*1 STATES. BRADEN UNITED February 27, 1961. Argued November No. 1960. Decided B. Boudin M. argued Leonard and John Coe the cause petitioner. them on the brief Victor With were Rabinowitz, Lynn, Koenigsberg J. M: Conrad Samuel *2 A. and Charles Reich. Attorney Yeagley
Assistant argued General the cause for the him United States. With on the briefs were Rankin, Terris, George Solicitor General Bruce J. B. Searls, Joseph Maroney. C. Weixel and Kevin T. opinion delivered the of the
Mr. Justice Stewart Court. companion
This case is a
to Wilkinson v. United
ante,
today,
decided
p.
petitioner
399. The
was the wit-
immediately
ness
preceding
hearing
Wilkinson
the
a subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities
Committee,
Atlanta, Georgia,
July
on
He
30, 1958.
many
refused to
questions
answer
directed to him,
basing his refusal upon
grounds
the
questions
pertinent
were not
a question
inquiry by
under
the sub-
interrogation
committee and that
invaded his First
rights.
subsequently
Amendment
He was
and,
indicted
jury
after a
trial,
having
convicted for
violated 2 U. S. C.
192,
refusing
answer six specific questions
§
had been
him
put
by
the subcommittee.1 The Court
Appeals
F.
affirmed,
653, relying
2d
on Barenblatt
granted
S.
and we
certiorari,
The principal issues raised petitioner are sub- stantially Wilkinson, identical to those considered and extended required discussion is not in resolving them. Based the same record that brought was here Wilkinson, we conclude for the reasons stated there that
1The indictment was counts, setting in six specific each count out a petitioner which the had refused to answer. He was con counts, victed on all six imposed. concurrent sentences were the subjects under investigation subcommittee at the time petitioner was interrogated were Communist infiltra- tion into basic southern industry Party and Communist propaganda activities the southern part of the United States. We conclude the same reasons that the sub- investigation committee’s subjects of these was authorized Congress, interrogation pertinent was to a question under inquiry,2 subcommittee and' that petitioner fully was apprised of its pertinency.3
In asserting a violation of his First Amendment rights, points here out that asked, he was not sim- ply whether he was or had been a Party Communist mem- subjects which were the of the six counts of the *3 indictment were as follows: you
“And participate meeting did in a here at that time ? quarters “Who solicited the to be made available to the Southern Conference Educational Fund? you
“Are Emergency connected with the Civil Liberties Com- mittee ? you Harvey
“Did O’Connor, and your in the course of conference Island, develop plans there in Rhode strategies outlining and work Emergency schedules for the Civil Liberties Committee? you
“Were Party you a member of the Communist the instant your signature affixed to that letter? just you
“I would you, being like to ask whether or not a resident Louisville, Kentucky, anything have to do there with the Southern Newsletter?” transcript petitioner’s interrogation by
The full of the the subcom- mittee, Court, intelligible introduced in the District makes the questions. imposed relevance of these Since concurrent sentences were counts, specifically only on the several we need consider here the count, going petitioner’s covered the fifth to the Com- Party membership. munist See Barenblatt 360 109, 115; U. S. Claassen v. United U. S. Wilkinson, by authorizing As in the resolution the subcommittee’s investigation, by the statements of the Chairman other members subcommittee, by interrogation prior witnesses, of the the tenor of by lengthy explanatory contemporaneously statement addressed petitioner. Barenblatt, supra, but whether in ber, as Wilkinson your signature you instant affixed he was a member “the had admit- question, to that letter.” The letter urged and his wife, tedly signed petitioner been Congress. opposition to certain bills only a letter is not writing of such emphasizes constitutionally protected activity, and legitimate but the record to indicate he points to other evidence completely legitimate causes.4 had been active other sub- circumstances, argues Based these he proper legislative purpose committee did not have a per- him but that it was bent rather on calling it, before publicly opposing him for the subcommittee’s secuting example, petitioner points For out that the “Southern Con he been had ference Educational Fund” with which had associated integration promoting been in the The tran active racial South. script hearings clear, however, of the makes that these subcommittee investigation. not under As a member of the activities such were subcommittee stated: in, you doing
“What I am interested is what are on behalf of Party? going clouded, are not to be so far as I We Communist by talking integration segregation. concerned, am This about committee is not in that. This committee is concerned concerned you doing conspiracy.” in what are in behalf of the Communist following colloquy point At another occurred: Negro petitioned “Mr. Braden: Two hundred leaders in the South Congress last week in connection with this United States hearing in Atlanta. *4 looking list,
