Appendix — Whitehill v. Elkins

Supreme Court brief1967

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

* Filed: September 8, 1966. :

APPENDIX

- Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge

ts THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUBF |

‘Gee For THe District oF “MaryLanD y

at Civil Action No. 17564 |

| we 7.

Howarp JOSEPH WHITEHILL, JR.,

. if Plointif, |

‘V5.

. Wirson ELxrs, President, University of Maryland; Boarp

or Recents, University of Maryland; J. Jerome F'RaMP-

.. TON, JR, President, State Board of Education,

» : ; Defendants:

Bef ° re: ‘ fF

: Sopetorr and. Writer, Circuit Judges, and

THomsEN, Chief Judge.

‘Sanford Jay Rosen, Esq., Arnold_ M. Weiner, Esq, Mrs.

Elsbeth Levy Bothe, Joseph S. Kaufman, Ksq., and Lee

M. Miller, Esq., Attorneys for Plaintiff. f

‘Thomas B. Finan, Esq., Attorney General of Maryland,

”

' * ‘Robert C. Murphy, Esq., Deputy Attorney General of

« Maryland, Loring E. Hawes, Esq., and Julius A. Romano,

. Esq.,. Assistant Attorneys General of Maryland, Attor-

neys for Defendants.

9a ;

_ Opinion sii Winter, Circuit Judge.

baer Circuit Judge:

“This action, brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U. s.

C.A. § 1983, and invoking the civil rights and declaratory i

judgment jurisdiction of this Court, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1343(3),

2201 and -2202, seeks to ‘enjoin the oath requirements of

the Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 1949, 8A Anno-

_tated Code of Maryland (1964 Ed.), Article 85A, §§ 1, et seq.

exacted of public employees as.a condition precedent to

y public employment. Defendants’ motion to dismiss admits

~ the facts well pleaded, which are as follows:

Plaintiff i is a member of the faculty ‘of The J ohns Hop- »

- kins University, teaching creative writing, an. author, and

a practicing member of the religious organization ‘known as

the Society 6f Friends. Plaintiff was engaged as a visiting

lecturer in English at the University of Maryland, College -

Park, Maryland,.for the academic year of 1966-1967. ‘In -

J uly, 1966, a formal ‘contract embodying the conditions of

‘his employment was forwarded to plaintiff. He was also

‘ forwarded a document entitled “Certification of Applicant

for Public Employment,” which contained a loyalty oath.

. Plaintiff was advised that he must sign it as a condition -

precedent to his employment. Plaintiff executed his em-

ployment contract, a declined to execute the loyalty oath.

'. 1 While this opinion uses “the popular parlance “oath, ” tech-

* nically plaintiff was required to make a written statement of his

loyalty, under the penalties of perjury prescribed by 3 Annotated

» Codé of Maryland (1957 Ed.), Art. 27, § 439. The document itself

“was. entitled “Certification of Applicant for Public Employment” aii

-and the operative words were “I, = :... do’ hereby

certify * * *.” Article 39 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights .

guarantees the right of any person to affirm, rather than swear, ~

agreeably to his religious beliefs, and 1 Annotated Code of Mary- cae yy

. Sa land it Ed. ‘ — 1, §9 ‘implements this a

een rt Se ne

: *

NG LORE IIE LL TEL LO OPAL LIE II LES LEI OVE TINE

Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge

He was immediately advised by an authorized ‘represen-

_ tative. of the University of Maryland that that educational .

institution would not accept his services without the loyalty

oath. first having been executed. by him. Plaintiff declined -

to sign this oath and has now brought this suit, seeking 9

: declaration that the oath sought to be exactéd from: him

was unconstitutional and seeking to enjoin defendants from

preventing the consummation of his contract with the Uni- °

versity of: Maryland because of his failure to’execute the

oath.? Pursuant to prayer in the complaint, a -statutory

three-judge court was immediately convened, 28 U.S.C.A.

- §§ 2281 and 2284, and the case heard as prompey as pos-

sible, inasmuch as plaintiff's employment was~* to begin

September 19, 1966.

The oath sought to be exacted from. plaintft is as Hollow: Eee

“CERTIFICATION OF Aprticant ror: PuBLic Emptoy-

MENT Required by- Law (Art. 85A, Paragraph 13, An,

“notated ae of Maryland, AT) |

“y, _.. do hereby

(Print N ame—including middle ‘initial)

certify that I am not engaged in one way or another >

‘in the attempt to overthrow the Government of the

‘United States, or the State of Maryland, or any po-

litical subdivision of either of them, by force or vio-

‘lence. :

ee ree

. #Ineluded among ‘the defendants is J. Jerome Frampton, Jr.,

president of the Maryland State Board of Education. This board

has no power with regard to the University of Maryland, the gov-

.. ernment of which is vested in its Board of Regents. 7 Annotated

Code of Maryland (1965 Ed.), Article 77 § 249(e): The motion °

to dismiss will. be granted as to this defendant for meee %

joinder. .

Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge

“T further certify that I understand the aforegoing

statement is made subject to the penalties of perjury

prescribed i in Article 27, Section 439 of the Annotated

Code of Maryland (1957 edition ). e : :

"Date |

Paenerate

“-(N ame——ineluding middle initial)

In his.complaint plai iff alleges that the lovaiey oath

is unconstitutional, becguse it infringes on his First and

Fourteenth Amendment rights, is so vague as to deny him

due process, .and equal protection of the laws, and consti-

tutes a bill of attainder against him. Additionally, plaintiff

obliquely alleged that the oath would deny him freedom

of religion, but in-argument plaintiff made no contention:

that any specific religious belief held by him was counter

to the certification that he was asked to make. ono ad

_ Article 85A of the Annotated Code of Maryland was ~

enacted in its entirety in 1949 apd has never been amended.

