February 23, 1955, the hear-
ings were rescheduled for February 28, 1955, in Wash-
ington, D.C. (Gov’t Ex. 7, R. 215). Petitioner’s
counsel was notified of the rescheduling and a new
subpoena was issued and served on petitioner (R. 15-
16).

B. THE QUESTIONING OF PETITIONER

Petitioner appeared on February 28 and March 1,
1955, before the subcommittee (see p. 5, supra) in

8

Washington, D.C... Upon convening the subcommil

on the morning of February 28, Representatiy

Moulder, the chairman, explained the purposes of thy

hearing as follows (R. 219) :* i

There will be considered, at this

testimony relating to Communist Party nt
ties within the field of labor, the methods used
by the Communist Party to infiltrate labo
organizations, and the dissemination of Com-
munist Party propaganda.

There was testimony that petitioner was present when
the hearing began (R. 103-109). Before the first
witness, Julia Jacobs, was sworn, her attorney filet
with the Committee, on her behalf and on behalf of
two other clients of his, petitioner and Lawrence
Cover, also subpoenaed to appear before the subcom-

mittee (R. 220), a motion “for incorporation in the
record” (DX 1; R. 83, 405-406) claiming that th
Committee did not have a valid legislative purpos;
that no criminal charges had been made against th
three witnesses and that, in any event, under Article]
Section 3 of the Constitution only the courts can ir
vestigate crime; that the Committee’s authorizing re
olution did not give it the power to engage in break
ing a union and that, if it purported to confer this
power, it violated the First Amendment; that the
2X 12 is the record of the Hearing before the Commie f
on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, SH
Congress, 1st Sess., entitled Jnvestigation of Communist Acti
ties in the Fort Wayne, Ind., Area. The hearings appear #
two points in the record. Portions appear at R. 42-82 as mal

by government counsel below, and the complete hearing |
as relevant to this case at R. 216-400.

authorizing resolution was uneonstitutionally vague;
and that compulsory disclosure of political beliefs and
associations violated the First Amendment.

At the outset of petitioner’s testimony on February
28; he objected that the investigation did not have “a
bona’ fide legislative purpose” (R. 242). After a
colloquy concerning “union busting,” Congressman
Doyle, a member of the subcommittee, told petitioner
that “{iJf you will tell us the truth and the facts
about the extent to which there are Communists in
your union, that will be helpful. * * * We want to
know if you are a Communist and the extent to which
you have been” (R. 254-255). Petitioner testified
that he was still president of district council 9, vice-
president of the national union, and a member of its
general executive board (R. 261-262).

When asked whether he had ever been a& member of
the Communist Party while holding any of these un-
ion offices, petitioner stated that the Committee did
not have the “right to investigate my political be-
liefs or affiliations, especially so when its purpose is
union-busting” (R. 263). The question was re-
phrased several times, but he stil] refused to answer,
citing as ground for his refusal to answer that he had
signed affidavits annually from 1949 to 1954 that he
was not a Party member, and that the question vio-
lated the First Amendment (R. 262, 264). Petition-
ér was then asked. whether he had ever been a mem-
ber of the Communist Party (R; 265), and again in-
voked the First Amendment, disclaiming any reliance
on the Fifth Amendment (R. 266). He was also
asked whether he had been a Party member at any

10
time during 1948 (R. 268), end he refused to sawn

purpose (R. 268). He then refused to say whether
he was “‘now a member of the Communist Party,’*@
the grounds that his affidavit stated that he was net
a Communist, that the question violated the Fin
Amendment, and that “I am not going to cooper
with union busters” (R. 269-270). mae hearings ae
then adjourned for the day.
Petitioner wos the first witnens whet the hen
Were resumed on March 1, 1955, After further que
tions about Communist activities in labor unions (R
271-278, 276), the Committee asked whether peti
tioner had attended a union meeting in 1946 at whid
he presented a letter written to him by the secretary
of the Communist Party (R. 277). The Committe
read to petitioner the minutes of the meeting, whik
said that a letter had been sent to ‘Brother Gojack”
from the secretary of the Party offering to donates
hundred copies of the Daily Worker. Petitioner could
not recall these events, nor could he recall who wa
the Party secretary or chairman in Indiana at th
time (R. 280). Petitioner repeated his objection
to the hearings on the ground that they had no legs
lative purpose and violated the First Amendments
well as that they exceeded the authority given th
Committee by Congress (R. 283). ‘The Commitie
counsel asked petitioner whether he was acquainted
* This refusal formed the basis of count one of the prea

indictment. See p. 15, infra. The other questions on which t
indictment was based are indicated in the text, ~

a

with Elmer Johnson * (R. 280). Congressman Scherer
stated that “[yJou have left us under the impression
at this point that by reading the newspapers you
knew that Johnson was chairman of the Communist
Party of Indiana and I am asking you if that is the
only way that you knew Johnson” (R. 287). Peti-
tioner refused to answer this question (count two).
He based his refusal on the ground of the Committee’s
alleged use of paid informers, whom he called liars,
on the First Amendment, and on the Committee’s
lack of authority under its authorizing resolutions
to break a union (R. 289-290).

mittee had used a “paid liar's testimony to try to
break [a) strike,” petitioner refused to say whether he
knew Henry Aron‘ on the same grounds that he had
refused to answer the earlier questions, particularly
the First Amendment and the Committee’s use of in-
formers (R. 293-294). He was subsequently asked,
and refused to answer on the basis of the First Amend-
ment, whether Johnson or Aron had ever addressed
& group of people when petitioner was present (count
three) (R. 296). Petitioner was also questioned
concerning the State Department’s refusal to issue
him a clearance in 1952 on security grounds (R. 305,
310, 319, 321-324, 334-338). During this discussion,
after petitioner objected that the Committee was at-
*The Committee had heard testimony that Eimer Johnson
was the chairman of the Communist Party in Indiana (R. 21).

"The Committee had heard testimony that Henry Aron was
the secretary of the Communist Party in Indiana (R. 19-90).

213-355-—¢8-—__

12

tempting to find him guilty without a trial, Cor .
man Doyle stated (R. 327): the
[W]e are not here finding anybody guilty,

: aie wetiae etiweeinp. of Chaplain
to find out the extent to. which

have infiltrated your union, if they have—the
union of which you are the executive vice p
dent. That is what we are here for, |
man; not to find you guilty of anything, but
find out the extent to which you know of ph
munist domination or control in your union, if
there is such domination and control or
infiltration.
Petitionse testified that he knew a Russell Nixon,
\ bat when askec whether he knew Nixon to be a Party
member, petitioner said that he knew him as legisla.
tive representative of the U.E. in Washington‘
Petitioner said that he would not answer questions
concerning political beliefs and affiliations because the
Committee lacked jurisdiction (R. 340-342). He then
refused for the second time to say whether he knew
Russell Nixon to be a member of the Communist
Party (count four), on the ground that the Commit-
tee’s authorizing resolution did not give the Commit-
tee power to expose people (R. 341-342).
The Committee’s counsel handed petitioner a letter
to him from Russell Nixon, sent immediately after a
“peace pi pilgrimage” to Washington, enclosing a letter
~ ‘Nixon. had earlier appeared as a witness before the Com-
mittee and refused to answer questions concerning his alleged
Communist Party activities (R. 73-76), Dorothy Funan, s

former member of the Communist Party, had testified befor
eS ON eee

13

the Metal Workers Trade Union, an organiza-
tion tha the Committee had reason to believe was

munist-dominated (R. 350, 352-357). Petitioner
F that hé Shad sent the latter letter, which
praised the Stockholm peace appeal, to locals of the
U.E. (R. 360). Committee counsel noted that peti-
tioner had said that he had been involved in many
meetings on behalf of peace, and informed petitioner
that the Committee believed that the Communist
Party had been involved in the Stockholm peace ap-
peal and similar activities (R. 361). Petitioner then
refused to answer the question whether he had taken
“an active part in the peace pilgrimage to Washing-
ton which was organized by one of the ‘front’ orga-
nizations known as the American Peace Crusade”
(count five) (R. 361-362). When petitioner indicated
that the basis of his refusal to answer was the First
Amendment, the Committee counsel said (R. 362) :

I want to make it clear, Mr. Gojack, that I
am not interested at all in what your beliefs or
opinions were about those matters. What I
am interested in is the extent to which the Com-
munist Party was engaged in manipulating
peace moves in this country in behalf of a
foreign power. * * *

Congressman Doyle said (R.'362-363) :

Mr. Chairman, may I add * * * that I am
also interested in knowing what the witness
knows about the extent to which the American
Communist Party, in connection with these
peace moves or otherwise, was using the leader-

ship of American labor unions, especially any
labor union that the witness might have been a

14

- member of at that time or had any conneetis
with: ‘The aareton} is the extent. to which th
labor unions * * *, the ‘extent to which they
Boe ee oe
their conspiratorial purposes. .

Petitioner refused, on the grounds he had
stated, to say whether he had taken part in the pil
grimage to Washington, whether he was a member
of the American Peace Crusade, and whether he had
frequently served as chairman of its meetings @
366).

Petitioner was shown a copy of the February 1
1951, issue of the Daily Worker, which listed a “John
Gojack, international vice president, UERMWA,
Fort Wayne, Ind.” as.an initial. sponsor of the
American Peace Crusade (R. 368; see R. 22)." Peti-
tioner refused, on the grounds he had _ previously
stated, to answer the question who had solicited him
as sponsor; nor would he say what method of solici-
tation had been used (count siz) (R. 369).

Il, THE PROCEEDINGS

A. THE FIRST TRIAL AND APPEAL

In December 1955, petitioner was indicted for will ?
ful refusal to answer questions pertinent ‘to a subject
under inquiry by Congress,'in violation of 2 U.S,
192. The indictment was in nine counts, each based on
the refusal to answer one of the questions put to peti

‘The Committee also had a leaflet. of the American Peas
Crusade, which was signed by a “John Gojack,”
“Bring Our Boys Home From “Korea. Make Peace With
China Now” (R. 22-25). at

15

tioner at the Washington hearings. He was convicted
on six of the counts and his conviction was affirmed
bythe Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. Gojack y. United States, 280 F. 2d 678. This
Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of
the court of appeals (along with the judgments in
issues were tendered to the Court, but only one—
common to all six cases—was decided. The Court
held that the indictments of Gojack and the other
defendants were insufficient because they did not al-
lege the subject of the inquiry to which the questions
asked were alleged to be pertinent. Accordingly, the
judgment in Gojack’s case was reversed. Russell vy.
United States, 369 U.S. 749.

general sentence of three months’ imprisonment. plus
a $200 fine (R. 8-9). Petitioner appealed. While not
contending that the new indictment was deficient un-
der the rule of this Court’s Russell decision or that
the Court’s mandate had been disobeyed in redrawing
the indictment, petitioner renewed the contentions he
had made in the earlier round (and which this Court
in Russell had not reached). The court of appeals
unanimously affirmed the conviction '(348 F, 2d 355),

PCctine

B most of petitioner’s grounds summarily

but discussing expressly petitioner’s contention. tha ;
the Committee had failed adequately to apprise him
that his objections to the hearings had been overruled,

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ie

In this contempt-of-Congress case, petitioner raises
numerous issues. They are of three kinds, First,
there is a sweeping attack, under a variety of over:
lapping constitutional rubrics—the limits of the Legis.
lature’s powers, free speech, bill of attainder, vague
ness—on the legitimacy of investigations by the House
Un-American Activities Committee into Communist
activities, petitioner’s ultimate thesis being that ‘the
Committee is powerless (quite apart from problems
of self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment,
which petitioner did not invoke) to compel the dis.
closure by witnesses of Communist activities and as-
sociations in the circumstances of this case—and in-
deed of all cases. We regard these broad contentions
as foreclosed by the prior decisions of this Court in
this field (Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109;
Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399; Braden,
United States, 365 U.S. 431; Gibson v. Florida Legis-
lative Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 547, 549), but, in view of
the importance of the question, we devote Part Tof
our argument to its answer.