“Mr. After some of the names on this Jackson: at many members, it letters went into the circular files of because quite was obvious that a number of names on that letter were names closely Party. with the those that had been associated Communist integration. major part Their lie with interest and does not honest purposes Party. Their interest lies with the of the Communist And looking into, clouding that is we let us not be this dis- what are and hearing morning by any this more nonsense that cussion representatives we are here of the States Government further, anything with, integration.” destroy, or to do or have such circumstances that under activities. He contends conduct vio- and associational inquiry personal an into his grounds, On these First Amendment freedoms. lated his issues differentiate the constitutional petitioner would Barenblatt, in that were before the Court here from those supra. congressional did confine com-
But Barenblatt not nor did activity, to overt criminal investigation mittee only Congress investigate can determine case Rather, upheld the decision Party itself. Communist in activity education. an of Communist investigation activity. protected too, legitimate Education, given in area propaganda infiltration and a Communist subjects of the subcom- country, which were the its surely as much within investigation here, mittee are activity educa- pervasive authority as Communist had reason tional institutions. The subcommittee a member of the Commu- petitioner believe that the was actively engaged and that he had been Party, nist inquiry making legislative efforts. It was propaganda activities Party propaganda into Communist southern Information as to the extent to States. Party utilizing legitimate organiza- was the Communist in that region in its efforts propaganda tions causes the reach of the surely constitutionally beyond not was Upon reasoning author- inquiry. subcommittee’s Barenblatt, we hold that the ity S., 125-134, 360 U. First Amendment is not to be set aside on judgment grounds. issues this case raises two additional Barenblatt, supra,
that were not considered either Wilkinson, that it was error for the supra. First, says he jury trial court not to leave it for the to determine whether pertinent asked the subcommittee were subject inquiry. Secondly, under he asserts *5 he could not to properly convicted, refusing because questions answer the subcommittee’s he relied his understanding meaning previous of the decisions of this Court. thinkWe that both of these contentions have been foreclosed Sinclair v. United S. 263.
At the trial the district
determined as a matter of
judge
law that
questions
pertinent
were
to matter under
inquiry by the subcommittee,5 leaving
jury
to the
question whether
pertinence
questions
of the
had been
brought home to the petitioner.
It is to be noted that
counsel made no timely objection
this procedure and,
indeed, affirmatively
acquiesced
it. But we need not
rejection
base
petitioner’s
contention here on that
ground,
for,
any event, it was proper for the court to
determine
question
as a
law.
pre
matter of
This is
cisely what was
held
Sinclair v. United
where
the Court said at
apply equal with force 192], predecessor § of U. S. C. arising under 102§ [the in this case was whether matter for determination The the were so related to question the.facts called for the that such resolutions subjects covered Senate’s ‘pertinent could be said to be reasonably facts incongruous It inquiry.’ under would question principles to leave contrary to well-established a jury.” determination of such a matter to was asked: interrogation his During I have refused to answer you “Now do understand that you as whether or not are now a member Party solely upon of the Communist the invocation of the you provisions amendment, of the first but that have not fifth protection invoked the amendment following Is that He gave Constitution. correct?” right, standing answer: “That is sir. on the Wat- am kins, Sweezy, Konigsberg, and other decisions of the Supreme protect my right, Court which United States they interpret and the Constitution the Constitution States, protecting my right private the United belief and association.” argued
It is now because he relied his under- standing of this previous Court’s decisions he could not failing be convicted under the statute for to answer the An questions. almost identical contention was- also rejected supra, v. United at 299: Sinclair in appellant’s “There is no merit contention that he is to a new trial entitled because the court excluded evi- dence that in faith refusing good to answer he acted on competent gist the advice of The counsel. the offense is refusal pertinent questions. turpi- to answer No moral tude is involved. Intentional violation sufficient guilt. misapprehension constitute There was no as to what was called for. The refusal to answer was deliber- law, as a matter of sought pertinent facts were
ate. The He was duty to answer. appellant’s made it § 102 His mistaken view the statute. rightly bound to construe of law is no defense.” Sinclair, delib- refusal to answer was Here, as erate intentional.
Affirmed. Black, Mr. Justice with whom Chief Justice Douglas concur, dissenting. and Mr. Justice *7 in petitioner case, by this as is shown the facts set in Douglas, dissenting opinion forth of Mr. Justice in I concur, which has for some time been at odds with in strong favoring segregation sentiment racial his home Kentucky. A man himself, petitioner State of white has spoken strongly against nonetheless out that senti- activity, ment. This in his which once before resulted being charged crime,1 with a serious seems to also have
7
Murdock,
389,
This was
reaffirmed United States v.