Of the provisions pertinent to this case, §10 renders in-

eligible for employment by the state any person who is a

“subversive” person as defined in this Article. Section 13

required state employees who were such on June 1, 1949,

the effective date of the Act, to make a: written statement,

subject to the penalties of perjury, that he or she was not a

“subversive” person as defined: in Artigle 85A, and $11.

requires every department, board, commission or other

agency of the State of Maryland or any political subdivi-

sion thereof in the a4ppointment of new employees,-to es-

tablish procedures, by rules, regulations or otherwise, to

Opinion of Winter, Circujt Judge

- ascertain that any employee “including teachers and other

employees of any’ public educational institution in this

State” is not a “subversive” person as defined in the Article,

_ The Attorney General of Maryland, in‘reliance upon these

sections, has expressed - the view that persons rendering

occasional instructional services to the University of Mary-

land as part of the formal instruction program are required —

__ to. execute’ the loyalty oath pledge. 45 Opinions Attorney

‘ /. :

/ €

General 187 (1960). : 3

The operative words “subversive person” are defined

by §1, which reads: _ : |

' “Subversive person’ means any person who com-

“Inits, attempts to commit, or aids ‘in the commission,

or advocates, abets, advises or teaches by any means

any person to commit, attempt to commit, or aid ae

the commission of any act intended to overthrow, de-

stroy or alter, or to assist in thé overtlirow, destruction

or alteration of, the constitutional form of the govern-

ment of the United States, or of the State of Maryland;

or any political subdivision of either of them, by revo-

_ lution, force, or violence; or who.is a member of sub-

“ versive organization or a foreign subversive organi-

zation.” :

Because one is a “subversive person” if he is a member . |

of a “subversive organization” or a “foreign subversive

. organization,” the definitions of those terms, as set forth

in §1 of Article 85A, should also be stated. They are:

_ “ Subversive organization’ means any organization

‘which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or

fee

| = S

| De

. Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge.

teaches, or a purpose of which is to engage in or ad-

i vocate, abet,” advise, or teach activities intended to

ia ‘ overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the over-

" throw, destruction or. alteration of, the constitutional

form of the government of the United States, or of

the State of Maryland, or of any political subdivision’

of either of them, by revolution, force, or violence. ©

“<‘Foreign subversive organization’ means’ any or-“

ganization - directed, dominated or controlled directly

or indirectly by a foreign government which engages

in or advocates, abets, advises, .or teaches, or a pur-

pose ” of which is to: engage ‘in or to advocate, abet,

advise,.or teach, activities intended to overthrow, de-

_ gtroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction

. or alteration of the constitutional form of the govern-

ment of, the Uitited States, or of the State of Mary-

land, or of any political subdivision of either of them,

‘and to establish in place thereof any form of govern-.

ment the direction and control of which is to be

: vested i in, or exercised, by" or under, the domination or

- eontrol of any foreign government, organization, or

oN individua) ; but does not and shall not be construed

4o mean an organization the bona fide purposemof }

which is to promote world peace by alliances or unions

' with other governments or world federations, unions

) or governments to be effected through constitutional

“means.” ae oH p Mey a

| “While plaintiff asserts a denial of his First and Four-

_ » teenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech’ and free-

dom of association as | well as equal protection of the laws, .

‘

©) sh oderate See essen,

a. 7:

'tiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights are not vio-

phe

> ae

9 Opinion of Winter, Circuit: Judge *

the. first substantive issue we must decide is whether the.

oath is‘so broad, vague and indefinite that. plaintiff has

been denied due process of law. This is so because plain-

lated if the oath is valid undér the due process clause;

they.have been violated only if the oath will not withstand

the due process test. Baggett. v. Bullitt, 377 U. 8. 360

(1964); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.°S. 11° (1966).* Of

“This Act threatens the cherished freedom of association, pro-

tected by the First Amendment, made applicable to thé States

through the Fourteenth Amendment. (* * * citing. )

piper aR

Pry : 2 * -* * P a

when the:end _

“A daw which applies to membership wifhout the: "speci c

intent’ to further the-tHegal aims of-the o ization infringes .

unnecessarily on- protected freedoms, * * *” Jd at Pp.-18-19. -

Sha nk xD th :

_. of the, United States, Gerende v. B

oe ~

Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge

Md. 462, 71 A.2d 474 (1950) ; and Hammond v. Froakiela,

194 Md. 487, 71 A.2d 482 (1950). One of the parties in

the Shub case sought further i in the Supreme Court —

of Supervisors of Elec-

tions, 341 U. S. 56. (1951). Technically, the oath found to’be

‘valid in the Gerende case was the oath gequired of candi-

dates for election by 4 15 of Article 85A, ‘while the oath to

which plaintiff objects is the oath required by §§11 and 13 .

of Article 85A of state employees and appointed officers,

but, since the oaths are @dentical in both situations, what

the Supreme Court said in the Gerende case is determina-

tive. here.” The Court affirmed the degisiauof the Maryland ~

Court of Appéals in Shub v. Simpson, supra, oe eek

“We read this decision ta hold that to obtain a, place

_ on a Maryland ballot a candidate need only make. oath

that he is not a person who is engaged ‘in one way _

or- another in the attempt to overthrow the govern-

ment by force or violence, and that he is not know-

ingly a member of an organization engaged in such

an attempt. —— Md, ——,,‘at ——, 76 A.2d at 338.

| % At the bar of this Court the iieney General of the

‘State of Maryland declared that he would advise the

- proper authorities to.accept an affidavit in these terms

as satisfying in full the statutory requirement. Under

_ these circumstances and with this understanding, the

judgment of the Maryland Court of Arey is af-

firmed. ” Id. at 56-57.

ee, the Supreme Court i in » Gerkade specifically approved 3

~ . of an oath that one is “not a person who is engaged i in one

way or another in the attempt to overthrow the government.

PRP chp eee DAG Pee PORES eS “ a oe

’

. P é =

aa 9a

a ¢ °

. Opinion of Winter, Circuit Jiidge

—_ by foree or violence,” and that “he is not knowingly a

member of an organization engaged in such an attempt.”

___ The oath in the case at bar is precisely in the form upheld —

_ by: the Supreme Court, except that ‘it eliminates the part’

of the oath that-he who makes it also certifies that he is

“not knowingly a member of. an organization engaged in -

such an attempt [overthrow of. the government by force or

violence].” In argument we were told that the latter cer-

tification was eliminated from the form of oath at the in-

stance of the Attorney General on May 3, 1966, following

the decision in Elfbrandt v. Russell, supra [decided April —

18, 1966]. In the light of this flat holding in Gerende, we

need only determine whether Gerende has been subse- .

-quently overruled or modified to decide plaintiff’s ‘first —

‘contention. Plaintiff asserts that Gerende’s authority has:

, \ been impaired b “Baggett v. Bullitt and. Elfgrandt v.