The second type of issue raised by petitioner (b
which we devote Part II) relates to the particular
procedures of the Committee in questioning peti
tioner. The issues here are less far-reaching; ™
show that they were correctly resolved below. h
Part III, we take up another relatively

17

issue—petitioner’s challenge to the sufficiency of the
present indictment—and show that petitioner’s con-
tention is without merit. Thus, we conclude, peti-
tioner’s conviction suffers from no infirmity warrant-
ing reversal. :

It is fundamental, we think, that Congress could
not adequately discharge its legislative functions if
it were denied a broad power of inquiry and investiga-
tion (including the use of compulsory process to elicit
testimony not otherwise privileged) into subjects of
proper legislative concern. This Court has many
times declared—and numerous legislative enactments
upheld by this Court attest—that Communist activi-
ties are such a subject. We therefore regard as
settled the proposition that Congress has a valid and
lawful interest in conducting investigations with the
object of obtaining information concerning such activ-
ities as a possible predicate of appropriate antisub-
versive legislation.

The hearings at which petitioner was questioned
were part of such an investigation. Communist in-
filtration of labor unions has been a continuing topic
of congressional concern and legislation, and the
House Un-American Activities Committee had reason
to believe both that the union of which petitioner was
an important official was dominated by Communists
and that petitioner could supply valuable information
concerning Communist activities in the union. The
questioning of petitioner by the Committee was de-
signed to elicit such information, clearly relevant to

4 proper subject of legislation.

18

- Against this background, petitioner’s attack upg, —
the constitutional legitimacy of the Comanittee/a quam
tioning ‘of him must, in our view, fail. Petiti |
the contrary notwithstanding, the purpose of the:in
vestigation was not exposure for exposure’s sake,
Rather, the objective was to gather evidence in @
area of legitimate congressional concern. In ligh
of this valid legislative purpose, there is no occasion
to search the motives of individual members Behe
Committee.

Once the existence of a valid legislative —
established, other broad arguments advanced by peti
tioner likewise fall. Since exposure for its own sake
was not the purpose of the hearing, there can bem
contention that petitioner was the victim of a bill of
attainder—even under petitioner’s view of the seop
of the Attainder Clause. And Rule XI of the Hou
of Representatives (which authorizes the House Up
American Activities Committee to investigate m
American and subversive activities and propaganda)
is not unconstitutionally vague, as petitioner em
tends, It is not a mandate for improper investigs
tions, nor even a penal or prohibitory statute. Mon
over, the particular subject of a hearing at which 1
witness is questioned, must be adequately defined and
explained in advance (as it was here), thereby. saa
pelling any possible uncertainty.

Finally, petitioner’s freedom of belief or seit
tion was not infringed by compelled disclosure ¢
facts pertinent to a legitimate subject of congressi¢l
inquiry and legislation. Applying the standands
Barenblatt v. United States and the cases followiigt

19

in maintaining secrecy. Indeed, as we explain, this is

an.@ fortiort case in this regard compared to the prior
QB is ad? BER Redan se) BD: og Bony sre

~
oS

Petitioner's challenge to.the specifies of the Oc,

ther he was adequately
apprised by the Committee that the questions he re-
fused to answer were pertinent to the subject under
inquiry (as required by 2 U.S.C. 192), that issue is
foreclosed here (Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U8.
109; Deutch v, United States, 367 U.S. 456); but in
any event the Committee gave petitioner repéated de-
tailed explanations of the pertineney of the questions
and it is clear that he was in fact fully apprised
thereof. Petitioner’s ‘contention that the Committee
was required, and failed, to overrule ‘his written ob-
jections to the Committee's jurisdiction before he was
questioned was never raised in. the courts below
and hence also is not properly before this Court.
Nor is there merit in the claim. The record estat).
lishes that petitioner’s objections were rejected and
that he knew such to be the case. In short, none of

a

the alleged defects ‘in the Commiittee’s procedirresiy —
this ‘case constitutes reversible error! © orig:

SARI BT ABO iie Tatoo Miter] “ea
iy chiasi detente ty ea Pkt aipsenp ental
ciency found by this Court when last the case“wiy
here—was sufficient. It not only alleged that ‘the
hearings ‘at which petitioner was. questioned ‘wer
authorized by Congress (all we think need “te
alleged) sit also set forth the entire chain of author
ity from Congress to the particular subcommittee that
eonducted ‘the hearings in question. ‘No link in’ the
chain ‘was omitted, and surely no further allegations
of authority were necessary to enable ‘petitioner to
prepare his defense. Applying the general principle
underlying this Court’s decision in Russell v. Unites
States, 369 U:8. 749, we believe that ‘the indictment
was clearly adequate. oa Fl
peeare pert Rit we

lL. THE COMPELLED) DISCLOSURE. OF PETITIONER'S, COMMU:
_.NIST ACTIVITIES AND ASSOCIATIONS WAS (THERE. BEING
NO FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIM OF by Biedusie.
WITHIN THE LAWFUL POWER OF CONGRESS dip

‘We first consider the broad question, raised ta
titioner in a variety of guises, whether it. is within
the lawful power of Congress to investigate (with the
aid of compulsory process) Communist activities.and
associations, in general, and this petitioner’s activitie
and associations, in particular. We preface our dit
cussion of this point with a, review of settled pring.
ples governing the investigative power of Cong TRS,
and its application in the field of subversive acti

, rae
Bri ee 21
es

Actually)’ however, ‘petitioner's broad attack on ‘the

jets) 0 enisbcaibdtil civirinittoen' to -ctmnivd dia:
cireumstances of the present case is foreclosed by this
Gourt’s prior decisions. In Barenblatt v. United
States, 360 U.S. 109, the Court*held that the use of
compulsory process to elicit testimony in aid of con-
gressional investigations of Communist activities, in
cireumstances comparable to those oi the present case,

has a valid legislative purpose.and. does not. violate
the First Amendment. This holding was reaffirmed
in Wilkinson v.. United States, 365. U.S. 399, and
Braden v. United States, 365 U:S.-431: “And, just two
Terms: ago, in Gibson. y.. Florida Legislative Gomm.,
372 U.S. 539, 549, the Court-noted that it is constitu-
tionally “permissible [for the Legislature] to inquire
into the subject of Communist. infiltration. of. educa-
tional or other organizations,’ because. the ‘‘govern-
mental interest in controlling subversion and the par-
ticular character of the Communist Party and its ob-
jectives outweigh the right of individual Communists
to conceal ‘party membership or affiliations.’”’ “Com.
munist Party membership is “a permissible subject
of regulation and legislative scrutiny.” P. 547.
Petitioner to the contrary; there is no occasion to
reconsider those decisions.’ The underlying principle

* Petitioner asks overruling of these cases on the ground that
in recent’ years the menace of Communism has subsided. But,
surely, this is an argument properly addressed to Congress, not
this Court; it calls for a legislative judgment. - Cf. Communist
Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1. In
any event, the argument is hardly pertinent here, since the hear-
ings at which petitioner refused to answer the Committee’s

ee : ie
is exercising,.an. inherent power to. investigate and
does not violate the First Amendment—is in accor
with our. constitutional history and is sustained, gs
wo shal, show, by;a,s00re of elated presedents rap
ir cna ponnten dr iggile CEN gPRRO
of the Communist movement, .. 0.5 4

A. Time DvVEeTIGATION OF COMMUNIST ACriviTiEs, 4

lap huhestbcysleua vaneauneleisas teas ANB

1. Congress Has Power To Require Testimony, Wot Otherwise
Pier Se ae fon eR mite ange:

_ geet of Congressional Legislation yh
In Watkins v. United States; 354 U.S. 178; te
Ohief Justice wrote (p. ¥87):' Ker

The power of the Congress to conduet investl-
gations is inherent in the legislative procem

That power is broad. It encompasses inquities
concerning the administration of existing law

as well as proposed or possibly needed stat

utes, *.* *
History—and this Court’s decisions—eonfirm tint
this inherent constitutional power to eompel testi-
mony in aid of investigations extends to any subjed
upon which Congress has power to legislate. Early
in the sixteenth century (and increasingly after th
Revolution of 1688 established the supremacy of
Parliament) Parliament as a whole, or one of it

questions were held in 1955—one year after the hearings in
volved in Barenblatt and three years before those invol
Braden and Wilkinson. a

’ at
~~
+

“

fT

tigations by Parliament was tit
powers’ sinte Parfiament had both judicial

investigative committees authorized to send for pi —
sons and papers, and this practice was followedin
numerous congressional investigations beginning igs
early as 1792. Landis, supra, 7j'..168-191, Sing
the. Civil War, moreover, Congress has increasingly
determine whether and how it should legislate,, ,
Until comparatively recently, the courts ranly
ruled on the power of Congress to investigate, for the
power was seldom challenged. See Landis, supra,
p. 212." But the early case of Kilbourn. v, Thompgon,
103..U.S, 168, did impose an important limitation
There, a witness was arrested by the House for refus-
OG, BAER AY Coe asked by a committee ‘that
was investigating a bankruptcy. which had resulted

in losses to numerous creditors, including the United

States. This Court did not find it necessary to decide
whether. Congress had investigatory powers as part
of its legislative function, for it held that the investi-
gation was not into the administration of the govern
ment or into the need for new legislation, but rather
into the “private affairs of individuals,” P..1%

and legislative powers and its investigations were carried out
under the former power, However, Professor Landis he
shown that, by the time Parliament conducted inyestigationsyit
had only legislative powers, and that therefore Congress’ power
can be traced back directly to the practices of Parliament,
This view was accepted by this Court in Mc@rain v. Dee
273 U.S. 135, 161.

* As early as 1821, however, in Anderson.y, 6 Wheat
204, this Court sustained the power of the S of » the
House to convict a person for attempting to bribe a
The Court held that this power was necessarily implied in
for the legislative power to operate (pp. 226-227).

| ‘This subject ;was' already before a federal court in a
‘gress had no judicial. power to conduet a, similar pro-

QUOMTNG 5 200645565: bynes ne :
Kilbourn v, Thompson thus established the emi-
nently'sound principle that the power of Congress is
not to prosecute, expose, or put on: trial. But
nothing in that decision cast doubt.upon. the power of
Congress to investigate where it had a proper legisla-
tive purpose.“ The later decisions. confirm.. the
power and emphasize its breadth. In re Chapman,
166 U.S. 661, sustained the power of a Senate com-
mittee to require a witness to testify concerning
allegedly corrupt influences attempted to. be exerted
during the Senate’s consideration of a tariff bill, and
also upheld the constitutionality of Section 102 of
the Revised Statute (the predecessor of the statute
(2 U.S.C, 192) under which petitioner was con-
vieted), which gave the federal district courts power
to punish for contempt of Congress. The Court
stated that a house of Congress could investigate any
matter within its jurisdiction, Pp. 667, 671. —

suggest a strict and unfriendly
f congressional investigation or

Bei.
Cea

& * En!
metiieia
bes
seni tb
yous ami

of its committees testimony needed : a
and
to punish for contempt refusente
‘to-give
by “a rm
witness
Relying‘ on
or : een ie == : :
= po
: = is 5 :
oan en = dinatisbean mt wet
further
raatia of the legislators’ motives or intentions

improper, But, at all events (as.now we show), the

pet of ; these, proceedings refutes any..claim. that
there were a igh motives—“inion busting” and

the} in

a Tab’ ‘as: jiinsdlaloven nse of aniphopee ehittive sitios
is"baséd'on statements’ of the Chairman of the Committes ‘atid’
its employees, what petitioner alleges to be the Committed’s’

EB

42
°'2. On February 9, 1955; the Committee annoiatides
that hearings would be held in Fort Wayne, Indiana»
At that time, neither the Chairman of the 08
nor the members of the subcommittee, nor Commits
counsel had any knowledge that an N.L.R.B. election
was scheduled to be held at the Magnavox plant in
Fort Wayne on February 24, 1955 (R. 94, 116; 193.
124). ‘Nevertheless, petitioner sent the Chairman a
highly abusive telegram (R. 125-127) (which he nr.
eeived on’ February 10, 1955) stating that, in view of
the scheduled ‘election and in view of what was de.
scribed in the telegram as the criminal conviction of
former Committee Chairman Thomas for ‘‘bribery,”
petitioner had every right to ask whether the Com
mittee had been bribed by management to help it in
“union busting.”” On. February 14, 1955, George
Goldstein, Washington representative of the UE,
sought a continuance of the hearing until after the
union election at Magnavox, and was granted an
interview with the Committee. Petitioner suggests
(Br. 63-64) that the discussion which developed dur

methods of operation, and that the Committee’s investigations
generally are conducted for the purpose of exposure, ngt legisls-
tion, this Court has twice rejected, in Barenbiatt, supra, and in
Watkins, supra, such a claim based on identical eviden
Compare R. 195-254 with the Record, pp. 77, 262, 265-266 an
petitioner’s brief in Barenblait, No. 35, Oct. Term, 1958, and
the Record, pp. 11-16, 58~64 and 93-168 and pinnae
in Watkins, No. 261, Oct. Term, 1956.

