*1 HUTCHESON STATES. UNITED Argued No. 46. May 14, November 1961. Decided argued peti- the cause for Bernays Frederick Wiener him on the briefs tioner. With were Charles H. Tuttle Joseph Tumulty, P. Jr. for the United argued the cause General Cox Solicitor *2 Attorney Assistant were him on the briefs States. With Rosenberg Monahan, Beatrice Miller, B. Philip General M. Feit. and Jerome the of judgment the announced
MR. Justice Harlan and opinion which and an Clark Court Justice Mr. join. Stewart Justice guilty found was jury, petitioner without a After a trial him hav- charging indictment all counts of an on 18 perti- refusing 1921 to answer ing by C. § violated U. S. 27,1958, by the Senate put to him on June nent in the Labor or Improper Activities Select Committee known as the McClellan Management commonly Field, imprison- six He sentenced to months' Committee. was by affirmed $500. ment fined The judgment certio- granted opinion. Court of without We Appeals, petitioner's challenges rari to constitutional consider his S. 866. conviction. U. by was established McClellan Committee
Senate in 1957 investigation and of study
“to conduct an the extent practices criminal or or improper other are, engaged or have in in of been, activities the field labor-management or groups organi- relations or ’ produce testify papers. 192. Refusal witness to or “§ “Every person having who been summoned as witness authority Congress give testimony produce of either House or to papers upon any any under House, matter either before or joint joint committee established or concurrent resolution of the two Congress, Houses of or committee of either House of Con- gress, willfully default, who, having appeared, makes or refuses to any question question answer pertinent inquiry, under shall be guilty deemed punishable by of a misdemeanor, a fine of more $1,000 imprisonment jail $100 than nor less than in a common for not less one nor than month more than twelve months.” employers or to the employees
zations of detriment public, employers employees, interests or any changes required and to determine whether are protect the laws of States order to United prac- such interests the occurrence of such 85th 1st Cong., tices activities.” Res. (1957).2 Sess. investigative which in 1957 and
Pursuing pattern an forepart 1958 had disclosed misuse of union funds personal officials,3 benefit various union 4, 1958, began hearings Washing- Committee on June of various ton, C., organizations, D. into the affairs includ- ing Brotherhood of Carpenters the United and Joiners *3 president. of America of which the was Ini- tially, sought inquire into the personal petitioner and financial interests of other officials of the Carpenters the World Wide York Press, Union New publishing by house owned Raddock, one Maxwell which publisher of the “Trade Union Courier.” More especially the Committee wished to learn union whether had funds been misused in publication by the Press of a biography petitioner’s father, Por- entitled “The trait of an Leader, American Labor L. William Hutche- son.” Senator McClellan, Chairman of Committee,
2 original provided The resolution that the Committee was to exist January 31, until Its term was thereafter extended for an by additional 26 months several 221, Senate Resolutions. S. Res. Cong., (1958); 85th 2d 44, Cong., ; Sess. S. Res. 86th (1959) 1st Sess. 249, (1960). S. Res. 2d Cong., 86th Sess. Rep. See 1417, S. No. Cong., (1958). 85th 2d Sess. See also S. Rep. 621, Cong., No. (1959); Rep. 86th 1st Sess. S. No. 86th Cong., (1960). 2d reports Sess. 2,032 pages covered sum 46,150 pages testimony during marizеd days hearings taken 1,526 appeared. Rep. pt. at which witnesses No. 86th Cong., (1960). 2d Sess. 868 would both and Raddock the petitioner announced testify.4 be called to of the as affairs to the 25 Raddock testified June
On publication and the Courier” “Trade Union appears pp. at opening statement, which full The Chairman’s Improper Hearings Committee on before the Select 11785-11786of the pt. 31, Cong., 2d Management Field, 85th Activities in the Labor or (hereinafter Hearings), (1958) is as follows: Sess. today operations of Mr. on the will hear witnesses “The committee large Press, York New Haddock, owner of the World Wide Maxwell printing plant, publisher of the Trade Courier. Union testify interests and as to financial will be called to “Witnesses organizations by and cer- labor Wide Press investments the World bonds of the unorthodox manner which tain labor officials and company handled. were issued and propriety labor offi- inquire
“The committee will also into company having Haddock’s cials’ financial interests in Maxwell union’s funds they sums of their same time that invested considerable subscriptions and in plant prints Union Courier in the the Trade paper. to that by the Trade were solicited “The in which advertisements manner subject investigation the committee
Union Courier has been the particularly in whether solicitors The committee is interested staff. represented organ of employed by it as the the Trade Union Courier representations. making false the AFL-CIO as well as other investigation “Preliminary certain finan- the staff has disclosed Carpenters cial the United Brotherhood transactions of require explanation. *4 very large expenditures of involves in
“One these transactions publication entitled, a ‘The Portrait of an American Labor of book Leader, William L. Hutcheson.’ Hutcheson, president is now of the United Brother-
"Maurice who questioned Carpenters, will be about this hood of and Raddock matter. say during may this committee
“The Chair the existence of great testimony regard- deal of we have had much information and a ing regarding personal gain funds, and the misuse of union financial by officials, profit expenditure and of such funds union benefit aspect labor-management pursuing that relations. and we are still had evidence of between have also considerable collusion “We however, he following day, book.5 On Hutcheson against self- privilege Fifth Amendment claimed the matter to which to another respect incrimination with That matter related to had turned. the Committee “fix” of union funds or influence to possible use in Indi- County, conducted Lake investigation, criminal alleged an scheme grand jury, a state into ana, in and two Indiana, defraud the State Blaier Carpenters Union, 0. William other officials Chapman, allegedly implicated. and Frank M. were in to defraud had been revealed alleged scheme testimony given before a Subcommittee the Senate during May on Public and June 1957. Works peti- had in June 1956 testimony That disclosed that their tioner, Blaier, Chapman together bought, had capacities, property individual certain real Lake it, at County $20,000, shortly and had thereafter sold profit $78,000, highway to the State of Indiana for whereby purposes, pursuant agreement construction to an Right-of-Way in the Indiana deputy Department paid profit.6 one-fifth of The ensuing grand jury proceeding had been August terminated without having indictment been an found, with announce- county Holovachka, ment Metro prosecutor, “jurisdiction” lacking over the matter was Lake profit and that the entire had been $78,000 County, in February returned to the Thereafter, State. management they profit expense and union where officials both at the pay of the men who work and the dues. particular instance,
“In this there is indication that the union membership again imposed upon by have been transactions that have occurred that we will look into as the evidence unfolds before us.” 5Hearings, 11932-11995, 12000-12006. 6Investigation Highway Right-of-Way Acquisition —State
Indiana, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Pub Works, (1957). Senate, Cong., lic 85th 1st U. S. Sess. *5 Chapman indicted and were Blaier, petitioner,
the transaction.7 County on this Marion adjoining of Raddock questioning from the It is apparent for McClellan Committee chief counsel Raddock, the indicating information had officials of Teamsters petitioner, Blaier, and several whereby a plan Holovachka had been involved Union County grand drop jury had the Lake been induced explained and Committee counsel to Rad- investigation, to learn dock that the Committee was interested whether that purpose.8 union funds or influence had been used for Raddock, plea In addition to whose self-incrimination respect questions episode all relating with to that respected by Committee, and two witnesses Blaier, Union, connected with an Indiana Local of the Teamsters secretary-treasurer Joseph Michael its P. Sawochka attorney, Sullivan also examined before its were the Com- mittee on 26. each June Sawochka and Sullivan refused any questions relating answer the termination of the County grand jury basing Lake proceedings, Sawochka his refusal the Fifth privilege on Amendment self- incrimination, and iftvoking attorney-client Sullivan as privilege insofar related to discus- sions Sawochka. Both claims were honored Committee.
