*1 subjеct except testify called appellant’s reputation. On character and subjects, could
those witness appellant in view
been effective long and convic-
of his record of arrests judge was convinced
tions. The Hall had
own trial that observation assistance been effective not without the guaranteed himto which was counsel by Amendment and had the Sixth guaran- process deprived of thе due Prettyman, Judge, Circuit dissent- think Fifth We teed Amendment. ed. supports court’s conclu- the record Sr., Ahern, acted J. sion. Thomas appointment, appellant under attorney. capable, experienced Our trial he us that review of the convinces effectively, particu- vigorously
acted
larly of the fact that obtained in view acquittal count. under the first files that the motion and the We hold conclusively in the case
and records prisoner entitled that the
showed
no relief.
Affirmed. KRAUS,Appellant, J.
Arthur Secretary, DULLES, De
John Foster State, Appellee. partment No. 12820. Appeals Court of of Columbia Circuit
Argued March July
Decided
841 1951, repaid this and that he has not money. Appellant he was asserts that depart Rica for Panama about to Costa when American consular official away passport Rica took on the Costa ground his presence undesirable, Washington, his Stanley D. Suydam, Mr. give only permit it and back to C., appellant. for Ap- direct return to the United States. Strickler, U. S. Asst. H. Mr. Frank pellant prospects of states that he had Rover, Atty., Leo A. with whom Messrs. receiving for remuneration lectures in argued, Atty., at time case U. S. Panama, and that he became destitute Atty., Carroll, U. Asst. S. Lewis and accept Depart- and had the State appellee. brief, for on were ment’s offer of funds return him to PRETTYMAN, BAZELON Before only the Department’s United States because Judges. WASHINGTON, Circuit and taking away action in his passport forcing and thus return. Judge. WASHINGTON, Circuit Subsequent return, appellant’s to his Plaintiff-appellant passport to seeks a months, was renewed for six Failing favor- travel to obtain abroad. only required after but he had been Department on able action the State and submit did submit of his evidence brought application, this suit ability travel, financial consisting the evidence declaratory and the District Court deposit $1,000 of a bank mandatory The District Court relief. derived from contributions. granted appellee’s motion to dismiss appellant In 1954 made the relief failure to a on which state claim application which is the basis for the granted. may appeal followed. This present Department suit. The State ad- Appellant says purpose of his vised him that it took no on the gain backing proposed trip is in his Case, objec- and that it had no effort to denominates submit what he traveling tion to his pose pur- abroad for the U. Commission the Krаus the N. Case gaining support for his case. Rights. ap- on Human The Kraus Case However, Department declined to is- against pears appellant’s protest to be appellant sue unless he could 1933, his dismissal reasons which show that he had the funds record, appear do not from the this with which to travel abroad and return College faculty City York. of New home, obtaining aor means of such appellant To most has devoted funds which had reasonable assurance gain- energies 1933, of his and his since of success. The also ex- employment ful has bеen intermittent pressed displeasure at ap- the fact that is without or since that time. He past pellant’s travels had caused “For- dependent upon property, con- and is eign Service officesof the United States sympathizers tributions from and from to receive numеrous troublesome and organizations; he has charitable inquiries” vexatious appellant’s about supported occasion also least one Appellant activities. declined to make by public agency. welfare requested the submissions and instead the circum- doubt as to There is some brought this action in the District Court. controversy previous be- aof stances Depart- clear appellant State denial of tween passport by only Secretary a subject asserts State ment. judicial required to measure of the financial assist- appellant review, including question to the extent whether ance ac securing transportation arbitrary to tion return $95 law, capricious contrary Rica in from Costa Perkins 842 ap- Elg, 1939, applied to U.S. 59 S.Ct. has generally 1320; Dulles, pellant apply