*1 The Committee counsel testified that no newspaper reas
was prepared by the Committee (R. 94). Similarly, there is
no basis in the record for petitioner’s claim (Br. 63) that; the
Committee Chairman notified local newspapers of Comets
actions. oe

43
g'the interview shows that the Commitee was not
acting in furtherance of a genuine legislative pur-
ne ‘We disagree. The material portions of the

w are as follows (R. 116):

~~ © Chairman Watrer. Not until we received an
~~ “nsulting telegram. After I received that tele-
».) gram, «then I became aware of the fact that

ere was an election being held. We had pre-
. Ylously absolutely no knowledge of it, and the
_. only reason. we decided on this hearing there
ay was because these people are there. If they
~~ are well enough to be in Fort Wayne, Indiana,
~ ‘working,’ they are well enough to testify. That

is our attitude.
* * * * *

definitely that this was a case of union-busting.
Now, there is no one on this committee inter-
ested in busting unions. All of us have very
_ established records, but all of us are interested
in seeing your union go out of business, be-
cause we do not believe it is good for the United
tes.

pia on this colloquy, the court below on the

first appeal stated (280 F, 2d at 682) :

[I]t can be gleaned that Mr. Walter showed
some displeasure

_ fortunate than judges in at ‘least this
that when attacked unjustly, they are at liberty
_:218-855—66—+4

44

9 vyte defend, themselves and to. express ‘ong
fet forcefully and vigorously.” teportinryt ‘fds
_ While, a continuance.of the scheduled. honring ay
at first denied (R. 15), it was later granted. and the
hearing was, set for February 28 (R,.15-16). The
hearing |ppened,.on; that day with,an announcement
by the Chairman of the subcommittee that the subject
of the inquity was: ‘Communist ‘Party: activities with
in the field of labor; ‘the methods used by the Com
munist Party to ‘infiltrate labor ‘otganizations, and the
dissemination of ‘Communist Party propaganda”
(Statement, supra, p,,8).:,The questions asked peti
tioner showed clearly that the Committee was con-
ducting an investigation of Communist infiltraticn in
the labor, field. No member, of, the Committee, or its
counsel, indicated that, the Committee ..was. engaged
in ‘union busting”’ or was ‘attempting merely to ex-
pose “petitioner! On the ¢ontrary,’ they’ repeatedly
stated that the subcommittee ‘Was seeking information
nnist activities, | ‘Congressman, Doyle’ stated

0 ILG

four times that the purposé of the, hearings, was to

obtain information on; Communist, infiltration, and con-
trol of labor unions ria eg i SUPTO,, cd 9-14,

and n. 42, p,.70, infra)? . fos 2d fo Gartner)

*2 Petitioner points: (Bri) 8): aay 3 ada ie ry spl
rter who wrate to the effect that at the, of
February 14, gence te Hh ‘use ‘Un- Rivecién Aetivi es Com-
mittee’ members frankly Presa: totlay” hey “Are out!'to break
the! salleged ' Comrhuhist-led': Independent United | Electrical
Workérs Union” (RB. 407).” The reporter\ admittéd, ‘however,
fuss accuracy, of the stenographically, reported | conference be

By ta aga ae

representative of the: be Coteus $3)" ‘al hime
** For similar statements to a other i on

Sts

At all-events, shithdithentes stories €s are intebatilnabie
bits-and-pieces , that cannot .outweigh, the, proof of
valid, legislative purpose’ contaizied “in the | transcript
ofithe hearing titgelt,» 1 OF dowog and ai ye

“8. Ttis true that: at ét pétitioner; ’ ‘as well
as other eg etc to! _Sbthe® extént from
the erate ti ch rare re is an inevitable by-

et at

72, 71; a. v. New Hamsphire, No. : 396, this

Term, decile April 4, 1966,” Tf exposure ‘resulting
from. such an: investigation is automatically ‘ito, be
291-222, 225, 939. For. example, £ angressman, jo stated te
4 prior witness, Lawrence, Cover, ( (R,,232);

Mr. Dori. is hd an dp ef

Fue ee notice and no Amowledge Te rhewc any

the t
mt pened a ees “4

iif “set .
ih aes 195). ft Heating toh % Mes Ag; “yt urréd i Lami! ei 7, Oe ie
atit iti hy ~e your t Gi MSIF iti Ay HE in ye ur area th NEG Es wy
We had last ‘Year,
MR ee ies ie tht Cry ) Sf : ss Peres

“we didn to it.
SE NUTEOTH ago we ind .

come My stNt oe t te ed the
Placts i & whole we pa’, 4
3” 603TH T of year 2
it over Be mn Jest

deemed exposure “‘for the sake of exposure’ ang —
thus proof that the investigation did not have a valiq
legislative purpose, no such investigations would be
permissible. Yet, exposure of problem areas is on
of the preliminary steps to remedial legislation, and,
obviously, the identity and activities of particular
individuals may be a vital part of the problem. As
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Cireuit noted in Barsky v. United States, 167 F. &
241, 246 (C.A. D.C.), certiorari denied, 334 U.S, 84,

If Congress has power to inquire into the
subjects of Communism and the Communist
Party, it has power to identify the individual
who believe in Communism and those who be
long to the party, The nature and scope of
the program and activities depend in larg
measure upon the character and number of
their adherents. Personnel is part of th
subject. * * *™

% Accord, Morford vy. United States, 176 F. ad 54, 8
(C.A.D.C.), reversed on other grounds, $39 U.S, 958. Se
also, MePhaul v. United States, 364 U.S, 372; United States,
Bryan, 339 U.S, 323; United States v. Fleischman, 389 US
849. In MePhaul, this Court observed with regard to te
pertinency of records subpoenaed from the “Civil Right
Congress” (p. 881):

Tt would seem clear enough that the auspices under whic
the Civil Rights Congress was organized, the identity ant
extent of its affiliations, the source of its funds and to whom
distributed would be prime considerations in

whether the organization was being used by the Communists
in the Detroit area, If the Civil Rights Congress was alll
iated with known Communist organizations, or if its fant
were received from such organizations or were used to suppor
Communist activities hs iy the Detroit area, those facts, it i
reasonable to suppose, would be shown by the records cle

: 47

~ Similarly it was of obvious importance to this investi-
gation of Communist activities in labor unions, and
particularly the U.B., to determine what officers of

the union were Communist Party members, Such
information would show the extent to which the

unions were Communist-controlled and therefore the
need, or lack of need, for legislation.

On the basis of ‘the evidence introduced at peti-
tioner's trial showing the Committee’s sustained legis-
lative purpose, the district court found (R, 206-207)

that the purpose of the Subcommittee (as
stated at the inception of the hearings and

posure of the defendant, but the ascertainment

of the extent of Communist Party infiltration

into labor, * * *
After reviewing the same evidence, the court of
appeals on the first appeal stated that [t]he record
clearly demonstrates that the Committee hearing was
one constituting a continued investigation which the
Committee was conducting into Communist activities
in the labor field, including infiltration into labor
organizations and Communist propaganda’? (280 F,
2d, p. 681), Upon a thorough review of the record
(see pp. 681-685), the court voneluded (p, 685) :
Exposure no doubt resulted from the inquiry,
t no one can fairly read the record without
__-pereeiving that the dominant purpose of the
_ for by the subpoena, and those facts would be highly pertinent

to the ittee’s inquiry [into Communist activity in
_ the Detroit area),

-Uey Committee: was‘/a' legislative one, namely, 4%
io » lear the extent. of Communist: been
»»domination,of labor unions, “ *.*, |
We veabeeits that these: — are tally mse
by the evidence.) % ea
Oo iegonane Dirtvhtideee 40 ddedeey ‘bin debe “CONSTITUTE ‘A BilL

OF ATTAINDER NOR 18. THE COMMITTER’S AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION
UNOONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE __

We turn, now. to.two, contentions made by petitioner
that, stam; directly. from, his argument that his ques-
tioning \by ;the; Committee on .Un-American. Activities
was devoid of a,valid legislative purpose and designed
solely to expose him for, the sake of. exposure (Br,
51+69, 87-91, 96-118).”.; The premise. of. both con-
tentions' is that exposure for exposure’s’ sake ‘was, in
fact, the dominant purpose of the’ ‘inquiry. Since (as
we have just shown) this premise is false, the con-
tentions fail. —

1. A bill of attainder is a statute which, instead of
regulating in general terms, applies a sanction or dep
rivation to named or specified persons, thereby in
vading the province of the judiciary; such laws are
expressly forbidden by Article I, Section 9 of the
Constitution. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. aT,
323; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315-311;
United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437. However, we
know of no case in which the public presentation 6 of
facts concerning an individual—exposure—has been
- regarded as an attaint. And, even assuming that a
deliberate congressional attempt, to expose an individ-

* We deal with these contentions briefly since, as presented bj
petitioner, they are substantially interchangeable with the “e-
posure for exposure’s sake” argument dealt with above...

49

"til for the sake of exposure unrelated to a bona fide
gislative purpose could amount to a bill of attainder,
r apparently ‘does not ¢ontend that a con-
gressional hearing would violate the prohibition
against such laws in circumstances where’ exposure was
merely the byproduct of ‘a dona fide investigation
into ‘@ subject which the Legislature was empowered to
consider. Yet such, we have seen (pp. 38-48, supra),
were precisely the cireumistances here. *

2. Petitioner’s contention that the authorizing reso-
lution of the Un-American Activities Committee
(Rule XI of the ‘Rules of the House of Representa-
tives, p. 90, n. 58, infra)’ is unconstitutionally vague is
similarly without merit.“ Rule’ XI authorizes the
Committee ‘to ‘make’ investigations’ of :“whAmericar
propaganda activities” and “subversive and un-Amer-
ican propaganda that is instigated ‘from foreign coun-
tries cr of a domestic origin and attaéks the principle
of the form of government as guaranteed by our Con-
stitution.” Petitioner’s’ complaint is that this man:
date is so vague and broad that it permits the Com-
mittee to make investigations whose sole objects are
exposing for exposure’s sake, ‘‘union »” de-
terring the exercise of freedom of speech’ and of
association, and other purposes not genuinely legis-
lative. Not only is the premise of this argument—that
the Committee’s investigations lack a valid legislative
purpose—false; in addition, the argument rests
®The identical contention was expressly rejected in Baren-
Nels 360 US, P- 116-117. See, also, Wilkinson, 865 U.S.,

“—

Court. .