Blaier, questions regarding who was asked no Lake County real estate transaction refused itself,9 to answer question arrangements whether he had made “any us Government’s brief informs and his two codefendants, Chapman, Blaier and were convicted on the Marion County indictment in November and that the is now conviction pending appeal Supreme in the Court of Indiana. Note infra. 9 copy A accepted reference, of the state indictment was policy” Chairman announced that it was a "rule or of the Com interrogate mittee not to matters about for which the witness was pending under Hearings, state indictment. *6 you fix in Indiana.” any
Mr. Max Raddock to case personal solely He that the “relates to question asserted activity this com- pertinent any not to which matter, might and ... aid investigate authorized to it mittee is in in I am case which under indict- prosecution the the ruling on Chairman, without the ment.” Committee might privi- the claim the stated that witness objection, Although Blaier did not lege against self-incrimination. by thereafter do he never directed the so, was Committee question.10 to this answer by
The last witness was examined the who investigation petitioner, on the who phase this its was questions was He answered concern- called June 27. ing by peti- Raddock of the publicаtion biography the father, commissioned the by Carpenters tioner’s Union expense at a $310,000. total turned When grand to subject County investiga- of the Lake jury however, petitioner questions. answer tion, any refused to as Being repre- under the same indictment Blaier and sented by counsel, petitioner’s grounds same refusal as were same those which had been advanced day by question] solely before Blaier: “it relates [the activity a personal pertinent matter, this committee is authorized to and also it investigate, question The Committee’s chief counsel stated that the did not subject steps relate to the matter of the state indictment but “to present conspiracy [prevent?] taken in later in an indictment County, attorney argued Hearings, Lake Ind.” Blaier’s prosecution that the answer could Indiana case be used prove question conspiracy. the continuation Whether the not, involved the state indictment or the Committee’s con counsel might questions ceded Blaier “not want to answer the on the grounds may tend him, it but not he is under incriminate because asking questions dealing indictment that I am indict may ruled, ment.” The “It chairman borderline ease. I am unable to determine this The witness exercise it at time. can his privilege.” Hearings, 12074. prose- aid the to relate to or might
relates or be claimed I am under indictment case which cution claim No process of due of law.” thus be denial against self-incrimination privilege Amendment the Fifth upon which the any stage. objection, This was made interroga- of his throughout phase petitioner stood was Committee, tion, overruled each of the 18 аnswer, and refused to directed, upon matter the indictment constituting subject *7 convicted.12 which he has been 11Hearings, 12115. pay Count 1: “Has he received from the union [Mr. Raddock] your you performed as an individual?”
ment for acts in behalf and for charged you, in the indict 2: “Have unrelated to this offense Count Raddock, against you, engaged of Mr. and ment now the services performance you paid him funds for the of those have out of union you avoiding preventing services, or an indictment to aid and assist you being criminally prosecuted being for for from found or any mentioned in this indictment?” other offense other than that you pay Count 8: “Did engage him the services of Mr. Raddock and directly funds, contact, either for those services out of union to given indirectly, county prosecuting attorney, Holovachka, you Metro, County, Gary, name Ind.?” Count “Have Lake 4- paid personal funds services ren Max C. Raddock out of union you any past years?” dered to time within the Count 5: “Have at you pay any used union funds Max Raddock for services ren C. you wholly any personally, dered disassociated matters out from pending charge 6: he which the criminal arose?” Count “Was Chicago] business the union there on union for which had [in responsibility payment?” paid Count 7: “Was Mr. Raddock trip, expenses paid by on that of his union funds while he was Chicago union business?” 8: “You were out in at the on Count your expenses Chicago trip time?” 9: on that same Count “Were paid by you Chicago the union?” 10: “Were out in at that Count you time on business?” Count 11: “Do know Mr. James union you arrangement Hoffa?” 12: “Did make an with Mr. Hoffa Count perform you your support that he was to tasks for in return for on question being of his ousted from the A. F. L.-CIO?” Count 13: you telephoned your “Isn’t it a fact that Mr. Hoffa from hotel in Chicago August 12, on 1957?” Count “And tele- wasn’t that 14: support made to us arguments now many
The challenges. reducible two constitutional reversal are petitioner questioning it is contended that First, pend- criminal then charges germane matters the state Clause of to the Due Process ing against him was offensive Second, argued it is the Fifth Amendment. constitutionally reserved Committee invaded domains Judiciary, its and the Executive no petitioner’s “exposure” and served simply aimed discussed we legislative For now to be purpose. reasons availing. challenge decide that neither I. Process.
Due interrogation is said to have been Committee’s respects: (1) placed unfair in it fundamentally two position where, silence, only in a save for his his to the lay prejudicing choice between defense state (2) it committing was a indictment, perjury; “pretrial” charges state before the Committee. *8 premises The first of rests on two propositions these we respecting law, accept purposes Indiana for the p,n ensuing attempt discussion: admissions of “fix” grand jury investigation could have been used petitioner the state trial as evidence con- State, guilt (see, g., sciousness of e. Davidson v. 205 Ind. 564, N. E. a claim 569, 376, 378); 187 of the federal self- paid phone funds, you telephone call in fact out of union call that August you made to him on 15: also 12?” Count “Do know Mr. Sawoehka the Brotherhood of Teamsters?” Count 16: “Isn’t it you Plymate representative a fact had who is a telephone, your secretary brotherhood, telephone, and Mr. Sawoehka your August from room 1957?” Count “And 17: isn’t it a telephone telephone paid fact that that bill and that was call out of you union have funds?” Count 18: “Did business with local Gary, of the Teamsters Ind.?” also Committee could privilege before that incrimination impeach testi petitioner’s at least to used, so have been (see trial Crick mony the stand at the state had he taken State, 2d 586, 592-593, 12 266, 269). N. E. more Ind. v. use of respecting Indiana’s future contention an incriminatory once encounters obstacle answers Mur Henkel, and v. Hale v. 201 U. United States dock, that possible S. 141. Those cases establish 284 U. ground is a under state law not self-incrimination in a federal accord inquiry; to answer refusing against self-incrim ingly, privilege the Fifth Amendment Manifestly, ination not circumstanced. will avail one so this doctrine is no less relevant here either constitutional merely actually petitioner under, because the was not his with, threatened state indictment at the time of like appearance Committee, or because of the before lihood have even respected, Committee would though required existing do so law, privilege not under claim one been made. had
Recognizing obstacle, petitioner asks us to over- Murdock, asserting rule that both decisions Hale misapprehensions rested on as to American and earlier English law.13 But we not need consider those conten-
13Among things, other v. contends that both Hale misreading Henkel and were United States Murdock founded on a Bank, of an Court, earlier decision of this States v. Saline United argued Pet. which was delivered Justice Chief Marshall. It is proposition that Sаline Bank for the stands that the constitutional privilege against may be self-incrimination invoked in a federal court divulged may prosecution. if the information aid state It abundantly clear, however, that Bank Saline stands for no constitu merely principle tional It whatever. was a reassertion of the ancient equity may equity discovery rule that a court will order subject prosecution. party fact, criminal In decision *9 support proposition by cited in of that an esteemed member very Story, Equity, Court that decided the case. 2 Commentaries on 1494, (1836). 1n. § having claimed the Fifth for never
tions, Committee, aspect this privilege before Amendment not to him now. challenge open is process due his Quinn States, S. v. 349 U. This is not a case like United States, where United Emspak or U. privilege is was invoked there doubt whether wit- Emspak, as was noted in at “the “If,” witness. unequivocally and intelligently objection ness waives if on the witness Clause, based the Self-Incrimination he request refuses committee state whether relies later its Clause, the Self-Incrimination he cannot invoke protection prosecution refusing in a for contempt for In question.” instance, petitioner, answer that at side, unequivocally repeat- with counsel his and edly any reliance on the Fifth Amendment disclaimed privilege.14