*4 83 L.Ed. a test it Shachtman v. does 938; 1955, U.S.App.D.C.287, applicants, that this has *3 Dulles, 1956, U.S.App.D.C. of Boudin 98 been done without the establishment v. any -, which could 235 F.2d reasonable classification 532. We think that justify If such ac- instant case is likelihood such discrimination. there sufficient arbitrary given occurred, represents and ca- that thе tion has it is reason arbitra ry pricious judicial capricious and on the and must be set aside action to render grant Shaughnessy, appellee’s Mastrapasqua of review. v. motion to dismiss- 999; Hyman hearing- unjustified.1Cir., 1950, 2 Coe, D.C.D.C.1952, v. before answer and before — F.Supp. case, 102 254. n of the instаnt some I Department ficials of the indi State view We are reinforced our correspondence appel cated in their with justified that dismissal was not because long lant that the has a test for the establishment of a means standing favorably policy “that it is not passport applicants, particularly at a disposed passport to issue facilities required time when a is persons likely appear 1185; travel, most 8 U.S.C.A. § accomplishing financial assistance Fed.Reg. obviously (1953), 18 489 would proposed And a their abroad.” travels questions. raisе serious constitutional testified official has State ought passed These not to be on the that some a Senate Subcommittee before unsatisfactory present rec state of the on passport applicants were screened 120 Department’s to whаt ord as the State during months the ten financial basis compare policy applied, and how it is 30, January period 1 until October from Naim, 1955, 891, Naim v. 350 76 U.S. rejections for 1955, 25 a resultant with 151; Army Municipal S.Ct. Court, Rescue hand, the other reasons.2 On financial appellant’s 1947, 1409, 331 U.S. 67 S.Ct. attorney Court in the District 1666, рarticularly 91 L.Ed. since there is he had been that an affidavit submitted ground suggested the non-constitutional no that by the State advised requirement may possibly which above be decisive. money proper relative Accordingly, the order of the District appli ty made of ever was Court must be vacated and the re case require such cant, in fact no that proceedings further manded for not in appellant’s ease. made had been ment opinion. with consistent reg the extensive And an examination ordered. So President ulations relating to the issu of State Judge (dis- PRETTYMAN, Circuit 51-53, Pts. passports, 22 C.F.R. ance of senting) . existence no evidence shows from policy. is clear It such made to a sworn statement stated, on required be answered in 1951 Kraus questions alia: there is inter applications that great slightest to screen during employment “My lаst applicants on a majority of engaged selling when I was possible, quite thus Encyclopedia basis. I Britannica. financial stands, employed by now the trade as it then office of from equal summary judgment urges action treat Appellee we with force appelleе in effect the as would be incorrect. Court appellee’s sum motion for granting of Hearings, granting Subcommittee on Constitution- mary judgment rather than Rights, Committee on al diciary, Senate the Ju- consider dismiss. We motion its Cong., Sess., pursuant 2d as 84th set forth hereinafter reasons that to pp. (1955). 162-63 why еrroneous show S.Res. dismissal you Encyclopedia Britannica, position make Palms should be in Avenue, Building, funds for De- a loan of Woodworth States, year; your then until return troit one to the Depart- you repay supported by I 1949 was in a of Detroit. such loan? ment Public Welfare partmеnt of State your return to the United States? take contribute some ford me. worth able United lending house. United your brother, Marek Kraus? tion table your return to the United States? United been while tributions, to ers “[Q.] “A. None “[Q.] “A. The “[Q.] “EQ-1 “A. No. “A. “[Q] Approximately what are “A. “[Q] “A. “A. furnish definitely all. secure [******] [******] [*] assets? is any responsibility for me. and since He to furnish supported by institutions and with approximately I this States States I would I States? He is the I have been your different financed [*] have been Have De- In the event that the Is it not isWhat Are me the by man, which to return only committed other relatives of anything. [*] your statesmеn, financially might necessary funds for necessary then you say you the America, by Marek one who my owner churches. property the government that would be supported made relatives [*] relatives would abroad studies Ox- $500,000.00. possible sympathizers; be occupation Washington hаs he Kraus, willing [*] in a civic funds for would a refused I at money to in in the chari- posi- lead- [*] have help con- be of his method of to the eign in to the to the “Kraus Case”. That “Case” com cerned Bights of the objections returned the free tries, tions