It is true, of course, that the “standards of pe.

missible statutory vagueness are strict in the area of
free expression.” N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 US
415, 432; see, e.g., Smith v. Califorma, 361 U.S. 14,

151. And it follows that a penal or prohibitey
statute or decree so broad or indefinite that it might
deter the exercise of constitutionally protected rights
of expression isinvalid. N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 37108,
pp. 432-433, and cases cited. But there is no such
danger here, even granting that Rule XI may bh
rather vague and general in its terms (see Wathingy,
United States, 354 U.S. 178, 202). The statute pro
hibits nothing; it is merely an authorizing resolution
Since it lacks any prohibitory effect or penal sanction,
we do not see how the generality of its language could
prejudice or deter anyone. No person can be com
pelled to testify or cited for contempt of Congress and
convicted under 2 U.S.C, 192 for refusal to. testify
unless he willfully refuses to answer questions thatan
pertinent to a subject under inquiry by, and within
the legislative competence of, Congress; that was tk
case here (see pp. 29-41, supra, and pp. 59-64, infra),

In addition, it is apparent that petitioner’s com
plaint goes not to the wording of Rule XI, butt
the scope of the Committee’s investigations and ib
alleged improper extra-legislative purposes of &
posure and condemnation, Since the Committee’ ; h
vestigations—and specifically that at which peti
was questioned—in fact do have a valid ]

op comccising its broad powers of investigation Con-

gress, of course, is subject to the restrictions imposed

by the Bill of Rights upon all federal governmental

exercise, since, had he cael: the Com q
questions, he would have remained .as free 28 oe
from any form of legal restriction upon ol
tivities, or other forms, of expression., His complaint
rather, is, that. the disclosure of views and activi
that are unorthodox or unpopular may subject him
(and others whom he names) to public obloquy, thus
discouraging them and others from adhering to un-
popular views lest they suffer such a fate in the
future. Obviously, it requires something more than
a literal reading of the First Amendment to hold that
such collateral consequences’ raisé ‘a’ constitutional
question. Moreover, whatever may be the merits of
a “balancing test”’ when dealing with a law that itself
directly abridges freedom of speech or the press, ques- é
tions of judgment and degree surely must be faced
in dealing with governmental activity that affects
freedom of expression only indirectly. As the oe
Justice said in Watkins (p. 198) :
It is manifest that despite the pilose offet
which follow upon compelled disclosure of pri
vate matters, not all such inquiries are barred
‘** * The critical element is the existence of,
and the weight to be ascribed to, the interest of
the Congress in demanding disclosures from
any unwilling witness,,
And in Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 1%
127, the Court held: a:
Where First Amendment rights are sieeatal
bar governmental interrogation. resolution of
the issue always involves. ia; balancing by the
courts of the competing private. and. eeieat

53
a take in the partoular cireaane

plying : Matai tacthespremnt case, we think
itis clear: that. petitions First Amendment rights
were not invaded.
= hited, jpahiethiriet tobe; necvad: bi pititiosiar’s
testimony was the need for information .concerning
subversive activities in a vital area,in our national
life—labor relations—information that, would be help-
fal not only in reviewing the effectiveness of. existing
legislation’ but also in determining what new Jegisla-
tion’ might be needed to meet existing or threatened
evils. The hearing at which petitioner was questioned
was conducted for the explicit..purpose of securing
information about “Communist Party activities within
the field of labor, the methods used by the Communist
Party to infiltrate labor organizations, and the dissemi-
nation of Communist Party propaganda” (R.
219). These are plainly matters of serious national
concern; the reality of these dangers and the disrup-
tive effects of Communist influence in labor unions
are shown by industrial history. We have already
adverted to the mass of material available in 1947
showing Communist infiltration of labor organizations
not to support and further trade union objectives but
to make them a device for disrupting commerce: and
whenever the dictates of political. policy

might 90 require (see p. 36, supra). . For example,
in 1949 and 1950, the Congress of: Industrial Orga-
nizations found it necessary to expél eleven interna-
ten ‘unions, . ipitenarte simian because._of

alertness to its responsibilities suggests tht ch
Sataovreanion but the possibility of a legislator's reach
ing that conclusion falls far short of demonstrating
that the evil‘does not merit legislative sintbctalelle
‘The special problems posed by Communist activity
in the labor movement make the public interest in this
investigation particularly strong for upholding th
exéreise of congressional power. And, besides thy
potential impact upon the labor movement, the same
general public interest present in the Barenblat,
Witkinson, and Braden cases—the right of self
preservation—is present here. In Barenblaté, th
™ The committee which recommended expulsion of the Unite
Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union stated (Official Repors
on the Expulsion of Communist Dominated Ory
the CIO, compiled by the Publicity Department, CIO, Se
1954), p. 18):

The Communist Party is precisely this type of orga
tion which the CIO is under 4. constitutional mandate te
oppose—one which would use power to exploit the peoj
for the benefit of an alien loyalty. The Communist

speaks in the words of unionism and Americanism, Bu
actually it matters not to the Communist Party wh

a particular policy will advance or hinder the best ia

terests of American labor. The sole test is whether th

policy is required by the need of the Soviet Union. @

to the extent that the Soviet line permits will the prop

ganda mill of the Communist Party grind out platfon

which are in consonance with the ideals Sof American

In event of conflict, however, between the needs |

Soviet Union and the best interests of American lab

former must always prevail. .

* We have already pointed out that Congress duke to ene
legistation in 1947, 1954, and 1989 aimed at reducing Comitii

influence in labor unions, See p. 39, supra.

. en the interrogation of a witness concerning

field of education, saying

Ree se to.conduct appropriate investigations in aid
such power has never been questioned by this

_ Court. * *'* Tn the last analysis this power
“ests on! the right of self-preservation, “the
ultimate value of any society,” Donnie v. United
(States, 341 U.S. 494, 509. Justification: for its

~ exercise in turn rests on the long and widely

accepted view that the tenets of the Communist
Party include the ultimate “verthrow of the

ee Government of the United States by force and

violence, a view which has been given formal

expression by the Congress,

was in ‘the presence of Subversives in’ New Hamp-

Shine: that the Attorney

to"believe” that'there was a “‘nexus between We
Fellowship) ‘atid: subversive’ activities” ‘and that
speakers ‘and guests miglit be stibversive’ persons} an
that this nexus was adequate to justify the i

tion! since ‘the investigation was: undertaken “in the |

interest ‘of: belf-preservation’”: (pp: aan In con-
ah tb the’ ‘strong gov

tia om

to, police officers; poe since, ‘the, only hharm-,publi
exposure-—was ‘‘an. inescapable incident of: an investi-

gation into the presence of subversive a a within

a State” mee ASS 941
“Subsequen y, in Witkinson v. vtnitea ‘Stes, 365
US. 399, and ‘Braden ¥. United States, 365. U. S. 431,

the Court sustained like questions. in the course of a:

*In DeGregory.y, New. Hampshire, No. 396, this. T
cided. April 4, 1966, this Court, recently upheld the claim
wittieds that his fofiddl to answer vertath questions pat Wik
eR atangrytbaanpiin insane nosing
n,.of. subversive activiti protected by the
and Tobe nendments. Detnenaiig” Uphaus,
Coutt found | that ‘thé questions ‘asked’ DeGrevory baer
cient soraibigiiectorith the State's interestiin preventing subver
sion, in view of the fact, that they, ted to, activities six J
and mo before the investi ion. that there was no
dieatiia' tHae!
subversive organizations) (or: activities. ‘In phaus—ns: inthe
present case—the questions asked related to. current, subyersin
activities; and. there can be n doubt, we submit, of the pro
pridty “ot such’ ‘Thideed. ‘this’ Court” affitled
' earlier -cohviction' tof: eine na based upon’ his’ refusilote
answer the question whether he, was presently. a, teak
ram Party. PeGivegory, vy. Attorney, @ oneral,

7

“was mitea ‘involved ‘‘twith’ Mf

57

“Badeenional “induiry’ into Communist ‘propaganda,
ject’ the’ witnieiséy” contentions imider the Fitst

ty * ** are SS much within. [the snbeommittee’
"pervasive au Cp ssa activity in educational
we semumist: Pane ation ‘ o'the extit which

roaigare pronto [the St
-,, tions and causes: in,
was pasty not constitutionally b fora jn [th
- ‘sabeommittee’s inquiry. Upon the By terre and ‘au
ee U.S! dt; 125+134; we hold that the rind
‘wi Be ier coat ae a at, Ament rom,
“The lower courts likewise uniformly and
iat that’ thé Prat Prairie ‘does ‘not ‘prohibit’
from investigating: Cormmunist el yt bara
tion necessary in order to _ legislate. E.9., Barsky v= Pnited
ore Spit 9d: 241 246 (C.A.'D.C)); ‘certiorari denied, 334
‘3.848; Latoedn, 'y: ‘States, ss, Wem: 24-49; 62.$3'(CxA)
Dit); bertidiart: dédied, 330 TES. '984 3 United Blatesv) Toseph:
Ps 165 F. 2d 82, 90-92 (C.A. 2), certiorari denied, 838 US!
thane ng Sree AOS: sea OF
ari dismissed, 388 U.S. 888,! United Stites +. 0
FO 8 187 {Ola 8); “Mearahalt v. "Cndeed States, “176° F.
BS LACLS D. Cy, gerol ete Poa ‘US.-983; Denate'v:
ae AL D:C:); “affired ‘on’’other
ds, » ts. 1885 ri ‘Onited States, "259 FR 9a‘g08
(CA DC rsed’ ‘on other’ Brounds, 36°08 376 Pown-
by Grete Soule, 95 F.2d! 352; 361 (O!A: De), certiorari
nied, 308°U.8.: 68S ‘United States v. Lattimore, ans F.2d

847,851 (0.4. DO.) ; Morford v United States, 176K! od B4,
(CA. D.C.), reversed on other grounds, 389° U.S. 958;

58

The. public interest in congressional knowledgs gf
Communist. activities is underscored by the numerom:
decisions. of this Court based upon the pr sin at
the dangers of CORMRARAEE, SRT SEER: ee
cular areas involved, as found by Congress, furnish
an adequate constitutional foundation for s re
tive legislation.” Upon the same premise the { Cor
has ‘upheld; against attack under the Fourtem
Amendment, State legislation aimed at men
the Communist Party, requiring those occupying o
seeking public office to diselaim knowing membérship
in any organization advocating the overthrow ofthe
government by force and violence." The proposition
that there is sufficient public danger in the activitia
of the Communist Party to justify legislative investi
gation and appropriate legislation is thus deeply en
bedded in our constitutional law. To hold that the
First Amendment prevents mere congressional inguin
into Communist membership or activities would ‘ao
only overrule Barenblat, U phaus, Braden, and Wilk
United States v. Kamin, 186 F. Supp. 791, 803(D. Mam)
United States v. Bryan, 72 F. Supp. 58, 62. (D. D.C.), revere
on other grounds, 174 F. 2d 525 (C.A. D.C.), rever
U.S, 393. |

* American Communications Association v. Douds,
382; Osman vy. Douds, 339 U.S. 846; Carlson vy. Landon, &
U.S. 524; Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580; Galuans
Press, 347 U.S. 522; Flemming v. Nestor, 368 U.S. 603;4om)
munist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 36103
1; Seales v. United States, 367 U.S, 203. :

* Gerende vy. Board of Supervisors, 341 U.S. 56; Garner 1.
Board of Public Works, 341. US. ‘716. See, also, Beil an. 5,
Board of Education, 357 U.S. 399; Lerner v. tea: 03 :
468; Adler v. Board of Education, 342. U.S. 485; Gibamn
Florida Legislative Coman., 372 U.S. 539, 549. ;

59
ej ot z basie Premise of the consistent line

na Measure upon its own facts. Hence, we do not
est ‘that, | simply because there is a sufficient in-
erent in legislative knowledge concerning Communist
a vities, in a particular field to justify an appro-
i use ‘of compulsory process to elicit testimony,
ea tomatically follows’ that particular questioning
of 8} particular witness is proper!’ Accordingly; we
sider the reasons for calling petitioner in this case;
ng rag of the information he could’ be“éxpected
‘ish, and ‘the potential harm to protected free-
j and we show that in’ all’ these respects the
i case is ‘Substantially stronger than Barenblat,

on, or Braden,’ .

c may begin by. noting that not only was the Cora-
mittee’s inquiry in’ this case supported Wy ‘strong
consider tions of publie interest, a8 “we Have ‘seen,
it, in dditi on, there Was every reason t0 ‘believe

| 5 cares $b U8, 'p: doa
At the time’ a ‘the Committee
—— that the Uni Lie
Vorkers 0
” tn ttB6? tind
heard sworn fatissony that virtually all the union’s
213-355—¢6——_5