14Typical following: are such disclaimers understand, very now, you “The Chairman. I it are clear invoking privilege? not the fifth amendment invoking right, sir, “Mr. Hutcheson. am That I not it. exercising privilege? “The ChairmaN. You not are “Mr. Hutcheson. sir. No, juris- question challenging
“The Chairman. You are and the you diction the committee the reasons have stated only? those reasons Yes,
“Mr. Hutcheson. sir. right. understanding “The All We about have clear Chairman. Hearings, that.” 12116. And, again, invoking privilege
“The fifth Chairman. amendment, you only solely upon you stand the statement have supra.'] pp. 605-606, read?” [See Yes, “Mr. Hutcheson. sir. you exercising that, And privilege
“The Chairman. are not by answering, might you? a truthful answer tend incriminate
“(Witness counsel.) conferred Hearings, “Mr. Hutcheson. sir.” No, Hearings, Further disclaimers of the same tenor will be found at 12119, 12121-12122, explain and 12124. Petitioner did not *10 by of his waiver escape the effect cannot
Petitioner his to answer were based that refusals arguing, does, as he of upon and not claim grounds, process” on “due course, of agree, “privilege.” We “subject to” right to is all relevant inquire committee’s governmental placed the Constitution “limitations Bill of limitations of the including “the relevant action,” any appearance hearings why pains avoid he went to such However, against fol- invoking privilege self-incrimination. the colloquy of the Committee lowing between and a member light on his motivation: sheds some may Chairman, I ask or two “Senator ErviN. Mr. one along line and I will subside ? then Hutcheson, you provisions AFL- with the of the
“Mr. are familiar concerning who invoke CIO ethical code officers affiliated unions you? amendment; the fifth aren’t Yes, “Mr. HutchesoN. sir. In to state
“Senator that connection I would like Erven. my may opinion though your law, is not be counsel’s. The it only may recognizing right testify reason for that a man not concerning against matters involved in indictment him arises out an probably strongest of the fact that is kind of indictment may anything may say in be con- evidence that he reference it only a man him, strued to incriminate and that reason that has right answering to refrain from matters about an indictment say may may fact that what he about those matters tend incrimi- nate him. you you
“Therefore, Hutcheson, what don’t realize that are doing you seeking expressed In is that are to avoid an violation? words, you seeking get other are the benefit of the fifth amend- invoking you ment without it so that will not run the risk of com- mitting an offense of the A. ethical code F. L.-CIO?
“(The counsel.) witness conferred with his Sir, following “Mr. I have been advice of counsel Hutcheson. grounds on the outlined me. Well, you
“Senator are concerned that there shall no Ervin. provisions apparent your part actual or violation on of the concerning F.A. code of ethics officers L.-CIO union who invoke when conduct, fifth amendment asked about their official aren't you? 1212¿H2125. Yes, Hearings, sir.” “Mr. Hutcheson. States, 109, 112; 360 U. United Rights,” Barenblatt the self- beyond protection go limitations that such id., Ill— Amendment, of the Fifth clause incrimination limitation does on one such and that nonreliance surely equally it is *11 another. But on reliance preclude a con- validity particular here, as where, clear that availability in depends part objection stitutional raised before adequately be both must another, fully preserved be if former is to committee inquiring in for review this Court. toy a witness would enable
To hold otherwise to the in a manner obnoxious committee a clearly are entitled to be committees rule that such right asserts a on which a witness grounds apprised States, supra, Emspak v. United of refusal to answer. States, at 123-124. supra, cf. Barenblatt v. United 195; an apt furnishes illustration present case indeed The Fifth Amend- policy respecting to its this. Pursuant “state” respect claims with self-incrim- privilege ment Murdock still on the (even though with Hale and ination was at done the Committee so), books it need not have process objec- due pains petitioner’s to discover whether claim. Had he made such privilege tion included would there is little doubt but that the Committee claim, express only petitioner’s honored it. It was after have privilege proceeded disclaimer of the that the Committee process objection. to disallow his due Now to consider aspect petitioner’s the self-incrimination due claim is to him would in process open require still effect say that, despite petitioner’s unequivocal disclaimer, us to the Committee should nonetheless have taken his due subsuming as process objection privilege also claim.15 cannot so consider the situation. We press did While not Blaier to answer relating County grand jury proceedings to the Lake he had after grounds by peti- refused to do so on the same as those advanced use possible the contention that also find untenable We privilege against trial of a claim of the federal the state asserting petitioner either excused from self-incrimination independent sup- furnishes it before the Committee or as is challenge. not, port process for his due Whether reasons, for obvious Government, but, intimated of such a claim the State’s use petitioner, might prevent- directly impeachment purposes or for if proposi- For such a able, need not now be considered. Jersey, 211 Twining New arguable tion is the faсe v. let California, 46, 51, and Adamson 332 U. S. U. S. v. Schweitzer, 371; alone v. Feldman v. Knapp U. Henkel, States, 487; supra, United Hale v. U. S. Murdock, should supra, United States its consideration day. time appropriate event await another had claimed that, this instance *12 privilege Committee, upon before the would been have review of his state when we would known conviction, have if exactly use, any, what the State had made of the federal claim. To legitimate congressional thwart the exercise of power, on the basis of a conjecture may that State later abuse an upon federally individual’s reliance assured rights, require would of us a constitutional adjudication contrary to principles well-established of ripeness and justiciability. Mitchell, Cf. United Public Workers v. 330 U. S. 89-90.
There remains discussion on the due process chal- lenge, the contention that the Committee’s inquiry was “pretrial” of the state indictment. Insofar as this proposition suggests that the congressional infected the later state proceedings, the answer to it is found what we have just respecting said the conten- tioner, nothing there is to indicate that this resulted from the Com- understanding grounds mittee’s that those included a claim of the privilege. Fifth Amendment the Com- self-incrimination before
tion that a claim of If proceedings. in the state could been used mittee have hearings petitioner’s rendered public the Committee’s dealt should not be unfair, challenge state trial such its consid- proper The time for juncture. with at this To state conviction. be on review of the eration would the claim pass upon require it now would us determine of what tran- entirely ignorant are dark, since we spired at state trial. pendency the mere argued
Nor can it be this constitutionally closed ipso state indictment facto may “It interrogation to the avenue of Committee. compel authority to Congress is without conceded aiding prosecution purpose disclosures for the directly authority body, of that pending suits; but the disclosures through committees, require pertinent its abridged is not because power aid of own constitutional its of use may also be sought the information to be elicited States, in such suits.” v. United U. Sinclair establishing suggest absurd to It would be purpose Congress was actuated this committee the particular still less that of prosecutions, to aid state in Sin the observation pertinency individual. The in this circumstance that by the clair is not lessened criminal, involved proceeding instance state States, F. Delaney v. United rather than civil. Cf. 2d 107, 114.16 peti suggestion dissent that made in *13 power committee of a “outside the tioner refused to answer were they because Clause (post, 638) the Due Process p. under
to ask” be proceedings cannot judicial pending then touched on matters underlying this reasoning accepted First: reasons. several legislative encroach inquiries constituted proposition these is that hardly be reasoning can such But judicial ment function. existing judicial proceed germane to inquiries may be limited to calling for answers inquiries ings; surely apply as well it would judicial the witness might prejudice used to future II.