cation destitute while abroad in 1951 and was Government. (1) methods of but out to circumstances. As has been American have ing abroad have taken reasonable meas- ernment for assistance predicated upon policy ures being that at tion is observed to insure that your application A State a livеlihood ed It is also a fact that Kraus became Costa Bica “With reference to that he “A. advised March, 1954, relief States.” countries had abroad for experience to City College attorney Kraus’s removal from the (the its forced world, to conduct their travels withоut you, least a minimum of home No, the Commission on Human to issuance of a objection when return to the travel one (Kraus) by endeavoring obtaining because purpose at least not United Nations in procuring travelers listing to call (in letter: for Kraus that the sole at your serviсe has shown I now before desires to make clear in all the Kraus made an of New York in 1933. a for a 1951) the with had been destitute avowed purpose, twenty-eight I will long-established of upon financial back- official your expense people. a collecting in until embarrassing living proceeding respect foregoing, have to countries this ordinary proceed- us) pointed precau- require explained I have (2) Unit- your respect faculty in for- gov- appli- coun- were go peti- to is that of a depicted ing cause, a man in сondition your that to let and indeed securing under abroad Kraus’s affidavit travel the essentials means for your livelihood; aegis proved embar- of United States rassing For- not consistent with the interests best United States to the country. particular eign ruled this He in the countries offices Sеrvice case, quarrel you and I find little to with have traveled.” which ruling. was told: letter Kraus And in another previously has “The point can be made clear revers- your the fact that attention called to ing, arguendo, Suppose situation. favorably disposed to issue it is not country France, Italy, or some other persons who passport facilities to knowingly passports panhan- issued appear likely as- financial letting purpose dlers them pro- accomplishing their sistance begging country, travel around this their posed travels abroad.” way. practice Would such to the issuing country best interests of the legal In an affidavit *5 Obviously passport? not, I think. Passport swore in the Office assistant for Kraus informed counsel that he vigorously pressed up- A contention is standing long require- “that was the it on us that affirmance of this case would Department, in the case ment of the Secretary establish a rule that the can application 'where an grant deny passports upon or a measure- appli- to believe there was reason appli- ment of the financial worth of financially might destitute become cant abroad, Secretary proposing cants. The that rea- assurances agree Certainly such rule. I would not precautions taken to had been sonable defray to such a rule. have one We factual expenses travel abroad. Secretary situation before us. The dealt requirement pointed out that situation, with that one factual and we upon considerations was based should deal with the case on that basis. in the interests of this Government best opinion Secretary I am of of State affairs abrоad.” conduct of its has a measure of discretion in issu- ruling Secretary’s premise for the The Foreign passports. ance of involved, relations are financial worth of Kraus. not the premise largely and such relations lie total of was the sum The good judgment within the of the exеcu- concerning sup- Kraus’s manner of facts tive branch. Shachtman Dulles abroad, depend- porting while himself we said: handouts; ing upon his total charitable suggested “For reasons thus indirect, resources, direct lack of whereby throughout passports issuance of might some assurаnce have history judg- our has been left to the home; being and the to return able Secretary ment of the un- lived on relief or on he had fact that charity regulation, der Presidential and is years. The conclusion for some Secretary subject only to constitutional safe- uрon was that those guards. And even these must be de- interests of was not best facts it regard fined with cautious traveling country to responsibility of the Executive financial-showing provi- The abroad. the conduct of affairs.” escape clause, a means sion ground upon which the might whеreby Kraus extricate himself acted in the case at bar seems me to predicament in which the whole rational and both reasonable. history placed and circumstances nothing arbitrary capri- I would affirm the order I see him. Secretary’s determination Court. cious U.S.App.D.C. 287, 291,