60

officers. were Communist (see, supra, p, 4). >
tioner was admittedly general vice-president 4 s
union and president of District No. 9. The Com
mittee had further information linking petitioner wil
Russell Nixon, a lobbyist for the union who had be
identified by a witness as a member of the Communi
Party, and with. the, American Peace Crusade, whi
the Committee. believed to be a Communist- ont
ganization (see supra, pp. 12-14). As an oftirer ate
union about. which, the Committee had ‘evidence af
such infiltration, petitioner was in a position re
vide, pertinent information, either by affirming
pudiating previous testimony. . And the questions ny
the Committee asked and that petitioner refused b
answer, were fairly designed to elicit such informatin
An. affirmative answer to the question that ford
the basis of count one of the indictment—wh hethe
petitioner, was a member of the Communist | Party

movement and show that Be as could ras
information; a negative response. would have r

-
hee

to. show that. the reports were kaggeri

petal f

rate,,;.In, Barenblatt, three of the five questions th
the witness refused to answer. concerned his member
ship in,the Communist Party“ and this Court sped
ically affirmed, the aga nie Prani f bat
three questions were, proper. _ 115, In W ine
. "=e jo no 4 mane of he Coomnit Par ”; SB
you ‘ever: been s, member; of the Communist P ” 5M

you ever,® member of the Haldane Club of. nme
Party while at the ee he ee 360 USih

62 7
that the witness has saeco information. Kindly,
iealnidnnteccxpedeiben eubitect vinibie tides igati |
be weighed against any. potential. damage ‘to. ma
protected’ by’ the Bill of Rights. But once ‘they
points are covered, the judicial function is exhausted
The ‘Court would be exercising a legislative function
if it! undertook to decide just how necessary—or how
hélpful—particular information would be. :
among relévant lines of inquiry, deciding when'th
ground has been adequately covered, relying upn
testimony already received, or seeking further dis
proof or corroboration are all parts of the proceso
legislative investigation. For the Court to decide sic
issues would be inconsistent with the presumption of
validity due to a coordinate branch of the government
and violative of principles of separation of powén
See Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 215
| This precept is as necessary in practice as it #
sound in principle. No one can’ tell how’ helpful4
logically ‘material item of evidence’may be in ‘th
legislative process without studying and drawing it
ferences fromthe ‘evidence’ alréady introduced/
certaining and appraising the other sotirces of it
formation, weighing the kinds’ of : legislation’ thi
might ‘be: drafted, and anticipating the probable’
sponsé: of the Sendte and the ‘House ‘to’ partici
evidence.’ A printed’ record supplies no basis “fet
undertaking such a task; it can he performed onlylj
lawmakers as part of the process of legislation.
In the present case; moreover, it is clear that tht
information sought to be elicited from peti oner

would have been extremely helpful to Congress,
Byen if the Committee had expected to receive only
corroborating testimony from petitioner, there is an
important govermmental: interest,.in ‘having a well-
informed witness ‘confirm previous testimony—par-
ticularly..when the existing evidence is in a contro-
versial area and is therefore likely to be challenged.
If the attempts of the Communist Party to infiltrate
labor organizations were few or unsuccessful, a legis-
lator might well conclude that the dangers did not
justify the costs of legislation. If the infiltration
was on a larger scale and more successful, he might
reach the opposite conclusion.

Furthermore, the Committee was not only seeking
evidence concerning petitioner. The question whether
he was a member of the Communist Party had a
direct bearing on the question of Communist infiltra-
tion. of his union. That question (and the questions
in counts 2 and 3 concerning petitioner’s activitics
and relations with local officers of. the Communist
Party) could have provided information as to the
extent of such infiltration and the methods and means
employed, as well as information concerning Conmmu-
hist aetivity in the labor movement generally. The
question in count four concerning the possible Party
membership of another official of the union clearly fell
within the same category and sought the same type of
information. The questions in counts five and six
concerning petitioner’s possible participation in the
activities of a known Communist-front organization,
and the method by which his activity was solicited, had
an obvious bearing upon the Committee’s interest in

the dissemination of Communist na «.
short, the Committee had reasonable grounds to belien
that petitioner could provide highly useful inform,
tion’ on the’ subject of their’ inquiry.” dia

8) In weighing the ‘governmental interest in obtain
ing information from petitioner against the
interests that he asserts, it is relevant that petitions,
is asserting a right, not to express his beliefs ‘ay
engage in open political activities, but to keep ‘the
secret; and he is complaining, not of any governmental
abridgment of freedom of expression and association,
but of fear of the lawful reactions of those who do no
share his opinions, once the truth is known: Tob
sure, the Consitution implicitly recognizes a funds
mental right of privacy against undue governmental
prying, and a measure of privacy may be essential
freedom of belief and also (in the beginning, at least)
to effective political organization.. See Wathing \,
United States, 354 U.S. 178, 196-198. But the exad
nature of the constitutional right asserted mist b
taken into account in weighing the governmental
against the private interest—an analytical ‘proces
required in this type of case (see pp. 51-53, supra),

It is therefore relevant to note that this is not’ tam
of governmental interference with the political pret
esses essential to the conduct of democratic gover
ment. Of. United States v. Carolene Products (,
304 U.S. 144, 152,n. 4. Nor can petitioner ivan

* We repeat that petitioner’s conviction must be uph el
any of the six counts is sustained, and that here, in ca irate
DeGregory v. New Hampshire (see p. 56, n. 29, Dy
questions. asked petitioner related to present—not pi
versive activities.

65

‘ arpose of constitutional protection of speech
“to foster peaceful interchange of all’ manner : of
thoughts, information and ideas.” See Kunz v. New
fork, 240 US. 290, 295, 302 (dissenting opinion of
Mr. Justice Jackson). The guarantee of freedom of
xpression rests ultimately upon belief in the value
of free. mpetition in ideas when openly and publicly
debated. In Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357,
$72, 375, 377, Justices Brandeis and Holmes, concur-
ring, stated :
Those who won our independence be-
lieved * * * that freedom to think as you will
and to speak as you think are means indispens-
able to the discovery -and spread of political
' truth; that without free speech and assembly
discussion would be futile; that with them,
discussion affords ordinarily adequate protec-
tion against the dissemination of noxious
‘doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom
is an inert people; that public discussion is a
political duty; and that this should be a funda-

mental principle of the American government.

Petitioner is unwilling to stake his beliefs upon such

atest. He was not called in reprisal for anything

that he had said. ‘His fear is of public knowledge and

- discussion of the information the Committee sought to
eet,

Furthermore, there is much less foundation for
pétitioner’s claim of prejudice to fundamental free-

doms than in Barenblatt, Wilkinson, and Braden.
Barenblat was a college teacher by profession. The
investigation was into Communist infiltration in the
field of education—-an area of special and sensitive

Bacern for freedom of thought and expression (cf.

66

Sweeay v,. New Hampshire, 354 US. 234,
260-264)—-and was necessarily gonenrned.
with ideas. and propaganda. Tn Wil
Braden, the. congressional inquiry was. fe
Communist activities. in.spreading _ propa
Wilkinson, was taxed at the hearings with hay in
sentto Atlanta, Georgia, ‘for the purpose of de
ing a hostile sentiment. to this committee and
work for the purpose of undertaking to bring dress
upon the United States Congress to preclude the
particular hearings.” 365 U.S., p. 416 (di nting
opinion of Mr. Justice Black). And Braden appar
ently was called at.least partly as a, result of publi
letters urging opposition to measures then. pending
in Congress and criticizing the Un-American Acti
ities Committee. 365 U.S., pp. 451-454 (dissenting
opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas). There is ‘no sug.
gestion that the subpoenaing of the present petitioner
had any connection with political. opposition, and,
surely, infiltration of. labor organizations cannot bk
likened to political propaganda or college educati|

II. THE PROCEDURES OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMIT
IN THIS CASE WERE REGULAR AND PROPER, AND FURNBI
NO GROUND FOR REVERSING PETITIONER’S CONTHMM
CONVICTION
In this part of our argument, we consider él

tioner’s challenge to the procedures of the Un-Amen

can Activities Committee in this case, which he om
tends require that his conviction for contend

Congress be reversed.

of the Rules of Procedure of the House
tee on Un-American Activities provides in
ertinent part that ‘‘[n]o major investigation shall
be initiated without approval of a majority of the

Committee.’” Admittedly, there is no direet evidence

that the Committee approved the investigation of
Communist activities in the field of labor of which
the hearings at which petitioner was called to testify
were a part.” But no other reasonable inference can
be drawn from the evidence.

At the time of the hearings in 1955, the Committee
was engaged—and had been since at’ least 1952—in
a continuing investigation of Communist activities
in the labor field. See Statement, supra, ‘pp. 4-5;
280 F. 2d, p. 681. The Committee’s annual reports—
endorsed by all of its members—reported on this
investigation in 1954 and 1955. (Appendices I and II,
“infra, pp. 93-107). In 1953, moreover, the Committee
had: made legislative recommendations based upon
the investigation which were enacted into law (Ap-
pendix I, infra, pp. 93-94). Hence, to hold that the in-
vestigation of Communist activities in labor was not
approved by the Committee it would have to be pre-
sumed that there was no Committee approval of an

* We do not. dispute that this investigation was a.“major”
one and that approval by a majority of the Committee was
“We have printed as Appendices I and II to this -brief
= rom. the Committee’s. annual reports for 1954 and

ints WP TE Bas

‘68 a
investigation continuing over a period of:
four Lee meen on which the

presumption can be indulged. " iby ,
It only. remains to. consider whether be hearing
question ‘were part of this approved investigatic
Clearly they were: The hearings were specifically
linked in the 1955 annual, report to the continuing
investigation of Communist. activities in the Jab
movement (Appendix II,.infra, p. 108). In. additig
the subject matter of the hearings, the opening state ¢
ment of the chairman and other statements made in
the course of the hearings indicate conclusively thi
they. were a part of that investigation. (See State
ment, supra, pp. 7-14, and note 42, p, 70, infra)...
B. THERE WAS A PROPER DELEGATION TO THE SUBCOMMITEEe
- Rule XI of the House of Representatives authorim
the Un-American Activities Committee to delegates
thority to conduct hearings to subcommittees.” Pr
suant thereto, the Committee by resolution of Janumy
* Tt provides in pertinent part et

The Committee on teacA siecle Activities, as a
or by subcommittee, is authorized to make from time to
sah aiee: SE tet

- a . Rs
eu il eebiatiet ac ihas nanan mit
on Un-American Activities, or any subcommittee therea,3
suthorized to sit and act at such times and p veg #
pe Prrage bay Peverar nn tadbioe, spun des sien. viv
witnesses and the production of such books, papemi,
documents, and to take such testimony, ot eee
cary. * * * [Emphasis added.) e

a:
‘aiithorized its Chairman'“‘to appoint sub-
as *'* * for the purpose of performing any
‘acts ‘which the Committee as a whole is au-
“thorized to’ perform.” (Gx 4; R. 210.) We do not
understand petitioner to challenge the propriety of
“gh resolution. ° Subsequently, the full Coramittee
sithorized the particular hearings at which petitioner
‘was’ Subpoenaed ‘to appear and the Chairman ay-
"pointed the subcommittee that took petitioner’s testi-
mony.“ Additional evidence that the subcommittee
‘was authorized is provided by the’ fact that the full
committee reported petitioner’s contempt to the House
(@x8 (unprinted) ). | lel od
“We think the foregoing facts provide ample basis
for concluding that the subcommittee was properly
authorized to question petitioner. See United States
:

¥, Seeger, 303 F. 2d 478, 487 (C.A. 2) (coneurring
opinion). We know of no ease where'a more particu-
larized delegation has been required. Moreover, while
the formal authorizing resolution did not spell out the
: precise area of inquiry which the subcommittee was
- tovexplore in questioning petitioner (nor was such
_ ‘Specification required since the subcommittee was au-
thorized to exercise all the powers of the parent Com-

ee eee? Who made the underlying motion, or the

wervtary taking the

70
mittee), it is clear that, the subcommittee .kn
adhered to the precise areas of interest of the ps :
Committee; and ean in no sense be thought. to hayg
exceeded its delegated authority in interrogating peti.
tioner. ihe