Exposure. There is petitioner’s also no merit contention that simply expose” petitioner Committee undеrtook “to States, Watkins United exposure,” “for the sake of 178, origins U. S. 200. The of the McClellan Commit- products tee, endeavors, of its both belie that challenge, nothing present in the record of the hear- ings points contrary conclusion. gainsaid
It cannot be that legislation, whether civil or criminal, labor-management field is within the competence of Congress power under its regulate inter- proceeding. If were process” such the reach of “due it would turn a privilege against witness’ self-operating self-incrimination into a congressional inquiry, restraint on Wigmore, (3d see ed.), Evidence 2268; p. 20, infra, pro and would in § effect tanto obliterate the need protection. that constitutional only Second: The support decision relied on in propo- of this broad Thompson, sition is Kilbourn v. 103 U. S. which because of its language” severely “loose discredited, g., has been e. United States v.
Rumely, U. S. and which cannot well be taken to stand for pervasive principles presently (Post, for which it is relied on. pp. 630, 632-636.) most, At authority Kilbourn is proposi- for the Congress tion that constitutionally inquire cannot private “into the affairs of government” individuals who hold no officeunder the when investigation legislation “could result in subject no valid on the to which the S., tangible referred.” 103 U. at 195. The fruits of the labors of the (pp. 615-617, infra) McClellan Committee show that such is not the case here. hardly Third: impairment It seems an pro- of “individual liberties Rights”
tected (post, p. 630) the Bill of to limit a witness who process” makes objection such a “due scope privilege granted self-incrimination the Fifth Amendment. If neither the Due Process Clause of the Fоurteenth pro- Amendment using hibits the State from the witness’ answer nor the Self-Incrim- ination Clause of the prohibits Fifth Amendment the Federal asking question, Government from it is difficult to understand
615 general legislative state commerce. Committee’s of its First made at the conclusion recommendations, 2d Rep. 1417, Cong., Sess. Report, Interim S. No. 85th statutes (1958), embodied two remedial 450-453 were Dis- Plans by Congress: enacted the Welfare and Pension the 997, Labor-Manage- closure Act of 72 Stat. 1958, Stat. 519. Reporting 1959, ment and Disclosure Act of of first of statutes is attributable The enactment the these primarily findings to the and recommendations several Subcommittees of the Committee on Labor and Senate 2d 2-3 Welfare, Rep. 1440, Cong., Public No. 85th Sess. (1958). But bill the passage the was stimulated hearings then being gathered information 7197- Cong. McClellan Committee. See Rec. 7198, 7233, 7337-7338, 7509-7510, 7521 (1958). it can how be said that the Due Process of the Fifth Clause Amend- prohibits may ment because answer be used State. although congressional inquiry
Fourth: It should be noted that subject indictment, ques- was related matter of the state petitioner directly tions that were asked did not bear on his guilt charges. or innocence of state Indiana’s concern was not misused; with whether union or influence had been indeed there funds suggestion alleged bribery highway no Indiana personal profits official was consummated with funds other than the reaped by and others from their unlawful transactions. hand, Congress’ whether, date, On the other concern was on some later proceedings union funds had been used to stifle criminal that had brought against petitioner personally. payments been How such made, they made, certаinly were if were fact would be a consid- reporting eration in the establishment of a federal and disclosure system for union funds. Finally, power adequate possible proposed” “the least to the end phrase Dunn, (post, pp. 632, 636, in Anderson 6 Wheat. 638) scarcely presented by upon bears the issue this case. That any expression used in the Anderson case not in with connection thing having permissible scope congressional inquiry, do to with the solely respect punishing power” but to “the extent inherently Congress. possessed by Id., at 230-231. *15 Act and Disclosure Labor-Management Reporting for remedial to the need response a direct
of 1959 was testimony before by legislation federal disclosed impre- not by This is made clear McClellan Committee. is legislative history; proof drawn from cise inferences Act it declares (b) in the itself. statute Section in investigations “from finding Congress a recent to be there been management fields, labor and have dis- corruption, of trust, number of instances of breach other rights employees, and regard of the of individual high responsibility failures observe standards of supplementary further and require ethical conduct which and House legislation.” 73 Stat. 519. The Senate Reports heavily findings made the McClellan lean on pro- in the justify particular provisions Committee to Cong., 2, posed No. 1st Sess. Rep. bills. See 86th Cong., 6, 9, 10, Rep. 13-17 H. R. No. 86th (1959); 2, 6, 9, 11-13, 76, (1959). 1st Sess. gave Committee,
The resolution which birth to this in light proves when considered of the fruits of its labors, beyond . . . any doubt “that the committee members serving as representatives parent [were] in assembly collecting legislative pur- information for a States, supra, Watkins v. United pose.” at This 200. is not a involving case an and fluctuating indefinite dele- gation permits legislative which “in essence, committee its own authority, define choose the direction Id., focus of its activities.” This to investigate directed “criminal or other improper practices in ... labor-management field of relations.” Deciding whether acts that are made criminal state ought law brought also to be within a federal prohibition, if, as here, subject a permissible one for federal turns regulation, entirely legislative on inquiry. And it is this which the engaged Senate was when it assigned fact-finding duty to the Select Committee Management the Labor or Improper Activities Field.