. Russell, suprav ¢ |

me ere supra, loyalty oaths of the State of

Washington, one applicable to teachers and the other ap- _

plicable to all state employees, including teachers, were

held invalid for vagueness. The oath réquired of all: state

_ employees, ‘including teachers, is. the ‘significant oath for

<» the case at bar. It required. employees. to swear that they ~

were not a “subversive person” which was defined in terms

identical to these under Article 85A § 1 to include one who

“advocates, abets, advises or teaches by any means” an-

~~ ‘other to commit or aid in the commission of any act in- -

_/. tended to overthrow or alter, or to assist the overthrow of

alteration of the constitutional form of government by

.* . °. revoltition, force or vidlence. Insofar as a “subversive per--

son” was one who was a member of a “subversive organi-

Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge

zation,” the Washington definition included ‘a limitation,

_ absent in the Maryland definition, that membership be |

manne The Supreme Court held the “advocates, abets,

¢.” language invalid because it .was lacking in terms

penlloor of objective measurement and failed to inform

what the state commanded or forbade.‘

The Baggett case is clear authority that if Maryland

required an oath in the precise language of the Maryland

Subversive Activities Act of 1949,-supra, such an oath.

- would be invalid, The fact is, however, that the oath sought

to be exacted from the plaintiff in the case at bar is less

than that condemned i in Baggett and, indeed, less than that

approved in Gerende.. While the dissenters in Baggett v.

~ Bullitt expressed the view that Gerende had been overruled

-- by the decision in ‘Baggett, ‘explaining the reasonis for this

conclusion i in a footnote, the majority answered by foot-

'4Cramp v: Board af Public Instruction, 368 v. S. 278 (1961),

- was reliéd on to support this result. There Florida required state

employees, including teachers, to make oath that they, inter alia, -

- had not lent “aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Com-

munist Party.” 368 U. 8. at p. 279. The oath was held invalid

because lacking in terms susceptible of objective measurement. In

so deciding,. the Court commented on the absence. of language

proscribing “advocacy of violent overthrow of state or federal

government” and “membership or affiliation with the Communist. ee

Party, past or present.” 368.U. S. at p. 286..

5“Tt has been. contended that the crucial section of Maryland’s

- Ober Act, that which is identical to the Washington Act, was hot

-before thé Court’in Gerende, but a review of the record in ‘that case

_ _-conclpsively demonstrates to the contrary. Further, while the

- Gerende opinion was stated with a qualification, the fact remains

‘’ . that the Court-approved the judgment of the Maryland court and

rejected the argument that the At was eceincenyrcrasss = os

’ "Id. at » 882.

‘lla

Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge

note that Gerende was still good law.* In view of the state-

ment by the majority ‘we cannot read Baggett.v. Bullitt

as adversely affecting the portion of the holding in Gerende

which approved the oath sought to be required of the

- plaintiff. Hee :

In Elfbrandt v. Russell, supra, the Arizona loyalty oath

‘was held invalid. The language of the oath’ as such did.

-not appear to violate any constitutional fiat, but the legisla-

ture put a gloss on the oath by subjecting to a prosecution’

* “The contention that.the Court found no constitutional -diffi-

culties with identical definitions of subversive person and subversive

organizations in Gerende v. Board of Supervisors, 341 US 56, 95

i. éd. 745, 71 S. Ct. 565, is without merit. It was forcefully argued

Gerende that candidates for state office in Maryland were re-

quired to. take an oath incorporating a section of the Maryland

statutes defining subversive person. and organization in the identical

terms challenged herein. But the Court rejected this interpretation

of Maryland law and did not-pass upon or approve the definitions

of subversive person and organization contained in the Maryland

Statutes. Instead it-made very clear that the judgment below

was affirmed solely.on the bo that the actual oath to be imposed

under Maryland law requi ne to swear that he is not a person

who is engaged ‘iri the attempt to overthrow the government by

'. force or violence, and that he is not knowingly a member of an .

, organization engaged in such an attempt.” Id., at 56-57, 95 L. ed.

at 746_(emphasis in original). The Court said, “At the bar of this

Court the Attorney General of the State of Maryland declared

_ that he would advise the proper authorities to. accept an affidavit

in these terms: as satisfying in full the statutory requirement. -

Under these circumstances and with this understanding, the judg-

ment of the Maryland Court of Appeals is Affirmed... Id. at 57,

95 L. ed. at 746.” Id. at p. 368. if iui

*“T, (type or print name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that

I will support the Constitution ‘of the United, States. and the

enemies, foreign and doméstic, and that I will faithfully:and im-

partially discharge the duties of the office of (name of office) accord-

ing to the best of my ability, so help me God (or so I do affirm).”

12a

Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge —

for perjury and for discharge from public office anyone

who ‘took: the oath and who “knowingly and wilfully be-

comes or remains a member of the communist party of the~~

‘United States-or its successors or any of its subopdinate” 7

organizations,” or “any other -organization,” having for

one of its purposes the overthrow of the government of

Arizona by force or'-violence, where the employee “had

_ knowledge of the unlawful purpose. The failure of the

statutory gloss to require further that the prosecution and .

expulsion be conditioned upon a showing that the employee

‘was an active member with the specific intent of assisting

- im achieving the unlawful ends of an organization which

had as one of its purposes the violent a tanrteaaieand of the

government rendered the gloss invalid. - ese

The decision is, of course, ample justification for the

Attorney General of Maryland to have eliminated the por-

tion of the’Maryland oath approved in Gerende that a

person is not knowingly a member of a subversive organi-

__ zation, and to that extent overruled the decision in Gerende.

‘The majority opinion makes no mention of Gerende, but

we cannot read Elfbrandt as. overruling Gerende to any

greater extént, notwithstanding the inability of the -dis-

senters. to square ‘the holding with the holding in Gerende

and other cases. In short, in both of the decisions ren-

dered after G

_ plaintiff, we ca ot find that the portion of the holding in

Gerende which | ermits an oath that-a person is not en-

the government by force or violence has been impaired.

Plaintiff argues that “in one way or another” is a phrase

| unconstitutionally. vague, while defendants argue that “in |

ende which have been pressed on us by.

another j in the attempt to overthrow

13a

- Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge

one way or another” means “any way” and is linked to the

‘word - “attempt, ” so as to express the concept of specific

intent, coupled with an overt act, to overthrow the govern-—

| ment by force-or violerice. We need not choose between

these arguments. It suffices to say that' the. phrase “in one’

way or another” was specifically approved in Gerendé;. -

we cannot find that it has been overruled; and it is our duty’

to apply the rules laid down by the Supreme Court and not

to anticipate its possible future decisions.