290
S.U.
397,
applicable
where it was said: “The
statute did not make a bad
purpose
refusing
or evil intent an element of the misdemeanor of
answer,
guilt
solely upon
to
but conditioned
or innocence
the rele
vancy
question propounded.
right wrong
Sinclair was either
answer,
wrong
becoming
in his
to
refusal
and if
he took the risk of
prescribed penalty.”
liable to the
See also Watkins v. United
354 U. S.
petitioner
petitioner
In 1954
and his wife were
was
indicted
Kentucky,
convicted of sedition
the State of
for
he
which
received
imprisonment
years.
prosecution grew
a sentence of
for 15
This
out
surrounding
petitioner’s helping Negro family
purchase
events
a home
charges against
in an all-white suburb of Louisville. The
petitioner
eventually
following
and his wife were
dismissed
Pennsylvania
Nelson,
Court’s decision in
S. 497.
See
Kentucky,
Braden v. Commonwealth
When
his
questions regarding
personal
he was asked a number
question
in the
associations, culminating
beliefs and
Party at
whether
was a member of the Communist
he
signature
“the
affixed his
to the petition
instant” he
urging
authorizing
defeat of the statute
state antisedition
questions
laws. Petitioner
to answer
on
refused
these
grounds,
the
first,
power
the Committee had no
questions
him,
ask the
it
he
put
and, secondly,
could properly
the
refuse
answer such
under
First
For
he,
Amendment.
this refusal
to answer
like
Frank Wilkinson who followed him on
witness
the
stand
hearing,3
the Atlanta
was
convicted under
S. C.
192 and sentenced
in jail.4 And,
§
to months
as was
the case with
Wilkinson,
the conviction of
the majority
petitioner’s
here affirms
“[u]pon
reasoning
conviction
authority”
of Barenblatt v. United States.5
Again I must
with
agree
majority
as
insofar
the conviction is attacked on constitutional
grounds,6
Party
been a
stronger
member of the Communist
is no
than
here
it was in Wilkinson v.
companion
case decided
today, ante, p.
Here,
there,
399.
appears
the Committee
to have
relying
been
conclusory
a flat
informant,
statement
an
made
Security
time before a Senate Internal
Subcommittee. See
Hearings
Subcommittee, op. cit., supra,
before the
n.
at 37.
3See Wilkinson
ante, p.
v. United
today,
decided
4Petitioner was
given
on six
convicted
counts and
sen
concurrent
each,
tences on
majority,
but the
properly
think,
states that “we
specifically
need
only
question
consider here
covered
fifth
count . . .
The fifth
count
to the
related
referred to
dealing
petitioner’s possible
above
Party
with
membership
Communist
signature
at “the
he
petition
instant”
affixed his
urging
defeat
authorizing
statute
state antisedition laws.
441 decision, authority for its ample constitutes in Barenblatt the Com- be denied though it cannot even action, abridgment a direct constitutes mittee’s conduct might majority I think the Indeed, petition. of right a much upon relied equal justification, with have, well v. in Beauharnais Court, of this earlier decision majority a of this Court it was there that Illinois.7 For constitu- the flexible right petition first of applied in this case is based— .the decision tional rule though guaranteed right petition, that the the rule Amendment, First mandatory by terms precise and a can offer time Government may be abandoned finds suf- majority a of this Court doing reason for so that there asserted Ironically, the need ficiently compelling. by majority by accepted Illinois and the State of abridgment of sufficiently compelling to warrant Court as protect Negroes need to right petition was the a racial labeled “libel... of against subsequently what was 8 than the actually nothing it was more group,” although public petition seeking governmental of a circulation Thus, the support program segregation.9 for a of racial appearances had all outward decision Beauharnais Negro underprivileged aid the being one which would is a dramatic illustra- minority.10 decision, however, This interpretation of such an shortsightedness tion of the very philosophy that case. For the constitutional Watkins v. tions asked here should be controlled decision in Barenblatt United rather than the decision U. S. S. 109. 7 343 8 Id., at 263. U. S. dissenting petition reprinted Appendix my itself, See the as an Id., opinion in that at 276. case. Douglas id., See, think at 275: did not so. Mr. Justice minority holding victory, groups their “If there be who hail this they might relevancy possible of this ancient remark: consider ” “ victory ‘Another such and I am undone.’ *10 today birth Beauharnais birth to a decision