The Committee. Jpsiesil to elicit fiiterbintion ta
petitioner concerning Communist activities in) the
union of which he was. an officer; the subcommittes
carefully sought to carry out this purpose. Thus, in
his opening statement, the subcommittee’s chairman
carefully and fully delineated the subject under in.

quiry by the subcommittee as Communist activities
in the labor field (see Statement, supra, p. 8),
and each witness who appeared before the subcommit-
tee on February 28 and March 1 (the dates of peti-
tioner’s appearance) was questioned concerning the
same subject.“ From these and other indications,
it is evident that the subcommittee—to which the
parent Committee had, as we have seen, duly delegated
its investigatory authority—was carrying out: the
specific wishes of the parent Committee when it ques
tioned. petitioner, rather than embarking on an investi-
gatory frolic of its own. The actions of a subcom
mittee are ordinarily presumed to be within. the scope
of authority conferred by the parent Committee
(Norris. v. United States, .257 U.S. 77; 82), and mot
only is that presumption unrebutted by the evidence

“See testimony. of Julia aneabe, Lawrence Cover, andi
tioner.: .(R.. 219+380.),- a i ay Seis

“For example, . duasing the testimony: of ‘Eavarenoe! Cover,

another meniber. of U.E.;,on. the same day a bore
US

71

ite ‘biit ‘the ‘evidence affirmatively establishes that
n tee was acting in Mi casein: Mere its

ed Bb. 3803 :
FENITIONE's CLAIM THAT HE WAS NOT APPRIBED BY TH CoM:

pari MITTEB OF THE PERTINENCY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HE REFUSED
‘140 ANSWER 18 NOT PROPERLY HEFORE' THIS COURT AND, IN ANY

| EVENT, LACKS MERIT ”
1, Having Failed To Challenge the Hertha >t iishahiek
' Before the Committee, Petitioner Cannot Now Claim That
He Was Not Apprised of Their Pertinency

* Petitioner claims (Br. 121-123) that ‘he was not
adequately apprised by the subcommittee of the sub-
ject under inquiry so that he Could determine whethe::
‘the questions asked him were pertinent to this subject.
But petitioner failed to raise this objection’ before
the subcommittee and, under this Court’s decisions, is
precluded from raising it for the first time in the
contempt proceeding.

‘(a) In Bale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, the witness
based his refusal to produce documents on the ground
(among others) that it was “impossible for him to
collect ‘them within the time allowed?’ (p. 70): The
Court indicated that it would not consider this’ ob-
Congressman Doyle stated (R.: 288-284) :

[W]e as a committee have had plenty of Silaashae reacties
“that! Aho | tet

. Se Daring Jou and te ther pony er
this investigation if we didn’t have p
Daan, npeetention it wo didnt 2s

72

snihinn bitsaiann: Sihlnd shecwtinenaeDadceliaal
([this} ground, doubtless, the court would, have gig,”
hm. the necessary time’’ (ibid.). _ Similarly, Unites |
States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, held that a witnes
who, having been subpoenaed to appear Sn eae
records. before a congressional committee, appear, |
but refuses to produce the records; may not raise at
his trial for. the first time the issue whether a quorum
of the Committee was present. The Court stated that
[t]he defect im composition of the Committee, if
any, was one which could easily have been remedied,
* * * For two years, now grown to four, the |
mittee’s investigation was obstructed by an objection.
which, so far as we are informed, could have been
rectified in a few minutes’’ (339 U.S., p. 333). More.
over, it was apparent that this witness “would ot
have complied with the subpoenas no matter, how.
the Committee had been constituted at the time. * oe
Here respondent would have the Committee rt
through the empty formality of summoning a quorum
of its members to gather in solemn conclave to hea
her refuse to honor its demands” (pp, 333-33
See, also, United States v. Fleischman, 339 US.
352. “fe
These principles are fully applicable to th? sue
whether the witness is sufficiently apprised of the. sub
ject) under inquiry and.the pertinency “of: the
questions to this subject. “When a witness challenges
the pertinency.of.a question, the congressional. ‘Com.
mittee or its counsel can explain more*fully the sil
ject under inquiry and the relationship " betwe n the
question and the subject, and, if necessary, can I

73

for refusing to answer the question, the pertinency
of the question, like the existence of a quorum (Bryan,
Fleischman), ‘becomes immaterial, since the wit-
ness) would not have answered no matter how clear
the committee made the pertinency of the question
stadia in Watkins v. United States, 354 US.
178, this Court, stated that “(t]he final source of evi-
denee as to the “question under inquiry’ is the Chair:
man’s response when petitioner objected to the ques-
tions on the grounds of lack of pertinency’’ (p. 214;
emphasis added); “[uJnless the subject matter has
been made to appear with undisputable clarity, it is
the duty of the investigative body, upon objection -of
the witness on grounds of pertinency [“] to state for
the record the subject under inquiry at that time and

pertinent, thereto’’ (pp, 214-215; emphasis added. )“
And in Barenblatt Vv. United States, 360 U.S. 109,
123-124, the. Court made express the implication ‘in
Watkins, and squarely. held that the issue of per-
tineney,\ must. be. raised . before. the investigating

Furthermore, the Court held in Barenblatt, the. issue

“Watkins specifically told’ the commities that “I do not be-
lieve ‘that “such questions ‘are relevant to the work of this
comiitittes: * * *." ‘ ; api | '

“The ‘foothote to 'this sentence reads’ “Cf United States v.
Kania, 188 ¥. Supp.'701, 800” (354 U.S, p. 215, n, 55). At
Pege’800°OF ‘the Kamin opinion, then District Judge Aldrich

74

of pertinency ‘is not raised by a memors
mitted by a witness to the committee saying 1}
might wish to * * * challenge the pertinency’ of th
question to the investigation” and quoting, from ;
opinion of this Court, ‘‘language relating to a witney
right to be informed of the pertinency of question
asked him by an administrative agency.’’ P, 1
The Court held that “Tt]hese statements cannot ***
be accepted as the equivalent of a pertinency objection,
At best, they constituted but a contemplated objectin
to questions still unasked, and buried as they were‘
the context of petitioner’s general challenge to th
power of the Subcommittee they can hardly be em
sidered adequate, within the meaning of what was said
in ‘Watkins * * * to trigger what would have bea
the. Subeommittee’s reciprocal obligation had it bea
faced with a pertinency objection’: (pp. 123-12),
See, also, McPhaul v. United at» 364 bri
380-381. ;
Andiin Deutch v. United States, 367 US. 456,
where the Court found that “the petitioner was ‘ne
made aware at the time he was questioned of the que
tion then under ‘inquiry nor of how the question

which were asked related to such a subject”—it never

emphasized the necessity of @ specific objection on ern

The defendant contends that it is not enough for.s@

tion to be pertinent—the witness must be informed of th
subject matter, so that he may have a definite stand

which to. determine whether he should answer. .

he was not so informed he admittedly indicated no i

and did not choose to supplement. any deficiency.

knowledge by asking either the Chairman or h

counsel, I regard this contention as immaterial.

ra reat se

75
. theless did not reverse the witness’ conviction. on this
0° [PYhe thoughts which the petitioner voiced: in
refusing: to. answer the questions about other
_ people ean hardly be considered as the equiva-
. lent of an, objection upon the grounds of per-
_, tineney. Although he did indicate doubt as to
the importance of the questions, the petitioner’s
_ ,, Main concern was clearly his own conscientious
“unwillingness to act as an’ informer: It ‘can
hardly be considered, ‘therefore, that the ob-
jections which the petitioner made at the time
were “adequate, within ‘the meaning of what
» was said in Watkins, supra, at 214-215, to trig-
ger what would have been the Subcommittee’s
, Feeiprocal obligation had it been faced with a
_ pertinency objection.” Barenblat, supra, at
__(b), In the present case, petitioner (who appeared
before the subcommittee with cotinsel) did not make
even the “contemplated” and “buried” objections to
the pertinency of the questions that were made by the
witness in Barenblatt, nor did he indicate any doubt
as to the importance of the questions, such as was
stated by the witness in Deutch. Péetitioner’s pre-
liminary statement was no mére than a penéral chal:
lenge to the power of the subcdmmittee to hold ‘any
hearings ‘or to ask any questions of the witnesses be-
fore: it. ‘The. statement claimed that the ‘Committee
had no. valid legislative purpose, that the hearing
Violated the Bill of Attainder Clause of the Constitu:
tion and the First Amendment, and that ‘the’ Com-
mittee’s authorizing resolution did not authorize the

218-855—¢6——_6

could not constitute an objection to the pertineney of
questions not yet asked: A similar statement attack.
ing the jurisdiction and power of the committee way
made by the witness in Borenblatt, but the Court con.
cluded that this “general challenge to the power of
the Subcommittee” was not adequate ‘to trigger what
would have been the Subcommittee’s reciprocal ob-
eS ee ek Sea NE elrt

to apprise the witness of the pertinency of the Sed
tions. 360 TS., p124"

Petitioner likewise did not question the pertineney
of any of the particular, questions asked him during j
the course of the hearing, Instead, he repeated the
objections in his statement: that the hearing was not
within the power given the Committee by its authoris.
ing resolution; that the hearing was intended ts
“bust” the union, or. to expose petitioner, or. to ty
and convict him, and therefore did not have a valid
legislative purpose; and that the hearing as a
and particular questions violated the First Amend-
ment. In addition, he claimed that the Committee
relied on, informers who were liars. (Statement,
supra, p. 11), None of these objections 80 much

Pathe ye dear ncaa ig a. gan ages
207 88) wi rhe the. record in No, 35, | :
with motion in this case (R.

them sufficiently —
even those “contemplat

prea Aas

me Y
ss hinted to ‘the ‘subcommittee that petitioner .was
claiming that he did not understand the pertinency of

(9) Petitioner was apprised, from at least three
different sources, that the subject under inquiry at
the: hearings was Communist activity in labor unions.
First, at the start of the hearings on February 28,
the day petitioner first testified, the chairman of the
subcommittee specifically stated (R. 219):

» There. will be considered at this hearing
testimony relating to Communist, Party activi-
ties within the field of labor, the

used by the Communist Party to infiltrate labor

» begir of his testimony, indicated that he had
heard Mise, Jacobs? testimony | (R. 242) and subse-

78

quently reaffirmed this fact (R. 274). Motedyg,

counsel representing petitioner also represented Juli
Jacobs and was certainly present when the i
statement was made."