Plaintiff also argues that the oatli sought to be exacted

from him is -not limited to the text stated in the opinion

but, rather, extends to the full oath purportedly required

by Article 85A. Alternatively, plaintiff igen that the

Attorney General of Maryland is without authority to ‘re-

quire only a portion of the oath required by Article 85A,

_ but not all.’ The first portion of the argument rests upon

the assertion that, in the certificate plaintiff was asked ta

execute, the sefetienos to “Art, 85A, paragraph 13, Anno-

. tated Code of Maryland 1957” after the phrase “Required:

by law” means that the certification following, which, On|

_« its face, is limited to engaging in one way or another in

the attempt to overthrow the government by force or vio-

lence, embodies aspects of. the oath prescribed by statute

_ which are: clearly invalid under the Supreme Court deci-

sions. We are not persuaded. The other portion of the |

argument rests in part on Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 "J. 8. ah.

479 (1965), which is cited as indicating that only a state .

cqurt of the State of Maryland may properly determine

whether: the full oath prescribed by Article 85A can be-

severed ifito its valid and invalid provisions, and that it is

our —_ to enjoin the ae: in its ‘entirety ‘until a state

WETS RATE ON RES SATAN OOTP IRE Haye us PPT WRENN OF yak tee Retin \ Pat Py sealing Ni TEDRER Whe R ENS MN, wemetes OF PUR TRS PHI

a fee Cures enon

Opinion of Winter, Circuit Judge :

court renders an appropriate judgment. This argument

_ overlooks .§ 18 of Article 85A,° as clear an expression of

~ severability. as could be found. Moreover, as the chief legal .

officer of the State of Maryland,-sworn to uphold the Con-

stitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution

‘and laws of the State of Maryland, “Md. Constitution,

. Article I, 46, the Attorney General acted. properly within

-, \ the scope of his authority in advising that those portions .

' eof the oath prescribed by Article 85A repugnant to decided -

cases of the Supreme Gourt of the United States should ~

. ». not be required of state employees, even in the absenee of a |

spécific court decree. We do not read the. Dombrowsks case

as proscribing this conduct. a

‘We consider next plaintiff’s argument that the oath is

a bill of attainder and conclude that this contention is

without merit. Loyalty oaths, as conditions precedent for

public employment, if otherwise valid, are not invalid as

bills of attainder. Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341

U. S. 716, 722 (1951), held an. oath of non-advocacy of —

violent overthrow of government required of municipal em-

~ ployees not punishment and hence not a bill-of attainder.

ven Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, which condemned a loy-

hity oath as. unconstitutionally vague; recognized the right 7

“Ao a state “* * * to take proper measures safeguarding :

the public: service from disloyal conduct” (p. 379). See also, -

e“g, Severability. 3 " .

“Tf any provision, phrase, or clause of this article or the applica- = == —

_g tion thereof to any person or circumstance is*held invalid, such

invalidity shall not affect other provisions, phrases or clauses, or |

applications of this article which can be given edfect without the ©

“inwalid: provision, phrase, or clause or application, and to this end .

the 0: a _— and clauses of wes article are declared to be

severable.” ..

‘ nes > PRR on pe EF aoa: 2B" : oa nt “ce 2 aT AS oe *. Sit las Slates Sota Lemetiene FRET Me EA #

LP 0 EEO AEE, 9 Diet Ba pager a Sieh nt iii ae eS CE alla

fe . , . 7 ; . ; -

he 15a o 7 nay

Concurring Opinion of Sobel, Circuit Judge

. American Csiminiaiteatiane ASs’n. V. , Dowds, 339. U. S. 382

_ (1950) ; Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485 (1952); .

_ and Keyishian v. Board of Regents, —— F. S. —— (W.D.

N.Y. 1966), prob. jur. noted, 384 U. 8. 998 (1966). Speicer -

v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958), is not to the contrary as ans

the discussion of that case in Konigsberg v. State Bar of

California, 366 U. S. 36, 53-56 (1961), demonstrates.

Under existing law, we do not find the oath tendered hay

to plaintiff invalid. We conclude that the ‘complaint should

be dismissed. The Clerk will enter an ‘order to that effect. aie

ieee et (see separate concurrence)

¢ ees aeetias United States Circuit ce

"Stiebanle L. Worn Pe

United States Circuit ynege

ee * Roszen C. Nabiinks

7 Chief Judge,

United States District Court :

fort the District of Maryland,

Se Sonsrorr, Circuit Judge, concurring:

: ' * In joining my brethren. in the disposition of this case

I wish to add a brief statement of my reasons. 2

. Whether the ritual of an oath-or affirmation of loyalty,

with or without sanctions for perjury, is a wise or effec-

tive means to the unquestionably legitiniate end of protect-

. ing the state against subversion i is not the issue before us.

The question is the legality of the particular requirement ”

demanded of the See: its desicobaliy,

* . ” .

’ ° ory

- » 4

- . e

‘ » ‘

—— PTE ES RAT ge 42 ON? Om 2 ER RR ean: ORM fe te OPT

16a sik aaa -

Concurring Opinion of Sobeloff, Circwt Judge

@« 1 am inclined to agree with the plaintiff that the. pre-

_seribed oath or statement is not to be judged in isolation,

‘ but in conjunction with the sfatute, for in the absence of

a statute, there would be no authority for demanding any

_. Statement “under penalty of perjury.” If it were not for

- Gerende v. Board of Supervisors; 341 U. S. 56 (1951), I.

~ would not lightly dismiss ‘the plaintiff’s argument that the

‘ reference to Article 85a, with its language about “subver-

sive persons” and “subversive organizations,” has. a:-ma-

terial bearing on the question before us, even though the

oath itself does not expressly embody these terms. But

the question comes to us freiglited with a history, and the

rolef the statute in respect to the oath has heen authori-

« _tatively interpreted. .

_ -In Gerende the Court upheld an oath which was in tetfinn

-” more comprehensive than the one before us. The Court :

i embraced what it regarded as a restrictive interpretation

of the Ober Law by the Maryland Court of Appeals, and .

upon that premise,.and upon the condition that the Attor-

ney General would advise the state authorities to accept

as sufficient’ an affidavit in the narrow terms stipulated by

the court, sustained the statute and the affidavit pursuant

thereto. - Whatever we might otherwise have thought, the

Sapreme Court has. authoritatively decided that the broader

| language of the statute, which concefledly would make it

'. “invalid, see Baggett v. Bullitt, 377.U. S. 360 (1964), is not

‘controlling, but the less comprehensive language of the

oath, as directed by the Attorney General, ‘governs. |

The plaintiff maintains first that the Supreme Court was

mistakeh in its analysis of the decision of the Maryland

bee of Appeals i in Shub v. Simpson, 196 Md. 177, 76 A. 2d

. .