gave gives to may strip Negro many the aid well of willing speak of the white who have been to people up his behalf. If House Un-American Activities Com- interrogate power everyone mittee is to have the to who called a Communist,11 thing beyond is there is one certain peradventure legislative committee, aof doubt —no federal, finding state or will have trouble cause to sub- persons anywhere public all take a poena who stand against segregation. to be lesson learned from my mind, these two cases clear. be is, Liberty, secure for be any, must secure for all—even for the most unpopular miserable merchants of hated and ideas. Both Barenblatt Beauharnais are offspring of steadily constitutional doctrine that is indi- sacrificing religion, vidual freedom of speech, press, assembly and petition governmental many There control. have been such other decisions and the are indications that this num- will grow alarming ber continue to at an rate. For the presently prevailing doctrine, constitutional which treats First Amendment as a mere admonition, leaves the liberty-giving freedoms which were intended to protected by that Amendment completely mercy at the Congress and this Court whenever a majority this Court concludes, on the basis of of the several judicially created “tests” in vogue,12 now that abridgment 11And I think the case, decision well as that in Wilkinson United, States, v. today, ante, p. also decided 399, demonstrates conclusively that the Committee is to least power. have at that much 12These “tests” whether include the law “shocks the conscience,” justice,” offends “a sense of runs counter to the “decencies conduct,” of civilized is inconsistent with “an concept ordered liberty,” fair-play offends “traditional notions of and substantial justice,” contrary is justice “the notions of of English-speaking peoples,” unjustified or is California, “on Rochin balance.” See v. (concurring Uphaus opinion); U. S. 175-176 Wyman, than freedom of these freedoms more desirable itself. Only days ago, application a few of this constitutional wiped forbidding prior doctrine out the rule censorship to, in an opinion open of movies leaves the door wide if it actually invite, prior censorship indeed does not publication.13 other means of And the Blackstonian con- *11 demnation of had been even prior censorship long thought, by those whose ideas of First Amendment liberties have been most the minimum the restricted, to be absolute of protection-demanded by that Amendment.14
I once more as I have found it neces- deny, repeatedly sary to do other cases, ability pre- this Nation’s to itself depends upon suppression serve of the freedoms of I religion, speech, press, assembly petition.15 But do noble-sounding slogan “self-preserva- believe that the 16 tion” upon premise destroy any rests a that can itself 388, (dissenting Significantly, opinion). U. S. 392-393 in none of depend upon these “tests” does the result to be obtained abridgment rights protected by plain whether there has been an language Rights. of the Bill of 13 City Corp. Chicago, Times Film v. 365 S. 43. 14 See, g., Levy, Legacy e. 173, 185, 186, Suppression, 13-15, at 190, 202-220, 241, 258, 283, 288, 248, 262, 263, 289, 293, and 309. 307 15See, g., Douds, e. American Communications Assn. S. v. 339 U. States, Dennis v. United 382, (dissenting opinion); 452-453 341 U. S. States, 494, Barenblatt v. United (dissenting opinion); 580 360 Flemming Nestor, 109, 145-153, (dissenting opinion); U. S. v. 162 Uphaus Wyman, 603, (dissenting opinion); 363 U. S. v. 388, (dissenting opinion).
U. S. 400-401 slogan becoming commonplace opinions The use of this is in the in Dennis v. United Thus, 494, of this Court. 341 U. S. at 509, by it was said: “Overthrow of Government force violence certainly enough is substantial interest for Government speech. Indeed, society, limit this is the ultimate value of for society very protect if a from armed internal cannot its structure attack, protected.” it must follow that no subordinate value can be Then, 127-128, in Barenblatt we 360 U. S. by process eating away democratic nation a slow at the indispensable healthy growth. liberties are to its very democracy foundation of a true and the founda- tion gov- this Nation was built is the fact that ernment responsive is citizens, the views of its and no nation can continue to exist such a on foundation unless its citizens are wholly speak free to out fearlessly against their officials and their laws. begins When it send its such dissenters, as Barenblatt, Uphaus, Wilkin- and now son, Braden, to jail, indispensable the liberties to its existence must fast disappearing. be If self-preser- vation is to issue that cases, firmly decides these they believe must be decided way. Only the other a dedicated preservation of the freedoms of the First Amendment can hope preserve we our Nation and its traditional way of life.