Moreover, indicating this record is barren of evidence own, for reasons of its Committee, undertook to “expose” petitioner. transcript scrupulous
First: The discloses most policy adherence the announced Committee asking any questions a witness under state indictment “on matter subject involved the indictment.” Note 9, particular This supra. solely indictment related to activ- ity in engaged and others been had capacities, their individual not on behalf of labor *16 organization. The Committee’s concern was not whether petitioner had fact defrauded State Indiana of $78,000 concluding a dishonest sale or he had whether corrupted a state personally employee. interest, Its entirely within to province by was entrusted it was to Senate, discover whether and how funds of the of Carpenters Brotherhood or of the Teamsters Union17 had in a conspiracy been used to prosecutor bribe state сharges to drop made who were individuals also officers of the Brotherhood of Carpenters, and whether of union influence officials had been exerted to that end. If suspicions founded, they these were would have remedial supported legislation federal for future, even they though might at the same time have warranted a separate prosecution state for obstruction of justice, or tending The Committee had to show information Team Union, purchased sters friendly, with whose officers was $40,000 Gary, Indiana, approximately some real estate in worth $3,800. corporation The seller in this transaction awas which then proceeded purchase failing Holovaehka’s interest in another cor poration substantially an excess amount of its value. See Report Improper Second Interim of the Select Committee on Activi Rep. Management Field, pt. 2, ties in the Labor No. 86th Cong., (1959). 1st Sess. 558-560 County indictment Marion trial of the usable at the
been guilt. pp. 607-608. Supra, of consciousness as evidence engaged which is committee surely But grind to investigation need not legitimate legislative in a might poten- inquiries to its responses a halt whenever proceeding, in some distinct tially harmful to a witness be crime or 295, or when States, supra, at v. United Sinclair Daugherty, U. S. wrongdoing disclosed, McGrain v. 135, 179-180. sought to elicited information The
Second: inquiry. pertinent legislative was Committee and how union investigating whether was Committee devising legis- the interest misused, had been funds irregular Because practices. deal with lative scheme to questions, to answer and because petitioner’s refusal testify similar other witnesses refusal County grand proceedings, Lake regard jury to the to learn whether union funds or able drop had persuade influence been used Holovachka proceedings. those finding
Petitioner contends that the Committee’s in its Report “used by Interim that Raddock had been Second attempt as a fixer in an to head-off the indict- Hutcheson . . .” shows that his ment Hutcheson tes- [and others] *17 any timony purpose was not needed other than to him. But prejudice embarrass this overlooks the fact that the Committee had been able to obtain no informa- County grand proceedings tion whatever on the Lake jury from of other of witnesses reason their refusals subject.18 on it testify Moreover, to does not lie with 18 meagerness finding subject of the Committee’s on this stands findings in marked biography, contrast its Hutcheson with petitioner respect to which the and the other witnesses had testified comparative pages with freedom. Whereas of the Second Interim Report summarizing regarding pub are devoted to evidence only pages biography, County six lication related to the Lake say congressional this committee should Court to when for its acquired be deemed to have sufficient information legislative purposes. interrogation The Committee’s was within the
Third: express of If authorizing terms its resolution. the Com- bringing Congress’ mittee to be at all was effective attention practices labor-management certain field which be it subject prohibitions, should federal neces- if sarily had to ask some witnesses truth- questions which, fully answered, might jeopardy them in state place prosecution. interrogatiоn is Unless met with valid constitutional “the objection scope power [con- gressional] inquiry penetrating ... is as and far-reach- ing as potential power appropriate enact and under States, the Constitution.” supra, Barenblatt v. United at 111. And it is not is question until the asked that the interrogator can know whether it will be or will answered be met some deny with constitutional objection. To the right question Committee to ask the would be to turn an “option refusal” into a “prohibition of inquiry,” 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.) and to congres- § limit sional inquiry to areas in those which there is not the slightest possibility prosecution of state for information may be divulged. upon congres- Such a restriction sional investigatory powers should not be countenanced. episodes upon petitioner
The three relies as evidencing legitimate from departure these sustaining fall far concerns short what is sought them. to made of The first of these proceedings. Report Second Interim of the Select Committee on Improper Management Field, Rep. Activities the Labor or No. 621, pt. 2, Cong., 533-550, (1959). 86th 1st Sess. 554-560 It is rele- regard respect vant to observe that ten of the subsequently possible which the indicted related to the use purpose suppressing County of union funds for the the Lake grand jury proceeding. 1,2,3,4, 5, 6,7, 9,14,17. note See Counts *18 the hear- outset the statement counsel’s into,” being inquired matter subject
ings explaining “the trans- to the real estate he referred in the course which County indictment, in the Marion action involved finding in out interest whether explained the Committee’s bringing had been used union or influence funds grand investigation of the County jury Lake an end the already an has The propriety matter.19 such supra. Pp. 617-618, been discussed. the to the episode is statement
The second Chairman’s County proceedings Lake effect all the facts as the that fur- developed committee”; had “not been the that by and that the “exposure” made”; ther of them “should be part In this statement was: relevant inquiring presen- “We are into the situation in connection grand jury County, Ind.; tation before the the intervention Lake by matter, part union into and the certain officials played secretary- Sawoehka, himself, Mr. Hutcheson Teamsters, a, local treasurer of 142 of the Mr. James Hoff president international Teamsters.
“The Chairman. Is there some that either union information funds were used in course or of these transactions positions high of official influence union officials was used in con- alleged illegal this operation? nection with Kennedy. along “Mr. lines, We have information both Mr. Chair- man, only expendi- not but with the influence also connection ture of union funds.
“The Chairman. That is interest of this committee in a trans- alleged action kind kind, of this transaction of this to ascertain again money being dues whether funds or of union members is misappropriated, improperly spent, or whether officialsin unions are using position coerce, any way intimidate, illegally their or in promote public transactions where the interest is involved. you Raddock, background
“Mr. have heard a statement. That evidence, information, however, but it is which the committee has, regarding this out undertaking matter there. committee is inquire pursuit given into mandate it creating Hearings, resolution thе committee.”
621 ready help” stood to “assist and Indiana if it in the matter.20 chose to interest itself We can see nothing statement, in this which was made after the Com- beyond a ended, perfectly mittee’s had normal part put on Chairman offer to the Committee transcript disposal at the of the Indiana law enforcement if they wished avail authorities to of it.21 themselves The final is occurrence the so-called Committee “find- petitioner’s ing” alleged as to use of Raddock as a “fixer” an County grand “head-off” indictment the Lake jury. (cf. the basis for that “finding” Whatever note 18, supra), say must that we its mere inclusion in an official report to the Senate of the Committee’s activities fur-
20The statement full was : testimony high “The further indicates that certain officials both Carpenters Union, largest the Teamsters and the two of the unions country, help in the with of Mr. assistance Raddock were conspiracy justice involved in a to subvert in the State Indiana. regarding undoubtedly “All the conspiracy facts this have not been developed by the committee. exposure
“Further we believe can and should be We made. will glad help to assist and law enforcement officials the State of they they Indiana if determine that would interest themselves Hearings, matter.” contempt At the explained trial Senator McClellan his statement as follows: legislative performed “Our function had seeking been informa- regarding improper
tion crimes and activities. Some evidence had presented indicating possibility been involving further crime possibly large defendant and officers It another union. has practice cooperate been our with state and federal officials where developed respect is having evidence before us with a crime legislative purpose been committed. Our tois search out and find if crime has been committed.
“My statement here is to the effect that if the state officialsdesired any testimony pursue developed, cooperate that we had we would them and make record available to them.” Report, Rep. pt. 2, Second Interim No. Cong., 86th 1st (1959). Sess. 592 that Com- charge indeed for reed a slender
nishes “exposure.” in unconstitutional engaged mittee as just observe appropriate it conclusion, In Congress to enter fields forbids the Constitution imposes it Judiciary, to the''Executive reserved inter- lightly reciprocal duty Judiciary the powers. legitimate exercise of its Congress’ fering with *20 care, conclude this case with we Having scrutinized be Appeals must judgment of the Court Affirmed. and Frankfurter Black Justice Justice Mr. Mr. in the of this case. part took no decision no in consideration part took Justice White of this case. or decision Brennan, in concurring the result.
Mr. Justice
Appeals,
join
judgment affirming
I
in the
the Court
opinion.
Brother Harlan’s
my
but not
assured
that it would
The Select Committee
respect
upon
privilege
his
his Fifth Amendment
reliance
against
self-incrimination,
petitioner deliberately
but
and explicitly
privilege.
chose not to exercise that
In
circumstance,
the case is not one for reconsidera
Henkel,
tion Hale
201
v.
U. S.
and United States
Murdock,
I adhere,
v.