PUGET AROS DIRE AT OH CALE IE Marto eS

amen FF AOR PI AD a

17a

Concurring Opinion of Sobeloff, Circuit Judge ;

sat 332° (1950), and he further points to the logic employed in

—_

the later holdings in Baggett v. Bullitt, supra,-and Elf-

brandt v. Russell, 384 U. 8. 11 (1966), in support of ‘his

thesis that the Court must sooner or later disavow Gerende.

I acknowledge the force of the plaintiff’s arguments as

to the doubts concerning the present status of Gerende

created by the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. .

_ It may well be that ‘on renewed consideration the Supreme

Court would today hold the statute and the oath, even as

recently further modified by the Attorney General, too

vague to meet constitutional standards. “However, it is

one thing for a lower court to project an estimate of the

future course of Supreme Court decisions on a point not

theretofore “specifically ruled upon; it is quite another

to assume that an earlier decision of the Supreme Court

on the very question now pending before the ‘inferior

tribunal has been overruled’ sub silentio, Judicial discipline

_ requires that such assumptions be not too freely made,

especially when the Supreme Court seems to have been

careful: to avoid an outright overruling. If Gerende is

ripe for final dispatch, the task,is for the Supreme Court,

not a subordinate court. wee ses eh

Keyishian v. Board of Regents, —— F. Supp. —— (W. D.»

N. Y. Jan. 5, 1966), prob. juris. noted, 384 U. S. 998 (1966),

desided prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Elfbrandt; may be

distinguishable from the case at bar. There is no New York equiva-

lent. to the “loyalty pledge” ‘subject to penalties for perjury, that

is before us today. Furthermore, as the three-judge district court .

emphasized, New York State, in requiring of a prospective employee’ .

the assuravice that he has complied with the-laws under attack in

Keyishwan, affords the applicant an opportunity to be heard

> ’

should he be in doubt“as to the coverage of the statutes. *

‘18a .

Concurring Opinion of Sobeloff, Circuit Juge

Thus, - ‘despite the doubjs engendered by the course of

subsequent adjudications, I think the contentions made by

the plaintiff here are more properly addressed to the Su-

-preme Court. I am obliged, therefore, to join, in today’s

order of dismissal rather than Anticipate the abandonment

of Gerende. : a |

_Smon E., SoseLorr

U. 8. Circuit Judge

7 re

[ |

% hi

e ‘. re .

a “s

2 : r

s . ?

OE ELLE FRE PLM. PP ER eee es Bee or tes ES a

wenden tae:uean wane ce Ay

tes _ - 198

| Order

t Is’ rae ance |

j pr faa e: UNITED STATES DISTRICT count ee ‘

For tHe Disrricr’ OF Maryann -

Civil Action No. 11364 gla ‘ct Mo

e “a3 . . - $< @—- ; .

[SAME bsasicus ee m

ios ro

Defendants? motion to dismiss having come on for hear- . -

ing, briefs having been filed, argument having been heard,

and the matter considered, it is, this eighth day of. Sep-

tember, 1966, by: the Unrrep STATES District Court a a

THE DisTRIcT oF -Maryxanp, : aa

OrpERED,. that defendants’ Cae ae bs dismiss be, and it .

is hereby, granted, and said complaint is gery gee, with

.,, costs to defendants. ~

. cen | Stow ‘E., Sosmrorr

‘. ‘ae United States Circuit Fudge

. ‘Hartson L. Wavrer

United States Circuit Judge

4 >

a ; ; Roszzx’ C. THOMSEN

eee cee | _ Chief Judge.

; . - United States District Court °

. 7 for the District of Maryland 4

Pee Ae :

p sere", Subversive Activities ‘Act’ ‘of. 1949

“Article S5A

Kataniiiie CopE oF MaryLanp (1957)

SEDITION AND SUBVERSIVE: AcTIVITIES

§ % Definitions

For the purposes of this article:

“Organization” means an organization, corporation,

company, partnership, association, trust, foundation, fund, —

club, society, committee, association, political party, or any

group of persons, whether es incorporated, ‘perma-

. nently or temporarily associated . together for joint action, |

' or advancement of views on an subject or subjects. . .

“Subversive organization” _means any Dpcanization 7 j

which engages in or advocates, abets, advises, or ‘teaches, E

"Or & purpose ef which is to engage in or advocate, abet,

‘advise, or teach activities intended to pverthfow, destroy

or alter, or to -assist. in the- overthrow, destruction or 7 |

alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of a

the United States, or of the State of Maryland; or of any “4

political subdivision of either of them, by revolution, force, ’

, or violence. - $k st é Be

teeth ete

“Foreign subversive organization” means any organiza- '~

tion directed, dominated .or controlled directly or. indirectly

‘by a foreign government which engages in or advocates, -

; abets, advises, or teaches, °or-a purpose of which is to - :

engage in or to advocate, abet, advise, or teach, activities--..

intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the .

overthrow, destruction or alteration of the constitutional |

form.of the government of, the .United States, or of the

Pee er ees

-2la ots a

| Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 194

State of Maryland, or of any political subdivision of either

of them, and to establish in place thereof any form of

_ governmerit the direction and control of. which is to be

*” vested in, or exercised by pr under, the domination or con-

-trol of any foreign goverhment, organization, or individual ;

but does not and shall not be construed to megn an organi-

zation the bona: fide purpose’ of which is: to promote world -

peace ‘by alliances or unions with other governments or

world federations, unions or governments to be effected

through constitutional means. i me 4

“Foreign government’: means the government #f any —

a country or nation other than the government of the United —

_ States of America or of one of the states thereof. 4

“Subversive person” means’ any pefson who commits,

attempts to commit, or aids in the commission, or ‘advo-

cates, abets, advises or teaches by any means - person

to commit, attempt to commit, or aid in the co ission of

’ any act intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, of/to assist

inthe overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the consti-

*’ tutional form of the government of the United States, or

,of the State of Maryland, or any political subdivision’ of .

either of them, by revolution, $2705, SF Vidhinee, or who is

a member of a subversive organization or a foreign sub-

_versive org#nization. (An. Code, 1951, §1; 1949, ch. 86,

$1) os, : ‘ gs ee

SepiTion*

$2. Unlawful acts. .