It already past the time people when recognize who and cherish the life-giving and life-preserving qualities of protected freedoms Bill of Rights can afford *12 to sit complacently by while those freedoms are being destroyed by sophistry and dialectics. For at least 11 years, since the decision of this Court in American Com munications Assn. Douds,17’’ v. the forces of destruction been hard at have work. Much damage already has been done. If this dangerous trend is stopped not it now, may be an impossible task to stop it at all. The area off set. for individual by freedom Bill Rights of was marked by boundaries precisely defined. It my is belief that the area so provides set off an adequate minimum protection for the freedoms indispensable to individual liberty. are told: “In analysis the last power this right rests on the of self- ” preservation, ‘the ultimate value of society,’ a statement which today in Wilkinson v. reiterated United ante, p. 399. 17339 382, U. S. Uphaus decided in Wyman, And see v. 364 U. S. (dissenting opinion). 392 only faithfully Thus we have to observe the boundaries already however, marked for us. For the the two present, like today many cases decided this Court and the others past years them that decided in the have have been all no but obliterated those boundaries.18 There are now except limits to congressional encroachment this field majority such as a set a may Court choose to value-weighing process case-by-case on a basis.
I accept process. cannot a As I it, such understand duty guard this Court’s constitutional is to liberties guard those liberties those defined, the Constitution not may be defined from case to case on the basis of this judgment indi- importance Court’s as to the relative liberty governmental power. vidual majority’s approach rigid makes the First not Amendment, protection liberty language imports, poor its but flexible imitation. This for the First weak substitute is, my totally unacceptable Amendment mind, among things, any other forbids, believe Amendment agency of the Federal it exec- Government —be legislative, judicial punish people utive or harass or for their —to beliefs, speech about, public of, or for their criticism public laws and officials. The Founders of this Nation not then to trust the definition of First willing were am I Congress Court, Amendment freedoms to or this nor History present day now. the affairs of the show all right. grim the Founders were There are reminders 18See, S. g., Douds, v. U. e. American Communication Assn. 382; 494; Dennis v. 341 U. S. Garner v. Board of 716; S. Angeles, Edu Adler Public Works Los Board 485; Beauharnais *13 343 Illinois, 342 U. S. v. City, cation New York of States, 250; 522; 347 Press, U. S. v. U. S. v. United Galvan Yates 298; Uphaus Wyman, 72; 354 S. 360 S. Barenblatt v. U. v. U. 1; 109; 362 S. County Angeles, 360 U. S. Nelson v. U. Los of 603; Wyman, 364 Flemming Uphaus v. 363 U. S. v. U. S. Nestor, 388; Corp. City 365 U. S. Chicago, Times Film of distance between individual world that
around this far it seems. always as firing squads is not liberty Barenblatt, and its its forerunners I would overrule Rights. the Bill of language of and return to progeny, following is too course the Court is The new and different dangerous. with whom The Chief Justice, Douglas,
Mr. Justice concur, Mr. Justice Black Brennan Justice Mr. dissenting. this case are this Court’s decisions
At the bottom of Nelson, 497, holding in Pennsylvania v. 350 U. S. protection Congress did not entrust to the States Board and Brown v. against sedition, Federal Government Education, holding segregation that racial 483, U. S. I had is unconstitutional. public of students schools disagree with supposed today agree until that one could being hounded for his belief and those decisions without beyond that his belief jail concluding sent to was government. reach of 17, we decided Watkins v. United
On June authority curtailing the 178, defining S. aid sought who Congressional Committees in a contempt.1 said holding courts witnesses We freely but balked In that case the witness testified about himself talking about others: going plead amendment, but I refuse to “I am not the fifth scope questions proper answer certain that I believe are outside the your any questions I will answer committee’s activities. myself. questions puts I this to me about will also answer committee persons I be members of the Communist about those whom knew to any Party not, however, I and whom I believe still are. will answer past. respect I in the with to others with whom associated testify country requires me to do not believe that law in Party persons may past been Communist about who have Party activity engaged in but members or otherwise Communist *14 rights that “when First Amendment six-to-one decision to the committee threatened, delegation power of are 198) (id., ; in at clearly revealed its charter” must be for the expose to congressional power that “there is no meaning that (id., 200); at exposure” sake of defining the Commit- “un-American” the Resolution imagine it authority vague is so that is “difficult tee's 202); at explicit authorizing (id., a less resolution” answering or not answer- before a witness chooses between subject knowledge is have of the ing he entitled “to (id., is interrogation pertinent” which the deemed 208-209); that case the and the state- Resolution “woefully inade- ment of the Committee's chairman were convey pertinency quate to sufficient information Id., 215. questions subject inquiry.” under Sweezy decided the Hampshire, v. New U. S. a aris- day same as the Watkins reversed conviction case, a state activities” ing investigation out of into “subversive questions concerning where a teacher was asked his rela- Marxism. opinion tion to his Chief Justice stated:
“Equally a principle manifest as fundamental society political democratic freedom of the indi- vidual. Our form of is built on the government premise every citizen shall right have the engage political expression association. This my knowledge long who to best and belief have removed them- since selves from the Communist movement.