Second, as we have just noted, petitioner adit
knowledge of the testimony of Julia Jacobs, The
questions asked by the Committee of Miss Jacob
concerning the witness’ employment and work in the
labor movement and her possible Communist Pary
membership—clearly showed that the subject of th
Committee’s inquiry was Communist activity in labe
unions (R. 221-227; and see R. 227-241). Mis
Jacobs was questioned concerning many of the same
activities about which petitioner was questioned, i in
cluding the Square D strike (Hearings (GX 12; w
p. 8, n. 2, supra), pp. 30-31) and the pilgrimage b
Washington organized by the American Peace Crusak
(id., pp. 37-38). Moreover, Congressman Doyle «-
plicitly restated the purpose of the hearings a
Miss Jacob’s testimony (R. 222) :

[M]y questions are directed to you because

are interested in findirig out the extent an
through what persons, and how, the Communis

* Petitioner contends (Pet. Br, 122) that the presence of bt
counsel when the opening statement was made is not. suffices
As we have shown, however, there is every indication t
petitioner was present when the statement was made (sek
101-109). In addition, it would certainly seem that! y
could be charged with the knowledge of his
counsel appeared for each of three witnesses (Mise J
Lawrence Cover, and petitioner) who appeared on the 9 :
day of the heariiigs | and the three, Guseah' coldial fil
joint statement objecting to the Committee's wary
ment, supra, pp. 8-9). és

~ | 79
YARN

_. Party in your experience has undertaken to in-
eo ee etl labor unions wherever you know any-
ty +4 Mii .o2here * w *
_ May I make this further statement: I am not
' interested in asking any question or getting you
to answer any question that deliberately or
otherwise is intended to hurt any organization
which is patriotic and law-abiding. ‘That is
whether it is a labor union, or whatever it is.
But I am interested, as I stated before, in get-
ting your cooperation if you will give it to us on
_ helping to uncover any person or any group of
persons who are undertaking to subvert the
labor union of which you are secretary or any
other group to their own Communist Party
objectives. ,

The purpose of this committee sitting here
under Public Law 601 is to get that informa-
tion, if we can, from you and others, looking

_ toward amendments to or strengthening legis-

_ lation dealing with subversive activities.
Third, during petitioner’s appearance before the
subcommittee, he was twice told by Congressman
Doyle the precise subject under inquiry. Before
petitioner was asked. the question involved in count
four, Congressman Doyle told him that the subcom-
mittee was “trying to find out the extent to which
Communists have infiltrated your union, if they haye—
the union of which you are the executive vice presi-
dent” (see Statement, supra, p. 12). Subsequently,
at the time petitioner was directed to answer the ques-
tion involved in count five Congressman Doyle stated
(see Statement, supra, p. 13):

_** * T am also interested in knowing wi
witness knows about the extent to ich
American Communist Party, in connection with
these peace moves or iharwlbe, was using the
leadership of American labor unions, coda
any labor union that the witness might hay

- been a member of at that time or had any em.
nection with. The question is the extent tp
which the Communist Party had infiltrate
American labor: unions * * * the extent
which they were using it then and are using it
now for their conspiratorial purposes."

(b) Thus, the subject of the subcommittee’s
quiry—Communist activity in labor tka tee
clearly and repeatedly brought home to petitioner. hh
addition, all six of the questions upon which petitioner
was indicted and convicted were, either on their face
or as shown by tlie statements made to petitioner a
the time, pertinent to that subject.“ The question
volved in count one—whether petitioner was at th
time of the hearings a member of the Communis
Party—was on its face pertinent to the subject unde
inquiry. This Court in Barenblatt stated that th
pertinency of an identical question (see 360 U.S,p
114) to the subject of Communist activity in education
“was clear beyond doubt” (p. 125). It is equally

‘7 See also the statements of Congressman Doyle at the start
of petitioner’s testimony and after petitioner had refused te
answer all the questions involved in the indictment (see Stair
ment, supra, p. 9, and R, 376).

“* As noted earlier (p. 61, n. 35, supra), the judgment belor
must be affirmed if petitioner’s conviction on: any one‘
counts was valid. tt,

81
ee eee Comeneniet actixitien ne

~ “Petitione ee heebienic of the sistiinatias of
- the’ question involved in count two—‘‘[y]ou have left
“a8 under the impression at this point by reading the
newspapers you knew that Johnson was chairman of
the Communist Party of Indiana and I am asking yoa
if that is the only way you knew Johnson’’ (State-
ment; supra, p. 11). This question, when asked of an
important labor official residing in Indiana, was
clearly pertinent to an investigation of Communist
activities in labor unions, Similarly, petitioner was
apprised of the pertinency of at least half of the in-
formation sought by the question involved in count
three—whether Elmer Johnson or Henry Aron ever
addressed a group of people while petitioner was
present. :
- Before petitioner was asked the question involved
in count four—whether he knew Russell Nixon to
be a Party member—petitioner had been told by Con-
gressman Doyle that the subcommittee was investi-
gating Communist control of the U.E. Petitioner
had admitted that he was acquainted with Mr. Nixon
and that he knew that Nixon was legislative repre-
sentative of the U.E. in Washington (Statement,
supra, pp. 11-12). This question concerning the Com-
munist Party membership of a high union official was
just as pertinent to the subject of Communist
activities in labor unions as the question concerning
whether petitioner himself was a Party member.

The subcommittee also explained to petitioner the
question involved in count five—whether he had “an

active part in the peace pilgrimage to Washi
which was organized by one of the ‘front’ organ
tions known as the American Peace Crusade’’
ment, supra, pp. 12-14): The Committee couns
petitioner that the question was directed to dis
ing “‘the extent to which the Communist leg: ‘
engaged in manipulating peace moves in this county
in behalf of a foreign power.’ And nan
Doyle stated that he wished to discover (Statement,
supra, p. 13): ; ee
* * © [What the witness knows about th
extent to which the American Communist
Party, in connection with these peace movesor
otherwise, was using the leadership of Ameri
can labor unions, especially any labor union
that the witness might have been a member
of at that time or had any connection with
The question is the extent to which the Con-
munist Party had infiltrated American ‘labor
unions * * *, the extent to which they wer
using it tien and are using it now for their
conspiratorial purposes. ie
In addition, before petitioner was asked the question
involved in count six—who had solicited him asa
sponsor of the American Peace Orusade—he Wa
shown an article in the Daily Worker listing a ‘Jom
Gojack, international’ vice-president, URRWMA™®s
an original sponsor of that sce csaeearoscers (Statement
supra, p. 14). Ed
~ @ Petitioner does’ not ‘raise the distinct ise cil

government proved at his:trial that “the questions pro
by the congressional committee were in fact ‘pertinent: tothe

} ADEQUATELY APPRISED THAT HIS OBJECTIONS
8 JURISDICTION HAD BEEN REJECTED

ntends_ that the Committee was re-

failed, to overrule his written objections

Committee’s jurisdiction (Statement, supra,

-{ ), before he was questioned. However, this
contention is not properly before this Court, since, as

jointed out by the court of appeals (348 F, 2d, pp.

356-35 3), it was not raised by petitioner’s experienced

in either the district court or the court of
appeals. Petitioner concedes as much, and offers no
justification or excuse (Pet. Br. 126, n. 118).

In any event, the contention is without merit. Since
petitioner’s objections went not to specific questions,
but to the very jurisdiction of the Committee to pro-
ceed with the inquiry (R, 405-406), the subcommittee’s
action in proceeding with the hearings and calling the
three witnesses—including petitioner—on whose be-
half the objections had been filed was an inescapable
sign to petitioner and the others that the subcommittee
had in fact rejected these objections.” Moreover, al-
though petitioner’s objections were in the form of a
question under inquiry’ by the committee.”. Deutch v. United
States, 367 US. 456, 468, And since this issue was not pre-
sented in the petition for certiorari, it is not before the Court.
In any event, the evidence which we have relied upon to show
that petitioner was apprised of the pertinency of the, questions

when he appeared before the subcommittee likewise demon-
strates that the questions were, in fact, pertinent to the subject

the subcommittee’s counse) stated at the hearings that the
considered by the subcommittee at the be-

i and that. the euboommittes hea

time to overrule it (R. 874-375).

SA

motion to vacate the subpoenas and set aside the
ings, neither counsel nor the witnesses Cnet in
tioner) on whose behalf the motion was filed asked for
a ruling ‘before the witnesses were sworn—as at 4
surely would, haye had they believed the Committe
had not yet considered and disposed of their motion

Counsel merely asked that his motion challenging th
Committee’ s jurisdiction be filed for incorporation i
the record. A further indication that petitioner ‘at
the other witnesses understood perfectly that the Com.
mittee had rejected their objections may be found in
the fact that the witnesses appeared in response to the
subpoenas, were sworn, and answered some questi r
In addition, petitioner was specifically directed to a
swer each question forming the basis of a count of
the indictment (R. 269-270, 287-289, 296-297, 341-369
361-362, 369) ; * he was informed that these directions
to answer were being given to establish a predicate
for a motion to cite him for contempt (R. 265, 260)
(compare Bart v. United States, 349 U.S. 219, 222);
and the subcommittee persisted in demanding answen
to its questions even after petitioner on numerous
casions orally repeated the contention made in iis
written motion that the hearing was completely t a3
authorized, and invalid (¢.g., R. 283, 290, 328, 340)
In these circumstances, we fail to see how petitioner
could have doubted that the Committee had overri le

51 The directions to answer the questions in counts three, 19
five, and ‘six followed Congressman Moulder’s statement
petitioner that the subcommittee “understand[s] you objee t
all the questions being propounded “here to you durin “ae
procedure”’ (R. 292)—another clear ‘indication that thet ie
tions had been rejected by the subcommittee.

85
his’ objection to the hearings. 8." In Quinn v. United
States; $49°S: 156, 170—on which petitioner relies
position tion of an’ objection. . Sinee itis plain that peti-
tinier here was not “forced to guess the committee’s
Taling”’‘on his objection to’ its power to: proceed, we
submit that “he has no to complain” (349 U.S.,
_ IIL THE INDICTMENT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE

as AUTHORITY OF THE COMMITTEE ©

Petitioner contends (Br. 29-45) that it is not sufi-
cient for the indictment in a contempt-of-Congress
case to allege that the particular subcommittee before
which the witness appeared was authorized to act, but
that the details of that authority must also be pleaded.
In United States v. Seeger, 303 F. 24 478 (C.A. 2)
(following United States v. Lamont, 236 F. 2d’ 319

"That petitioner was aware of the Committee's ruling and
fully intended to persist in his refusal to answer notwithstand-
ing such ruling is shown by the fact that, after the subcom-
mittee counsel’s statement for the record that the subcommittee
had voted unanimously to overrule the motion at the beginning

that he answer (R. 379). ;

* Tn addition, the subcommittee expressly rejected in advance
substantially the same objections petitioner had made in his
motion when they were renewed as to specific questions. Com-
pare petitioner’s motion, described in the Statement, supra pp.
8-9, with the objections made prior to and upon the question-
- ing forming the basis of count one: R. 242, 244, 964, 266, 269.

i Bar
me
Me

Bh ic)

eS
a3

(O,A.2)), the Court of Appeals for the Secong ni x
cuit indicated that an indictment for contempt of Coy
gress involving the House Un-American Ac ia
Committee. must show that the subcommittee w

fact authorized to conduct the inquiry in questign*
The Court of Appeals for. the District of Colu “4

Cireuit, on the other hand, regards a conclusory. all
gation of authority as: sufficient for purposes of the
indictment. Sacher v. United States, 252 F. 2d
reversed on other grounds, 356 U. S. 576; Shelton,
United States, 280. F. 2d 701, reversed on “othe
grounds sub nom, Russell v. United States, “
739."

A. We think that the view of the District of &
lumbia Circuit—that only the ultimate fact. of th
subcommittee’s authority need be alleged—is the be
ter view and fully consistent with the general prin
ciples of this Court’s Russell decision. So far ai
pertinent here, the purpose of an indictment. ine
inform the defendant of the nature of the accusatia
against him.” 369 U.S., p. 767. A conclusory a
legation of authority surely suffices to place wide

% Actually, the holdings of both Seeger and Lamont area
~rower:--See-p, 90; n. 59, infra, and-p, 92,n.-61, infra,

In Russell, supra, this Court, in reversing six
cases from the District of Columbia Circuit on the nd thai
the indictments were insufficient because the subject under ®
quiry had not been alleged, did not pass upon the rule of ti
circuit that the details of a subcommittee’s authority need noth
recited. That rule had been challenged in three of the six om
panion cases. See the briefs for petitioners in Whétman\
United States, Liveright v. United States, and Price v. |
States, Nos. 10, 11 and 12, Oct. Term, 1961.

87

Fpl ia eee arth it any ambiguity or uncer-
inty-of the prec nature of the accusation in a
f to answer pertinent questions when “summoned as a
witness by ‘the authority of either House of Con.
gress” (2° U.8.0. 192). It surely comports with the
spirit as well as the letter of Rule 7(c) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, whieh provides that
“t]he indictment * *'* shall be a plain, concise and
definite written statement of the essential facts consti-
tiiting the offense charged”) 6 fs
To be sure, if the defendant refused to answer
questions put to him by a subcommittee not ‘atithor-
ized by Congress’ to conduct the inquiry, he could not
be guilty of violating 2 U.S:0. 192; but that, we think,
is properly a matter of proof rather than pleading.
So long as the fact of authority is pleaded, ‘the de:
fendant should have no difficulty in determining—
from the applicable resolutions of Congress’ and ‘the
Committee (see pp. 88-90, tnfra)—-whether such alle-
gation is true.” There ix certainly no danger here
like that found in Russell, where the indictments
failed to. specify the subject. under ‘inquiry by: the
subcommittee. Without the guidance of such speci-
fication, the defendants and Mie trial and appeal
courts, in this Court’s view, were unable te determine
whethér the questions asked were pertinent. ‘We find
no similar uncertainty in omitting from the indict
“Tf he his afiy question as to the precise dhain ;
he tan file a motion for a bill of particulits.’
tioner in this case filed such a motion—bnt
specification of the chain of authority. (R. 5.)