' It shall be a felony for any person knowingly. and wil-

fully ‘to: oes He

4 5

. oe

. . »

.- e ”

s as

e ‘

ue Maryland Subversivi Activities Act of 1949 |

(a) Commit,. salieneait to commit, or aid in the commission

-_ of any-act. intended to overthrow; destroy or alter, ‘ or to

assist in the over ; destruction or alteration of, the

ee constitutional form of the government of the United States,

or.of the State of Maryland, ‘or any political subdivision

. . of either of them, by revolution, force, or violence ; or

" (b) Advocate abet, advise, or teach by any means any -

person to commit, attempt to.commit, or assist in the com.

mission‘ of ‘any such. act. under such. circumstances as to

st United States, or of the State of Maryl d or of. any

| political subdivision of eithe of them; or

constitute a clear and present danger to ge of the

‘(e) Conspire with one or more persons to commit any

‘such act; or aes a dd a aie ee ae

(d) Assist in the diiieetlain or participate in » the man-

- agement Or to contribute’ to‘the support of any subversive

organization or. foreign subversive organization knowing.

_ said organization jo be a’ subversive organization . or. a

foreign subversive organization ; or

(e) Destroy any books, tecords or files, or secrete any

funds in this State of a subversive organization or a

foreign subversive organization, meres said organiza-

_, tion to be such.

Any person who shall ad convisted by a eourt of com-

petent jurisdiction of violating any of the provisions of

this section shall be fined not more than twenty thousand

dollars, ($20, 000); or ifmprisoned for not more than twenty

(20). years,: or both, at the: discretion of the court. ean

Code, 1951, $25 1949, ch. 96 $2.)

28a

ae é

Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 1949

$3. Membership in subversive organization. ie

._ It shall bea felony for any person after June 1, 1949 to

become, ov after September 1, 1949 to remain a: member of

' «& subversive organization or a foreign subversive organi-

zation knowing said organization to be <a subversive |

organization or foreign. subversive organization. Any

person who shall. be convicted by a court of competent -

. Jurisdiction of violating this section shall be'fined not more

. than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or imprisoned. for

not more than five (5) years, or both,. at the discretion of ..

the court. (An. Code, 1951, 43; 1949, ch. 86, §3.)'‘. .

$4. Effect of conviction. . oy

Any person who shall be convicted by a court ‘of com-

-petent jurisdiction of Violating any of the provisions of °

. $$ 2 and 3 of this artjcle, in addition to all other penalties

therein provided, s from the date of such conviction ~

be barred from: »

(a) Holding any office, elective or appointive, or any ©:

- other position of profit or trust in or employment by the

government of the State of Maryland or of any agency

thereof or .of any county, municipal corporation or other

political subdivision of said State; s

(b) Filing or standing for election to any public office

_ insthe State of Maryland; or

(ce) Voting in any election held in this State: (An. Code, —

1951, $4; 1949, ch. 86, § 4.)

: ° jf ‘

Sk wenn pee NALD PRES Nee PERERA HOP NCETS

‘

-Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 1949

ee ;

eo:

§5.: Dissolution. of organizations.

It shall be unlawful for any sidveraive organization or ae

-foreign subversive organization to exist or function in the,

‘State of Maryland and any organization which by a court

of competent jurisdiction is found to have violated the

- provisions Of this section shall be dissolved, and if it be a

' corporation. organized and existing under.thé lgws of the

-~ State of Maryland ‘a fmding by a court of competent

‘jurisdiction that it has violated the provisions of this

section’ shall constitute legal cause for forfeiture of its

charter ard its charter shall be forfeited under the pro- ¢

visions of Article 23, §§-104-108, inclusive, Annotated Code _

of Maryland [1939 Code] and ‘all funds, books, records and

files of every kind and all other property of any organiza-

tion found: to have violated the provisions of this section

shall be seized.by and for the State of Maryland, the funds

to be deposited in the State treasury and the books, records,

files and other property-to be turned over to the Attorney

General of Maryland. (An. Code, — Seg — * 86, ~

§5.) 3 Shes

§ 6. Special “ assistont attorney gencral—Appoiniment,

2 salary and’ supervision.

The Attorney General of. Maryland i is kanaiee authorized

ash and directed to appoint an additional assistant to perform.

the duties of special assistant attorney general in charge

of subversive activities whose annual salary shall be pro-

vided’ in the budget, and whose responsibility it shall be,

under supervision of the Attorney General, to. assemble,

arrange and deliver to the State’s attorney of any county

_or of Baltimore City, together with a list of necessary

an, Ma ees ae

Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 1949

in said county or city, all information and evidence of

on witnesses, for presentation to the. next grand jury to meet ©

matters within said county or Baltimore City which have -

come to his attention, elating ‘in any manner to the acts

‘ prohibited by this article, and relating generally to the — |

purposes, processes and activities of communism ahd any

other or related subversive organizations, associations,

.- groups or persons. (An, Code, 1951, § 6 ;1949, ch. 86, $6.)

hae Samo-—Aseistance tn collection. of evidence and

information,

For the collection of any evidence and information re-

- ferred to in this article, the Attorney General is hereby

directed to call upon the Superintendent of State Police,

the police commissioner of Baltimore City and other county

and municipal police authorities of the State to furnish to

the special assistant hereinbefore: provided for, such

assistance as may’ from time to time be tequired. Such

Police authorities are directed to furnish information and

——-—__— ——

assistance as may be from time. to time so requested. The |

_ Special assistant attorney general herein provided for may

testify before any grand jury as to matters referred to in

_ this article as to which he miay ‘have information. (An.

Code, 1951, §7; 1949, ch. 86, § 7.)

§8. Same—Revords and reports. | a

~The Attorney-General shall require the special assistant

herein provided for, to maintain complete records of all

information received. by him and all. matters handled by

him under the requirements of this article. Such records

as may reflect on the loyalty of any resident of this State,

26a

Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 1949 :

« eae shail not be madi public or. divalged % any person “except

ye permission of the Attorney GenefAl to &ffectuate the

purposes ‘of this article. He‘ shall further require the .

publication, printing and appropriate distribution, of all .

. reports of grand juries of this State made as hereinafter

) > ‘provided. The Attorney General shall include in his budget

estimates, adequate ‘moneys for the printing and distri-.

bution of the said. reports, and. for all other expenses -of

administering: this article. To the extent that his time may

not be required in his duties under this article, the special

___ assistant attorney. general shall. be_available for and-per- =

: ciate form such other Auties as may be assigned to him by the

—

Attorney General. - (An. Code, dhesat $8; _ ch. 86, , § 8.)