The
constitutional claims find no support,
view,
my
in Kilbourn v. Thompson,
contrast to Kilbourn. The Select Committee seeking to aid in drafting adopt- factual material ing of legislation remedial misuse offi- curb union legislative cials of union unquestionably proper funds — purpose. The pending County Marion indictment did misuse of union alleged bribery involve funds but the of a state official connection with sale of land to the *21 State. However, congressional the inquiry and the state prosecution paths crossed when the learned that union funds might corrupt have been used in a attempt forestall an earlier indictment in another Lake, for the same county, alleged bribery. seems It interrogation me the of obvious Committee’s the petitioner about the use union funds to forestall that stray beyond range indictment did not the of the Com- legislative purpose. may that, mittee’s valid It under be law, Indiana although evidence of the not essen- attempt, tial, would be at admissible the trial under Marion the County hardly indictment.1 But this converts the Com-
1 We are informed that the was convicted under the appearance indictment at a trial held some 29 months after his before Committee, the but we are not pro informed whether the Committee ceedings part proofs were of the State’s or otherwise affected the trial. any Clearly, however, contention as to unfairness in his state trial must abide review of that conviction.
624 legislative into a attempt about inquiry mittee’s indictment, County Marion trial of the of the rehearsal Kilbourn’s condemnation within bringing inquiry functions. legislative usurpation judicial prosecu- criminal inquiry and a congressional When the public must accommodate Congress tion paths, cross public with the legislative inquiry in legitimate interest a fair trial. securing witness Whether interest must be determined accommodation has been made proper petitioner’s appear- vantage point from of the time of before the Committee. ance decisions, g., e. that some of our recent Any thought States, 109; v. Barenblatt v. 360 U. S. Wilkinson United States, States, Braden United 399; S. v. United U. holding vitality our Watkins U. S. weakened States, congressional S. that the 178, 187, v. United U. in itself; must re power of is not “an end it be of, legitimate task to, lated furtherance strong Congress,” dispelled by today’s expression is Investiga to that principle. continued adherence vital or solely aggrandize investigator tion conducted punish investigated, by publicity either prose is cution, indefensible —it exceeds exposure exposure is power: lеgislative the sake of inquiry. power investigate must not confused with
“[T]he Quinn of law . . . v. powers enforcement .” States, 155, 161; United United U. see States Icardi, Supp. 140 F. hand, long On other so as subject matter is not “an area in Congress Quinn, supra, forbidden to fact legislate,” the mere *22 may inquiry that the conduct under have some relevance of a subject pending to the matter state indictment can- not absolutely congressional foreclose inquiry. Surely it that a fair cannot be said criminal trial and a full power interests defy are inquiry accommodation. The inter- responsible protecting both these vital courts, indeed give scrutiny to assure that ests, will closest and that legislative being pursued was purpose aiding prosecution. criminal inquiry was not aimed may realm of there inquiry, Even within the relevant situations in fairness would demand which fundamental pend- immediately until after an postponement inquiry ing trial, taking testimony executive session— grant or that State continuance the trial. On what is before us I think that fail show now, the facts inquiry proceed working that this was unable without chal- Examining serious likelihood of unfairness. lenged questioning the full context legislation its relevance to leads process, me to conclude that was not questioned exposure’s sake. began hearings
The Select Committee its in 1957. The engaged gathering from the start in facts legislation which led the conclusion that labor requiring organizations report and disclose matters about various their operation necessary. Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 519, Many resulted. features of that statute from stem facts learned the Select Committee’s examination into the affairs of several labor organizations, though drafting was the work of the Senate on Subcommittee Labor and the House Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relat ions.2 The and their parent Subcommittees Standing Committees framed the considering statute after findings. See, g., Select Committee’s e. Rep. No. 1684, Cong., 85th 2d Sess. 1 S. Rep. 187, 86th No. Cong., (1958); 1st Sess. H. (1959); Rep. R. No. 741, Cong., 86th 1st
2The membership throughout Select Committee’s included two members Senate Subcommittee Labor, Kennedy Senators Goldwater, participated who actively in the work of both Committees. *23 1st Cong., 10, Doc. No. 86th also S. see (1959);
Sess. Commit- out those reported (1959). The bills Sess. for the provide was purpose that their “[t]o tees recited transactions financial of certain and disclosure reporting and organizations of labor practices and administrative in the administration abuses employers, prevent to standards organizations, provide to by labor trusteeships organiza- officers of labor election of respect to the of the Preamble paragraph . .” The second tions . . Congress further following: “The included the the bills manage- labor and investigations finds, from recent of instances been a number fields, ment there have disregard rights trust, corruption, of breach of high and failures to observe employees, other individual conduct which responsibility standards of and ethical . . . .” supplementary legislation and require further (1959); see 8342, Cong., S. 1555 and H. R. 86th 1st Sess. (1958). 2d 3974, Cong., also S. 85th Sess. hearings on opening
At the of the Select Committee’s McClellan, February 26, 1957, Chairman, Senator noted union petitioner’s as one of those that the Com- 2. investigate. Hearings, Although mittee intended hearings during the Committee’s the 16 months before they very reached full, they were had touched upon the only unions, petitioner’s affairs few and was only the fourth inquired particular union into with a view toward discovering misusing modes of union funds. See Hearings, 2581, 3221, and 11786. Petitioner was subpoenaed May 20, on appear before the Com- 2; appearance mittee on June his own put was off to June 27, although testimony of other witnesses was taken com- mencing on June Three months before was he sub- poenaed, the state indictment him was handed up, February 18,1958. He was not tried until Novem- ber about 29 months after his appearance before At the time Committee. he appeared, question- efforts to directly relevant Committee’s ing ,the legislation within Congress to secure inform itself enact, correcting just aimed at congressional power *24 petitioner which was questioned. such evils as those about labor-management and 1958, reporting Earlier in June bill, Bill, Kennedy-Ives reported was out disclosure on and Public and the Senate Labor Welfare Committee August in in passed by passage but it failed of Senate, Cong. 10657, 11486-11487, the House. 104 Rec. 18287- 20, January 18288. Therefore a bill was reintroduced on Kennedy-Ervin known In now as the Bill. intro- ducing it, Kennedy a letter from ex-Senator Senator read designed Ives said: the objec- meet “[The bill] in report set forth tives the Senate Select Com- Improper mittee on Labor Manage- Activities Legislative ment Field.” N. L. R. B., History of the Labor-Management Reporting and Act of Disclosure 1959, p. 968. The Senate Subcommittee on Labor then on hearings conducted intensive that and alternаtive In opening hearings, Kennedy bills.3 those Senator said expect further from “We recommendations the McClellan in its report, expect committee second annual and we the advice of expert panel have an on labor law revision which will hearings form the basis of further and another year.” bill later this on Reliance the work of the Select significant was Committee evident and hearings. those Hearings before the began House Subcommittee after the conclusion hearings by Subcommittee, of the the Senate and continued into Spirited June.5 debate over the
3Hearings before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Com Welfare, Labor-Management mittee on Labor and Public on Reform Legislation, Cong., (January through 1959). 86th 1st Sess. March 4Id., at 40-41. 5Hearings before a Joint Subcommittee of the House Committee Labor, Labor-Management on Education Legislation, and Reform (March Cong., through 1959). 86th 1st Sess. June throughout legislation continued proposed merits of the as Act enactment Congress until session of (b) L. Section Pub. 86-257. September incor- policy and findings, purposes, declaration of the findings second above-quoted paragraph of the porates the months It not until 14 Bill. was Kennedy-Ervin petitioner tried. passage that after into comes focus questioning begun by of an the Select Com- background and year petitioner’s indictment mittee more than before the Senate continued both the Select after petitioner’s Labor well and House Subcommittees culminating legislation. all aimed at appearance, emerges one interrogation as but light, petitioner’s In this the neces- step process fact-gathering to establish *25 I can- sity legislation, for and the nature of remedial and unnecessary was an record say step, that it that the supports ques- a conclusion that the Select Committee petitioner tioned to his affect state trial. Warren,