“I do not believe that such are relevant to the work right of this committee nor do I believe that this committee has public exposure persons past to undertake the of their because may wrong, I may power, activities. and the committee have this answer, but until and unless a court of law so holds and directs me to firmly political my past most refuse to discuss the activities of associates.” Amendment of the First
right was enshrined freedoms these basic Rights. Bill Exercise of the media traditionally through been America has *15 with the Any interference associations. political simultaneously an interference party of a freedom All ideas political freedom of its adherents. with the pro- into the cannot and should not be channeled History amply has grams major parties. of our two activity by minority, proved political the virtue of dissident who innumerable times have been groups, in and whose vanguard thought the of democratic programs ultimately accepted. were Mere unortho- doxy prevailing or dissent from the mores is not to be condemned. The absence of such would voices Id,., in symptom grave society.” be a illness our of 250-251. concurring opinion stated: in
“Progress remotely the natural sciences is not con- findings laboratory. fined to in the Insights made mysteries into the hypothesis of nature are born of speculation. and is this pur- The more so true suit of understanding groping endeavors of what are called the social sciences, concern of man society. which is and The problems that are respective preoccupations of eco- anthropology, nomics, law, psychology, sociology and related areas scholarship are merely departmentalized dealing, by way manageable division of analysis, with inter- penetrating aspects of holistic perplexities. For society's good- understanding be an essential need —-if society inquiries into problems, specula- these — tions about them, stimulation others of reflection must them, possible. be left as unfettered as power Political must abstain from intrusion into this activity of freedom, pursued the interest of wise except for people's well-being, government obviously compelling.” exigent reasons that are Id., 261-262. Watkins years after the 8,
On June 1959—two Barenblatt v. United Sweezy decisions—we decided only 109, gave 360 U. S. where divided Court slight type pertinency claim that consideration to Watkins, Sweezy was and the present case, raised it part rely petitioner’s could on the failure to because Baren objection raise before the Committee. See blatt supra, v. 123-125.
Petitioner, who was called as a witness Com- by the was even before Barenblatt was July mittee in refused Watkins decided, answer, on the relying Sweezy they interpret decisions “as Constitution *16 the States, protecting my right private United to belief and association.”
I think he was entitled them. Act rely on The under which he stands convicted a is guilty states that witness “wilfully if who, he default, having appeared, makes any question question refuses to answer pertinent to the inquiry.” 2 A under S. C. 192. refusal answer § U. Sinclair v. was held 279 263, S. U. justified not to be in good faith, because one acted the saying, Court “His mistaken view of is the law no defense.” Yet no issue concerning First Amendment the Sinclair case. When it is involved, was involved here, it is the propriety of the in terms of pertinency narrowly should be resolved. The Resolution under which the Committee on Un- 2
American Activities acted case precisely is provides The Resolution part: relevant Activities, “The Committee on Un-American as a whole or subcommittee, investigations is authorized make from time to time (1) extent, character, objects propaganda of un-American v. United Watkins as the one involved same be difficult to it, “It would concerning said supra. We authorizing resolution. Who explicit a less imagine of 'un-American’? What meaning can define govern- the form of solitary ‘principle of single, ... At one by our Constitution’? guaranteed ment as nar- been read might have perhaps, the resolution time, subject prop- rowly to confine the Committee in the fifteen transpired events that have aganda. The make such years interrogation before the at 202. S., impossible construction at this date.” rights First Amendment emphasized need, when We lay probing a foundation before implicated, were must then authority area. The of the Committee Id., in its charter.” at 198. The clearly “be revealed Id., disclosed. at 205. “specific legislative need” must be questions and the matter pertinency subject The of the degree under must be made known “with the same inquiry clarity that Due explicitness Process Clause requires in the a criminal expression of element of Id., offense.” at 209. anyone rely