$9. Duty of judges as to. grand jury.

ae | . The judge of the. eriminal court of each ‘county, sl of

Baltimore City, when in his discretiori it appears ap-

propriate, or when. informed. by the State’s attorney-that

————— =

. there is information or evidence’ of the character described _

: ‘in §6 of this article to be consideted - -by the grand jury, .

shall charge the grand jury to inquire into violations of

-. i... this article for the purpose of ‘proper action, and further

to: inquire generally into - the purposes, processes and

- activities and any other matters affecting communism or

any related or other subversive organizations, associations, ke

groups or persons., Any grand jury charged by the court:

as provided herein shall-not later than the conclusion of its

term of servic#prepare a written report, separate from all

_¢ other matters considered by said grand jury, of its findings

. = ‘the subjects placed before it-under the requirements

of this article, provided, however, such report shall not.

a HAs See 3Ta-

‘Maryland Subversive Activities Act-of-1949

“i charge any residents of this State a“ being disloyal un-.

less. they shall have been indicted under- the provisions of

. _ this ‘article or other provisions of the criminal law of this

_-0r some other jurisdiction. (An. Code, 1951, $9; 1949, ch.

+ 86, $9.) 4 prahas.

| Loyatry.

; 7 “$10. Subversive person ‘not eligible for governmental

office. - LER : ! ry

- No subversive person, as defined in this article, shall be a

eligible for employment in, or appointment. to: any office, .

or any position of trust oF profit in the ‘government of, or

in the administration of. the busifiess. of this State, or of

any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of

this State. (An. Code, 1951, § 10; 1949, ch. 86, § 10.)

sce SIL “Rules-and ‘regulations to dete>mine loyalty—In gen-

’ eral.

Every person and every board, commission, council, de-

. partment; court or other agency of the State of Maryland

or.any political subdivision thereof, who or which appoints

or employs or supervises, in any manner the Appointment

or gployment of public officials or employees shall estab-

lish by rules, regulations or otherwise, procedures designed

to ascertain before ally person, including teachers.and other |

employees of any public educational institution in this

State, is appointed or employed, that he or she as the ease

may be, is not a subversive. person, and that there. are no

_ -Teasonable grounds to believe such persons are subvergjve :

persons. In the event such reasonable grounds exist, he

or she as the case may be shall not be appointed or em-

"98a

Maryland idhibicaien Activities Act of. 1949

ployed. te securing any facts necessary to ascertain. the

information herein required, the applicant shall ‘be re-

quired to sign’a written- statement containing answers to

* such inquiries as may be material, which statement shall

contain notice that it is subject to the penalties of perjury. 8

.- (An, Code, 1951, $11; 1949, ch. 86, § 11.)

§ 12. ‘Same—Not applicable to laborers:

The inquiries preseribed 4 in §11, “other than the written

_ statement to be executed-by an applicant for employment, -

shall not be required as a prerequisite to the employment -

of any persons in the classification of laborers in any case

. in which the employing authority shall in’his or its dis- |

- eretion determine, and by tule -or regulation specify the _.

reasons why, the nature of the work to be performed’ is

- such that employment of persons’ as to whom there. may be

- reasonable grounds to believe that’ they are subversive -

persons: as defined in this article will not be dangerous to -

_ the health of the citizens or the security of the governments

_of the United States, the State of Maryland, or any political

“subdivision thereof. (An. Code, 1951, $12; 1949, ch. 86,

$12), ie cha

she 7

§ 13. Statement of EL cea

every person, who on June 1, 1949. shall be i in the employ

> of the State of Maryland or. of any political subdivision

‘ thereof, other than those now holding elective office shall -—

_. ‘be required on or before August 1, 1949, to make a ‘written

: wh ai’ which shall contain notice that it is subject to

the penalties of perjury, that he or she is not a subversive’ -

area as defined 1 in this article, ‘namely, any person who

i ; 29a

Maryland Suioersive, Acpfoiie Act of 1949 -*

. eontioie, attempts to commit, or aids in the commission,

—_

a. whose employment is subject to the provisions

156 of the Baltimore City Charter and: by every person and —

or advocates, abets, advises. or teachés by any means any ~

« pérson to commit, attempt to commit, or aid in the com-.

mission of ayact intended to overthrow, destroy or alter,

or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of,

the constitutional form of the government of the United |

States, or of the State of Maryland, or any political sub- —

division of either of them, by revolution, force, or violence ;-

or who-is a member of a ‘subversiv organization or a for-

eign subversive organization, as méré fully defined inthis -.

_ article. Such statement shall be prepared and. éxecution

"required by the State Commissioner of Personnel for all ,

persons whose employment is subject to the. provisions of .

_ Article 644A of the Annotated Code of | Maryland/and by the

city service commission of Baltimore for employees

every board, commission, council; de ent, court or

“other agency of the State of Maryland or any political

subdivision thereof responsible for the supervision of:other

employees, for - employees under its. jurisdiction. Any such

. person failing or refusing to execute such a statement or

who admits -he is a subversive person as defined in this

article.shall immediately be- discharged. (An. vipa 1951,

$13; 1949, ch. 86, § 13; 1953, ch. 510.)

$14. Discharge from office.

Reasonable grounds | on all thé diidence to believe that

any person is a subversive person, as defined in this article,

shall be cause’ fer discharge from any appointive Office or.

_ othér position of profit“ or trust in the ssiiteainnaiile of or

« . -

“9

‘ 7

4 ; .

A .

§§ 142 to ©

\ x \e

Marland: Subversive Activities Act-of 1949

in. the administration of-the business. of this Staté, or of

any county, municipality or other political subdivision of s

this State, or any agency thereof. The State Commissioner.

of Personnel and the civil service dommission of Baltimore ;

shall, by appropriate rules or regulations, prescribe that

persons charged with being subversive persons, as defined .

in tHis article, shall ‘be accorded notice arid: opportunity to

\. be heard, in aceordance with the procedures prescribed

:by law for discharges for other reasons. Every person and

every board, commission, council, department, or’ other '

‘agency of the State of Maryland or any political subdivi- |

sion . thereof: having _Tesponsibility for the appointment,

employment or supervision of “public employees not cov-

% ered by the classified service in this section referred to,

-Shall establish Tules.or procedures similar to those required, < -

herein for classified- services for a hearing for any person

charged with being a subversive person, as defined in this.

article, after notice and opportunity to be heard. Every

employing authority - discharging any person pursuant to

any provision of this articlé shall ‘promptly Teport to the :

- special assistant attorney general in charge of subversive ° ee.