Mr. Chief Justice with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins, dissenting. highlights problem
This constitu- defining case the upon congressional tional limitations committees endowed process. And compulsory I firmly because believe that continued sanction of investigative powers leading abridgment of rights to seriously individual impairs intent of the Framers of our Bill I Rights, from dissent Mr. Justice Harlan’s treatment of the constitutional presented issue here. That may issue stated: simply it a Is violation of the guarantee constitutional of due process of law for legislative committee, under the cir- inquire cumstances of case, into matters for which is about witness to be tried under a pending criminal indictment? already awaiting petitioner, indicted trial congres court, subpoenaed testify
state was before sional union investigating activity committee union questioning concerning funds. led matters When the upon based,1 facts which the was state indictment if dilemma the found him was this: he facing truthfully might answered his aid the pending answers if prosecution;2 he could been falsely, answered he have prosecuted if perjury;3 and, for he relied on the Fifth privilege against Amendment's self-incrimination, him in fact could be admitted the state criminal opinion trial.4 now holds that Mr. Justice Harlan's petitioner’s may dilemma had a fourth he also be horn; jail refusing imposition sent to to сhoose of.one these I penalties. believe that neither Constitution past Congress nor our decisions enlist the aid of allow man the federal courts do to this what four members permit. Court question ques Mr. seems to relation of Justice Harlan by subject tions asked matter Committee with of the state (see pp. 617-618, ante). Congress’ indictment Of course concern whether union funds had been purpose, used an unlawful whereas unlawfully State was concerned with how the funds had been used. However, question a truthful answer to the asked the Committee inquiry peti would a have answered State’s if in fact the fortiori used tioner had union funds in law. As violation state stated concurring (see ante): opinion p. 623, in his Justice Brennan prosecution . . and the state crossed [T]he *26 paths might been when that union funds have learned attempt corrupt used in a to an earlier forestall indictment another county alleged for the ... same [offense].” 2 State, 564, 569, 205 376, Davidson v. Ind. 187 E. 378. N. S. C. 3 18 U. 1621. §
4 State, 269; 586, 592-593, 266, Crickmore v. 213 Ind. 12 N. E. 2d Schopmeyer, by State 207 And, v. Ind. 194 N. our E. decisions, such a use would be state court not barred. Adam California, 46; Twining Jersey, son v. U. S. v. New 211 S. 78. U. Anderson v. time in the first held for In this Court did the Constitution although Dunn, 204, that 6 Wheat. conduct to Congress power expressly grant not legislative com- within power, a such investigations, in the inherent it is because implied petence, could function of Con- investigative This lawmaking process. judicial of the entirely independent course, gress is, of separation-of-power in strict of the Government branch branches no less than other Congress, However, terms. lib- individual safeguard is bound Government, duty and it is the Rights, Bill of by the protected erties guarantees of specific that to insure of the courts legislative a for witnesses before preserved liberty are of defend- they guarded are for the benefit body just as duty per- cannot be court trial. This ants a criminal by a kind judicial can the conscience be stilled formed nor legislative committee hand-washing statement single dele- (in person instances a committee of some investigative power) may finally full deter- gated with only importance relevancy courts, mine of a matter under but also that the com- investigation, power mittee has the constitutional ask the it wants to ask at the moment. A full Court decided Kilbourn Thompson, the courts U. ultimately jail must determine who shall be sent only may the courts determine whether questions asked a committee are Congress’ within constitutional power inquiry.5 And our more recent cases, “[t]he 5 103 U. S. 197: they Congress] proceeding “If beyond House of are in a matter [the legitimate opinion cognizance,
their we are of shown, that this can be give principle that, by and we our assent to the cannot the mere act of asserting guilty person contempt, they to be of a thereby establish right imprison him, beyond power their any to fine and court or inquire grounds other whatever into the tribunal on which the necessarily grows This order was made. out of the nature of an
631 States, Watkins United theme,” central as stated in v. we 178, 354 U. S. has “the of Bill 195, application been the Rights of a of upon govern- as restraint the assertion 6 power mental form.” This includes all provisions this Rights of the Bill of of Due Process Clause the Fifth —the protection as well as that Amendment, Amendment’s against self-incrimination. reсognize fails to opinion Justice Harlan’s
the of petitioner’s essence contention is that largely Henkel, because Hale Court’s decisions in v. 201 of Murdock, and United States U. S. the v. S.U. interrogation on already matters for which he had been indicted was violation of Aiuppa process. due Cf. States, United 201 F. 2d 300. The of duty courts safeguard an personal liberty individual’s to protect and him being from compelled to answer questions outside the power of constitutional I Congress, to which have referred above, pertinent is particularly Congress when has en listed the aid the federal courts to protect itself contumacious conduct and recalcitrant witnesses. authority only cases, which can exist class in a limited or under special circumstances; unavailing otherwise is the the limitation and power omnipotent.” principle Again Kilbourn, This is not new or novel one. 190-191): (103 S., Court made this observation -U. system is
“It believed to be one of the merits the American chief law, powers govern- of written constitutional that all intrusted to grand ment, national, whether state divided into the three are executive, judicial. That departments, legislative, and the government appropriate of these functions to each branches of public separate body servants, shall be and that vested perfection separate system requires that the lines which clearly broadly defined. It departments divide these shall be system per- working that the also essential of this successful power sons branches shall not intrusted with one these permitted others, but powers confided to the upon to encroаch that each be limited to exercise shall of its creation law powers department other.” appropriate and no its own *28 under fulfilling responsibilities their In 192. S. C. § U. every simply assume may courts this statute constitutionally conducted investigation is congressional lie interests great national it is shown that merely because abdi- To would be to legislation.7 do so passing in needed upon by the Constitution placed the responsibility cate the Government no branch of to insure that judiciary Marbury v. limitations. See transgresses constitutional Madison, 1 Cranch congressional particu- need
Accommodation and national interest lar information with the individual dispassionate protection witnesses assuring in their upon encroachment individual unconstitutional throughout this rights proved to be an arduous task has history. however, formulated to principle, Nation's One power punishment to keep congressional compel testi- mony very limits, narrowest of to within seems have passage withstood erosion of time and the ever- in increasing complexities carrying legislative out in exercising function. That is that its to principle power compel Congress must testimony, pos- utilize least “[t]he power adequate sible to the end proposed.” Anderson v. Dunn, 230-231. in 204, And, 6 Wheat. Kilbourn v. Thompson, in supra, decided this Court had occasion emphasize to narrowness this power. In my case is opinion, latter more like the instant one any than our reports other I the principles believe upon was which it decided call for a reversal of the conviction of here.8 tendency “The everywhere of modern decisions is to the doc jurisdiction trine that the of a court or other tribunal to render a judgment affecting rights, always open inquiry, individual to when judgment is relied proceeding.” on in other Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra, (Emphasis added.) at 197-198.