88
ment, the links, in the chain of authority | |

_- By This, Court. need not, however, resolve inte
present, case the alleged conflict on this point betwem
the Second and District of Columbia Circuits, sing
the; indictment |here was) sufficient even under. th
Second. Circuit’s, striet:\standard. , The present in.
dictment not only. alleges: that the subcommittee wu
authorized but sang narrates..the basis of ‘a
thority. .

.» The, ie ener ssalliene of Oe indictens eesiathe

‘support on this point from United State,
se gt hd Involved in that case was an ip
for perjury, an offense, whi as the Court 1
ve ia ine mana, charges ‘a
pov pe (369 U.S., pi er

- -t. An’
as! to this’

tion, of “duly crested and authorized” is sufficient to sati
element of “competent tribunal” in a perjury case, it shail
we think, suffice here. a

sf: y

«diay ‘be exercised by: subeommittees. The indi

“™ Both the’ Aét’ ‘and ‘the resolution” provide ‘as’ follows!”

fh. Pre oh 4 55 R le x sat tirerces feeds me

H attic) ait darter ie Tt,
es eo

i _* ah * A Oe. Se on ‘¢ ’ ef
"| 1%. Committés' on” Un-American ’ Activiti ies, to consist of
ah? i Sai HBX Pro op ) Rule XI t

eal * ; * i‘

sh toring “edt ot vag. Or tis
*) (D.C) Committes on. Un-American Activities,

(A) Un-American activities,

“United States,’ (ii) the’ diffusion’ ‘within’ thé ‘United
+1 States of subversive: and: un-American propaganda ‘that is

subpoenaing of petitioner to testify at 1h
be conducted by a subcommittee and that ¢
committee to conduct the hearings was
Chairman Walter pursuant to Committes
of January 20, 1955. This resolution (@X 4
209-210) provides, as has been mentioned (pp. 68
supra), that the Chairman is ‘authorized * * mn
appoint subcommittees * * * for the purpo et
performing any and all acts which the mila
a whole is authorized to perform, * * *.” The in
dictment then alleges that the hearings at which pat
tioner testified were held by the subcommittee unde
the specified “appointment and authorizations” (R93).
Thus, the indictment ‘sets forth a éomplete chan
of authority from Congress to the subcommittee .
fore which petitioner appeared. It alleges that Cun.
gress authorized the Un-American Activities Com
mittee to investigate subversive activities and to dele
gate its full investigatory authority to subcommiitts
that the Committee decided to question petitions
in aid of such an invéstigation; and that it da
delegated authority to do so ‘to the su
before which petitioner. enpenrey.. There is

of the subcommittee’s ahithiority ‘were not required

to enable petitioner to defend against the oon

of-Congress charge. | i
Petitioner argues (Br. 31-36) that the 1 missi

is the failure:to allege that the Committée a gat
" United States v. Lamont, 286. F. 2d 819, is, thus not

since in that case there was “no allegation, *.*.*:Jin

inquiry conducted by the subcommittee to the grant of
dispensed to its parent committee.” P. 317.

|
- to be covered
custoinarily includes a general grant of authority to

atut and the authorizing resolution, as we have seen,

cifically provide for’such an exercise of the power

ranted.' And as the examples of authorizing resdlu-
tions gathered by petitioner show (Br. 37), even:whén
the Committee sets forth in writing certain topics
red by the subcommittee, it carefully and
Subcommittee to act on “all other matters
within the jurisdiction of the Committee.” And, of

committ @ before which petitioner appeared was con-
stituted (see pp. 89-90, supra). Although the parent
Committee, when performing its functions through a
subcommittee, may choose to limit the subcommittes’s
Committee, there is no requirement that it do so and
it did not do so here. Therefore, there is no basis
for the allegation that petitioner urges should have
been included in the indictment.”

Thus on the facts of this case, there is no real
conflist’ with the Second Circuit's Seeger decision
(0%, 88 noted above, n. 59,. with the Lamont deci-
a top Sours that subeom tee may not exceed
We do na besdegreng Mapa fe aan eee if, 4s ty ‘
fully sets forth the chain of authority trom Congress to the eal

sion on which the court. in Seeger relied). ‘The |
in the indictment involved in Seeger was that
the authorizing resolutions—an essential step
chain of authority—was left out,” There is x :
defect in the present indictment ; no link in the ain
of authority was omitted. ) Be oi
“The judgment of the court of appeals shoal
affirmed. ¥ 4
oh ectate submitted. & |

; THURGOOD Marsiatt,
Solicitor G 4
J. Waurer YEAGLEY, — m
Assistant Attorney Gen
' Riowarp A. Posner,
Assistant to the Solicitor General,
Kevin T. Maronzy,

Apri, 1966. ae

* The first paragraph aettg ake Comte at sa
substance of a resolution passed by the Committee on Un-
Activities on June 8, 1955 directing the subcommittee to conti
the investigation. The second paragraph then states that “pu
suant to said direction” the subcommittee conducted the her
ings at which Seeger appeared as a witness. But the resolutia
of June 8, 1955 * * * was not such an authorization to &
subcommittee. It was merely a direction to the parent O
tee’s clerk to proceed with an investigation. * * * The resolu
of July 27, 1955 * * *, which actually purports to authori
subeommitiee to proceed with the hearings was nowher ma
tioned. In other words, * * * the indictment contained 4 whel
misleading and incorrect statement of the basis of that au nor
[303 F, 2d, P. 484.)

APPENDIX I

COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES ANNUAL REPORT
FOR THE YEAR 1954 .
This Annual Report of the Committee on Un-Ameri-
can. Activities for the year 1954 is. submitted to the
House of Representatives in compliance with that
| section of Public Law 601 (79th Cong.) which pro-
vides: “The Committee on Un-American Activities
shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of ‘the
House, if the House is not in session) the results of
any such investigation, together with such recommen-
dations as it deems advisable.” :

* * * * *

Early in 1954 the Attorney General of the United

previously made by the committee. These were for
capital punishment in instances of espionage commit-
ted in time of peace; immunity for certain. witnesses
appearing before duly authorized Federal bodies; for
the admissibility of evidence. secured by wiretapping
or technical devices; and for legislation to break
Communist control over certain labor unions, The

ess in. 1954 passed and the President signed into
law three: of these recommendations originally pro-
posed by this commi and subsequently requested
by the Attorney General. A law permitting the use

i of the Report were read into the record below, see
Tr. 260-271,

(98)

wee Be .

j

94

of evidence secured by technical devices in cages
volving espionage and matters relating to intera
carta f Mieeme \ppreval
in the Senate. :

Cienpdian ‘nes ted Saal ‘people. The {
these reports was ‘ SGalianidhdiein: of: Ainariengl
Industries’ by the Communist Party of the U
This report reflects the committee’s findings ¢
Communist Party’s endeavors to secure & foothold in
the vital basie industries of the country. nea

mittee points out in this report that the om
Party had directed its intellectuals and white:
workers to leave employment in their own
fields and to obtain positions im industries vitél)
defense, such «as steel, electricity, and the m: ~
In, many. cases, persons were. required to leave {h
homes and travel to. distant sie ip eoler Gale
out this Communist, directive.. The committee. iseuei
this report. to warn and alert the Congress and th
industries involved regarding these efforts by the
Communist Party in the. United States. pS

a) * * *

The committee also reported the details of an er
haustive investigation and hearings relating to 2 a mi
lication, which while posing as a legitimate | de
union journal, is in reality nothing more ft
mouthpiece for Communist propaganda. The
port of ‘the March of Labor’’ clearly establishes:
Communist “front’’ character of that publicat

“e * & &

95? :

N OF COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES IN VARIOUS
ie) Servs aNd erires
at” rats AS ee eS eT ose ge
rough ave , i

g £ * » . .

le “TTR ZEEE 8 5 des eee

State of New York and States. elias

£

business agent for IUE-CIO,

+ efetie ge } st
f, ¥%

Party.

of America (FE-UE).” This testimo
the committee :

answer questions coneerning individuals k
as being members of the Communist Party, #
mittee voted to refer all testimony ing to this,
matter to the Department of Justice for st
Tiroved ths ecuiiiitttea's reodttimendation that Mf |
kins be cited for contempt of er eis

- Dayton, Ohio, Area

Continuing the committee’s main of
munist infiltration. in basie industries throughs

United-States, hearings.
September 13, 14, and 15 of this year. ‘The
was fortunate in having the testimony of one.
Paul Strunk, who had fer more than 7 years nm
finaneial secretary for the Dayton Communist }
while acting as an undercover agent for the

shine en ine eeelion A come
activities of the Communist Party in the
since 1945, but was also able to document andem
pletely expose the part played by the Commu
Party in the Univis Lens strike in 1948. con's
- * * « yee
In connection with role of the Communist Paty
im the Univis Lens strike, your committee was igar
fortunate in having the testimony of one Loethi
Wornstaff, one of the few non-Communist member
of the strike strategy of the UE during this sti
*

o *

97

hearing: could be properly considered as a
, Fey h i vhick the © itt on
“ic vities held in Detroit, Michigan,
As a matter of fact, in 1952 the committee

and the opening of trade channels with
he “People’s Democracies”, China, and the Soviet
Union.

As a result of the heariigs’held in Mic hi
and again in 1954, the Co ittee on.
Activities calls upon n the . reed jean,
in addition to its ever increased vigil
munism, to amend its parent
in order to deny me ship member 0 1
munist Party or any other. ‘group W whic
self to the destruction of American’s way of |
is certainly not within the best interests. of 1
rity of the United States,. nor of the interes
unions, to permit a member of the. ‘Communist
or any other totalitarian party to work 8 hours a4
in an American industry with the protection of a unim
contract and, at the same time, sup ly him | vith
captive audience of thousands through which a
preach his program of destruction. It is said that the
worker if far too smart to be suckered into accepting
the Communist harangue. It is admitted that th
American worker, through education on the evils ol
communism and other totalitarianisms by oth his
union and his employer, has more knowledge « on # th
subject today than at any time during his life. Never
theless, the Communist Party is receiving new n =
cruits daily from the ranks of labor, admittedly ao
so many as in the past. It is difficult to belierg
however, that this recruitment would be as great if
Communist Party organizers and advocates were m
moved from the captive audience which union andi it
dustry place around them in the shop.

4
as Py,

* * * *

<= peers: with the: iieanitheaartlan ‘pe
cedure all investigations during the past year wen
instituted after approval by a majority of the mez
bers of the committee, At the opening of each publi
hearing the presiding chairman clearly outlined th
purpose of the investigation and hearing. At »
public hearing were there fewer than two memben
of-the committee in constant attendance. Person
identified for the first time in public hearing as hay.
ing subversive affiliations were notified of the fae
by registered letter, where practicable.

Wide-ranging investigations and hearings by. o
committee last year uncovered such evidence as the

following:

* * * 2 . ae

Documented proof that a Communist-dominatel
union siphons off workers’ dues for Communist pur
poses was produced in the course of committee inves
tigations and hearings on District 9 of the Unita
Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of Ameria.
UE District 9 supervises union locals in Indiana ai
Michigan from headquarters in Fort Wayne, Indiam
These hearings were printed under the title, “Pot
Wayne, Ind., Area.”’

? Portions of the Report were read into the record bon
(100)

101

the Newark )

the Communist Party with the understanding that
such membership was essential to his holding the po-
sitions of international organizer and loc

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0284%3A6. Public record. Not legal advice.