such discharge. A person discharged under the provisions

Of this: section shall have the right to appéal to the circuit

court of the county or to the Baltimore City court, wherein

‘such person may reside for a determinatiop by. such court

_ Wwith the aid of a jury, if the. appellant so- elects) as to

: whether or not the discharge appealed from ‘was justified -. :

under the provisions of. this article. The court shall speed- : , ie

y hear and determine such appeals, and from the judg- =.

pent of the court, there shall be- ‘a further ‘appeal to the “

é § es

PSE ee

' Maryland. Subversive Activities, Act of 1949

'. Court of Appeals of Maryland as in civil cases. (An. Code, :

1951, §.14; 1949, ch. 86, § 14; 1953, ch. 310; 1962, ch. 36,

. $54.) ee oe Lis! By as :

§ 15. Statements of candidates for office. i es

No, person shall become a candidate for -elegtion under

__ the provisions of Article 33 of the Annotated Code of Mary-

hé or she shall file with the certificate of nomination re-

quired by the foregoing Article 33, an affidavit that he or

she is not.a subversive person’ as defined in this article;

' provided that, in the case of certificates of nomination for

President or Vi¢e-President of the United States, the afi es

davit may be made on*behalf of such candidates by those-

persons who file the certificate of nomination for such. -

candidates. No ‘certificate of nomination shall be received’

_. for filing by any board of supervisors of elections or by.

* the Secretary of ‘State of ‘Maryland unless accompanied

by the affidavit aforesaid, and there shall not be entered

upon any ballot or voting niachine'at any election. the name

. of any person who has failed or refused to inake the affi-

- davit aforesaid. {An. Code, 1951, 415; £949, ch. 86, § 15.)

a #4 Statement of private institution of learning before

_ receiving public funds. > ,° 4

_ . Before any appropriation of public funds of any charac: ~~

_ ter shall be made by the State of Maryland to any private

institution of learning,-there shall be filed with the Gover:

nor, the President of the Senate dnd -the Speaker of the

- House of Delegates; on behalf of said institution, a written

_ Teport’setting forth what procedures it has adopted to de-

‘

“

OL A EL SOLID Ay I

5 " ¢

etoals ee 82a

ae ae A

Maryland Subversive’ Activities’ : At. of 1949

Pat ‘teltnine whether it has reasonable —* to believe that ‘

-any subversive persons are in its employ, and what steps, AY

-if any, have been or are’ being taken to. terminate” such

‘employment. In the abseneé of Such a report: no appropria-

- ~* tion shall be included in the State budget or approved ee

- ‘the General ‘Assembly. (An. Code, 1951, § 16; 1949, ch. 86,

a) Sen } |

-§ 17, False statements ee perjury.

‘ Every written’ statement made pursuant; to this article

by an applicant for appointment or employment, or by any -

employee, shall be deemed to have been made under oath °

if it contains a declaration preceding the signature of the

maker to the effect that’ it is made under the penalties of

_ perjury. Any person who makes a material misstatement

"Of: fact (2) in any such written statement, or (b) in any

affidavit made pursuant to the provisions of this article,

_ or (ce): under oath in any hearing conducted by any agency

‘of the State, or of any'of its political subdivisions, pursuant

to this article, or (d).in any “written statement: by an appli-

: cant, for appointment “or employment or ‘by. an employee '

in any State aid or private’ institution of learning in. this

State, intended to determine whether or nof such. applicant

or ‘employee is a subversive person as. defined in this ar-

- ticle, which statement contains notice that it is subject to

-the penalties of perjury, shall be subject to the penalties of -

“perjury prescribed in’ Article 27, 4439 of-the, Annotated

Code. (An, Code, 1951, $17; 1949, ch. 86, seg

§ 18. Severability. :

If any provision, phada/ or clause of this article or the*. 3

apptication thereof to any person or circumstance is held

Dp.

sae

| ~ Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 1949 .

invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions,

phrases, or dlauses or applications of this article which

. ean be given effect without the invalid provision, phrase, |

or clause or application, and to this end the provisions, —

phrases and clauses of this article are declared to be séver-

: able. (An. Code, 1951, » §18; 1949, ch. 86, $18.)

<8 19) Short title.

‘This article may be cited as the Subversive “Activities

= Act of 1949. (An.:Code, 1951, § 19; 1949, ch. 86, § 19.)

’ CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT FOR

7 PUBLIC EMPLOYMEN T

' Required by Law (Art. 85A,. Paragraph 13,

Annotated .Code of Maryland, 1957)

' » * 3 ae ead, . . , ; do hereby

(Print Name—including middle initial)

‘eertify that I am not. engaged in one way or another in the

attémpt to overthrow the Government of the United States,

‘.or the State of Maryland, or any — subdivision of

_ ~ either of them, by force or violence. .

® farther certify that I understand the a beidihad state-

* ment is made subject to the penalties of: ‘perjury prescribed

in Article 27, Section 439 of the ‘Annotated Code of oe

land (1957 — wile

Date

- (Name—including middle initial)

| May 3, 1966

Tomas B. Finan, ‘Antes General

I had thé privilege today to meet with the Renareble

_ Frank B. Ober, Chairman of the Commission which drafted.

the original loyalty oath act which bears his name. My

office has prepared a new form of loyalt _pledge

diate: of the United States Supreme Court in the case

of Elfbrandt v. Russell, which pertained to: the loyalty oath

in-use in the State of Arizona.

Heretofore, this office had prescribed language for use

in the oath which ‘complied with the opinion of the Court .

of ‘Appeals of Maryland. in Gerende v. Board of Super-

visors of Elections and which was‘sustained by an unani-

mous decision of the United States Supreme Court (1951).

The new form of the oath will contain a slight modifica-

-* tion and will read as follows:

a ; : a hereby

certify that I am not engaged in one way or another.

in the ‘attempt to overthrow the Government of the .

United States, or the State of Maryland,-or any politi-

* gal subdivision of either of them, by force or violence. —

I further certify that I -understand the. aforegoing |

statement is made subject to the ‘penalties of. perjury

prescribed in Article 27, Section 489 of. the Ane:

tated Code of Maryland (4967 edition): ”

I T think, and Mr. Ober agrees, that this iiins stein at

» the methods and means used by subversive. groups who,

from time to time, have demonstrated their efforts and

‘intent to destroy our Government by force or violence.

«f

Sirs

‘

“

: .

> .

: -

‘

o. 4

~~,

- ‘et

’

‘ .

: °

”

. ~

. .

“ .

e .

be .

_ a

. <

: ®

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.