After Watkins was entitled to on those propositions protection rights. of his First Amendment The ques- conditions circumstances under which the tions petitioner plainly satisfy were asked did not requirements specified Watkins. six setting peti- were asked *17 tioner and which he refused answer nothing to shows more (2) activities in the United the diffusion within the United States of propaganda instigated subversive and un-American that is foreign origin prin- from countries or of a domestic and attacks the ciple government guaranteed by Constitution, form of our (3) Congress all other in relation thereto that would aid any necessary legislation.” remedial 3Petitioner was on of six convicted each counts of an indictment count, sentenced to serve months on each the sentences to than an him exercise of First Amendment fights speech press petition and of It Congress. was not shown these activities were part of matrix for the government. overthrow of It was not shown—unless the bare word of the Committee is taken as gospel—that these constitutional any activities had relation whatever to communism, subversion, any or illegal activity of sort or kind. It was not shown where how the Com- granted right mittee was ever investigate those petition who Congress for redress grievances. Petitioner and his wife were field secretaries of an organization known as the Southern Conference Educa- tional Fund. Prior to the hearing Atlanta, committee they Georgia, wrote a letter4 on the letterhead of the concurrently. run Therefore if one of the counts can be sus- tained an necessary. affirmance would be See Claassen v. United 142 U. S. 4 “Dear Friend: writing you your Kentucky
“We are because of interest in the cases, ‘sedition’ which were thrown out of Court on the basis of a Supreme [Pennsylvania Nelson, supra] declaring Court decision inoperative. state sedition laws pending Congress
“There are now in both houses of bills that would nullify danger this decision. We understand there is real that these pass. bills will especially are
“We concerned about this we from because know experience against working our people own how such laws can be used bring integration about in the South. Most of these state statutes loosely worded, many are broad and and to of our the officials of integration imagine may Southern states is sedition. You can what happen every prosecutor if little local loose South is turned with a state sedition law. probably
“It is small comfort to realize that such cases would eventually Supreme be thrown out Court. Before such a Supreme Court, beings case reaches the human involved have years spent fighting attack, their several lives off the their time integra- positive struggle and talents from the have been diverted *18 their Con- to write urging people Conference Southern pending bills three oppose and Senators gressmen would, words, use their Congress before the state sedition “declaring a decision of Court “nullify” especially are con- They added “We inoperative.” laws experi- from our own we know cerned about this because people working against can be used ence how such laws in Most of these the South. bring integration about and to the loosely worded, state statutes are broad integration states is sedi- many of our Southern officials if little may happen every what imagine tion. You can a state is turned loose with prosecutor the South sedition law.” Atlanta, a hearing prior
Also to the Committee Congress against pro- group Negroes petitioned Atlanta the House Committee on posed investigation of petition Activities. That stated: Un-American are informed that the Committee on Un- “We Representatives American Activities of the House of Georgia, at planning hearings Atlanta, to hold early an date. Negroes
“As states and the residing Southern deeply District all involved Columbia, tion, money struggle spent been needed for that has a defensive battle. pointed
“It should also be out that these bills to validate state only part sweeping sedition laws are of a attack on the S.U. Supreme target Court. The real and ultimate is the Court decisions outlawing segregation. you your your write two Won’t senators congressman asking oppose 2646, H. R. them to S. S. against 977. Also ask them to stand firm all efforts to curb the Supreme you get important Court. It is write —and others to -immediately may up time. as the bills come write—
“Cordially yours, BRADEN, AND ANNE “CARL “Field Secretaries.” *19 equal rights people, full our struggle to secure and by development. we are much very concerned is at of the fact that there acutely “We are aware present shocking time a amount un-American only in states. To cite few activity our Southern homes, there examples, bombings are the only Negroes not schools, worship and houses of our citizens; against but also of Jewish terror Negroes Ga.; the continued refusal of Dawson, registrars many boards of Southern communities Negroes to activ- register vote; allow to ities of open White Citizens Councils encouraging Supreme defiance of the Court. United States “However, nothing there is the record House Committee indi- on Activities Un-American to cate if it that, South, comes it will these investigate things. all contrary, On of its activities in recent years is suggest it much more interested harassing labeling any as ‘subversive’ who citizen is inclined or an independent liberal thinker.
“For this reason, we are alarmed the prospect of this committee coming South to follow the lead Senator Eastland, investigat- as well several state ing committees, trying to attach the ‘subversive’ label liberal white Southerner who dares raise in support his voice of our democratic ideals.
“It recently was out four pointed Negro leaders who met with President Eisenhower that our one of great needs in the South to build lines of communi- cation Negio between Many white Southerners. people the South are if seeking to do this. But white people who support integration are labeled ‘subversive’ congressional committees, terror is spread among our white citizens and it becomes increasingly difficult to find people white who are citizenship. full efforts for support our willing to today for strive Negro, who white and Southerners, tremendous against at best democracy must work full of our every agency support of They need the odds. they It is unthinkable Federal Government. , by committees harassed instead be should Congress. States influence your to use urge you “We therefore on Un-American the House Committee see it can be the South —unless stays out of Activities *20 us help defend region to to come to our persuaded Supreme our oppose who those subversives against all, and rights civil policy of Court, our Federal brotherhood.” equality and American ideals of our prepar- with charged by was the Committee Petitioner later stated for the Committee ing petition; counsel or petition “precluding was purpose very hearings softening attempting preclude said have here.” The Committee proposed which we It said that integration. that it was not concerned with those “A names on that letter were names of number of with the Communist closely who had been associated not lie with Party. major part Their interest and does purposes Their interest lies with the integration. honest is what we are Party. of the Communist And . . . .” looking into refused to answer questions petitioner
Two of the which Conference, being the first one pertained Southern “Did in a here at that time?” you participate meeting quarters to be And the second one was “Who solicited made available to the Southern Conference Educational Fund?” petitioner
Two other which refused to answer Emergency related to the Civil Liberties The Committee. you first of these was “Are Emergency connected with the “Did The second one was Liberties Committee?” Civil your course of confer- Harvey you and O’Connor strategy develop plans Island, ences there Rhode Liber- Emergency for the Civil schedules outlining work charged that counsel The Committee ties Committee?” of the commu- “a hard-core member was Mr. O’Connor Liberties Emergency Civil head of conspiracy, nist Committee.” answer refused to question petitioner
A fifth which which I mentioned5 previously to the letter have related them to write urging people sent to the he his wife bills that opposing three Congressmen their Senators relat- question state sedition laws. would reinstate the Com- you was member of ing to this letter “Were your signature instant affixed Party you munist that letter?” final refused to petitioner
The sixth and Newsletter. Counsel answer concerned the Southern if with that letter. “anything asked had to do” freedom invading “I are now replied you Petitioner think object your .... I invasion of the free- press ques- press, dom of the also decline to answer grounds. only attacking tions on the same You are not *21 integrationists, you attacking press.” are
There is in nothing the record to show Emergency Southern Conference or the Civil Liberties Committee or the Southern Newsletter had the remotest Party. only connection with the Communist There is a charge the Committee there was such connec- charge tion. That amounts to little than more innuendo. particularly This is clear respect with relating petitioner’s membership the Communist Party. Having petitioner’s drawn attention to the letter
5 Supra,note 4. written,6 he had counsel for the Committee demanded to if you know was a Communist “the instant your signature affixed to that letter.” No foundation all question, had been laid for that and from the record purpose no it appears, hope save the of the Committee to link supported communism with letter which Nelson, in Pennsylvania supra. Court's decision v. This Court, passing pertinency on the issue Barenblatt supra, 123-125, emphasize was careful to that Barenblatt “had interrogate heard the Subcommittee Crowley the witness along the same lines as he, petitioner, was evidently questioned, to be and had listened to Crow- ley’s him testimony identifying as a member an former alleged organization student (Em- Communist . . . phasis added.) such No foundation was ever laid here.
One would wholly warranted saying, think, light Sweezy of the Watkins and decisions that a Com- mittee’s unsupported undisclosed information or surmise justify would not an investigation into matters that on their face seemed well within the First Amendment.7 If Watkins Sweezy anything, they decided decided that supra, See note 4. consequences “The that flow from this situation are manifold. place, In the reviewing first court is unable to make the kind of judgment by made Rumely, supra. Court United States v. allowed, Committee is essence, authority, to define its own to choose the direction and deciding focus of its In activities. what power do with the that has been them, conferred members may pursuant of the Committee act to motives that seem to them highest. decisions, to be the nevertheless, Their can lead to ruthless exposure private gather lives order .to data that is neither .in Congress desired impossible nor useful to it. Yet it is in this circumstance, with jeopardy, constitutional freedoms in to declare ranged beyond that the Committee has the area committed to it parent assembly its because boundaries are so nebulous.” 354 S., at *22 may domain Amendment inroads the First before communism connection with demonstrable some made, plainly shown and the matter be first be established must authority. of the Committee’s scope within the to be may will, requiring roam at Otherwise the Committee any group with his association to disclose individual with the Com- unpopular which is any publication with it communistic. by calling and which it can discredit mittee