8 I am it great surprise certain that will come as a many “severely learn that Kilbourn has been discredited,” as stated in opinion (p. note ante), longer and that it no Justice Harlan’s concept I basic important, believe, to reiterate the It is it and not for courts, is for the enunciated there: safeguards all Congress, insuring persons Bill standards Rights, establish the constitutional people country which must be before this observed man- legally prison. can be sent to The case arose pursuant ner to its Court, : States District While United the estate of competent jurisdiction, administering bankrupt firm of Cook which owed Jay Company, & money the United States the House of Government, Representatives passed investigate a set- resolution to *29 tlement made the trustee. The basis for this action was that allegedly the settlement would be to the dis- advantage Government, of the and creditors, including the courts were powerless adequate to afford relief prevent congressional body stands to the of our Government from en croaching judicial upon The reference to United power. exercise the of Rumely, States v. 41, 46, 345 U. S. where Mr. Justice Frankfurter designed upon suggested indicated in a dictum to decision reserve Congress’ investigative limit that Kilbourn contained power, “loose hardly language,” is the method this Court has chosen to overrule or past. Indeed, “discredit” in decisions thе have neither we chosen to Moreover, do inso footnotes. reliance Justice Frankfurter’s Rumely Daugherty, on McGrain v. 135, 170-171, 273 U. S. States, Sinclair v. United support 263, 279 U. S. to his statement inroads” have been made Kilbourn confusing “substantial is rather States, light pronouncement in Watkins v. United of our recent 194, McGrain . . . and Sinclair 178, , 354 S. that: “In U. . . . applied of Kilbourn to precepts uphold authority Court Congress challenged investigations.” (Emphasis to conduct the added.)
Kilbourn favorably has question also been cited or without a g., validity its e. continued in other recent decisions of the Court: States, Barenblatt v. United 109, (opinion by Harlan, 360 U. S. 133 J.); Tenney Brandhove, (opinion by v. 341 U. S. 377 Frank- rights J.: Court furter, “This has not hesitated to sustain the private Congress acting individuals when it found outside its Thompson, Uphaus role. Kilbourn legislative 168.”); v. 103 U. S. Wyman, (dissenting opinion). S. U. subpoenaed Kilbourn was because of the settlement. maps bring records, papers and to as a witness appear Kilbourn inquiry.” under question “pertinent In contempt. House and was convicted refused a unan- power, had its the House exceeded holding that upon the restrictions forcefully announced imous Court and, at the punish contempt congressional power to clear that those restric- emphatically made it time, same power to to the equally applicable tions are testimony. Thus, attempts when a committee compel assumption of extraordinary and an unwarranted exercise down, just as it must strike it judicial power, this Court power investigate has in a which the done situation powers agencies. Cf. infringed upon law enforcement Quinn States, v. United U. are of the instant case сom-
When circumstances pared prompted to those which Court void Kilbourn, a striking similarity emerges. conviction in the Indeed, major difference circumstances of two cases—that this case criminal is, involves pending against Kilbourn indictment the witness while only a seem involved civil suit —would to make this case stronger even than Kilbourn. The Court’s chief reliance *30 holding Congress powers that exceeded its in the Kilbourn case was that transactions into which Con- gress inquired in a pending court, investiga- were that the tion in “judicial was one its character, only and could be properly successfully aby. made court of justice”; and, the inquiry since “related to a matter wherein relief had only by redress could a judicial be . . . proceeding, that power attempted to be exercised was one con- fined by the judicial Constitution to the and not to the legislative department government.” Kilbourn Thompson, supra, at 192-193. The Court summed its up view of the circumstances that showed an absence of con- gressional power to ask Kilbourn it did with pending “The matter was still in a court, statement: right Congress and what had the the United States to interfere with a in a pending suit court of competent jurisdiction?”
In this the particular subject case of the Committee’s petitioner objected which the was whether he in the past had been unfaithful his in union administer- An ing its funds. pending indictment was then in a competent jurisdiction charging court of him for an using those same funds unlawful purpose.9 congressional just as committee, the House in Kil- bourn, power had grant no the union relief or redress alleged kind any by petitioner. for that breach of trust in Kilbourn, So fаr Congress as was concerned the differ- Jay ences between Cook and its creditors to be were held “private Congress their affair” com- about which could not pel answer; a witness to civil thus, pending case was concerning enough inquiries to bar transactions litigation. me, that There far more it seems to reason, Congress to this case apply principle where attempts compel supply testimony a witness to him of a crime. help could be used to convict I viewing In so this matter do not overlook opinion par- in argument that this Justice Harlan’s testimony ticular relevant to the inves- funds their tigation handling union officers if legis- help Congress order to decide it should enact 9 Contrary implication opin drawn Mr. to the Justice Harlan's principle I ion to which would would adhere the instant case calling apply inquiries might “to to the also answers that used judicial proceeding” prejudice (p. of the witness in future 16, ante), nothing gives opinion note it seems obvious that in this fact, reading I support to such In believe a careful an inference. pending specifically clear it is of it would make because *31 process that due nature of the state indictment has been violated inquiry. this it legislation kind of and, if what field, so, in this
lation and Kil- Anderson that under Conceding should enact. power general ask had the to here bourn the Committee it could does not follow along line, this it a witness the conduct of about inquiries make detailed he was a crime with which to specifically related to be tried he was soon already and for which charged only it Not would competent jurisdiction.10 in a court of conclude other- holding Kilbourn to contrary be to the urged it me how can be to wise, incomprehensible but it is com- petitioner of how Congress the details needed general legisla- pass in order to alleged crime mitted indeed, I be hard, funds. It would tion about union Congress that to refuse to proof to make rational believe, testimony from a witness about a compel power to criminally, tried would matter which he about to be is power adequate” possible least invade the area “[t]he legislate about union officers Congress to enable union funds. satisfactory approach prob-
In my
it
not a
view,
constitutional dimension to
involving principles
lems
and,
they
if
look first
the interests of
Government
go no
further.
large
particular
instance,
loom
countervailing principles
The
embodied
our Bill
only
govern-
demand attention
when the
Rights do not
compulsion.
Rights
The Bill of
mental
interest
lacks
that.
In judging
demands much more than
whether
adequate
Congress
possible power
has
least
used “[t]he
proposed,”
any pos-
the end
the courts must assure that
rights
infringement
personal
sible
In
minimized.
this determination the courts must consider
such
factors
degree
investigating
as the
of need of the
committee
delay subsequent
The
investigation
State’s
to the Committee’s
hardly
bringing
inquiry.
to trial seems
relevant to our
speed
judicial process
justify
with which the State’s
moves cannot
legislative power.
an otherwise
exercise of
unconstitutional
federal
*32
requested and whether
the
information
particular
the
from
get
able to
the desired information
Committee is
pres-
witness
evidentiary source other than from a
some
charge relating
on a
ently under criminal indictment
in this case Indiana
very
those
facts. The fact
an
appears to have had sufficient evidence
secure
indication
petitioner
adequate
indictment
easily
sources of information were
avail-
independent
by
able to
which it could have obtained
the Committee
jeopardizing
it
here
very
sought
information
without
him
rights
asking
the constitutional
persuasion
about
Moreover,
argued
it.
it cannot be
Congress
would be
with an insurmountable bar-
met
gathering
rier in
needed
if a
in a
information
defendant
pending
compelled
criminal trial could not be
to answer
legislative
before
committee relevant
to that
Congress
indictment.
has shown that it has
its com-
any
mand
for
such
removing
means
barrier. See Adams
Maryland,
I peti- with the Court that asked tioner its competence the Committee were within pertinent legislative think, were I inquiry. do not however, that under the circumstances disclosed, the fed- eral courts him fining should lend hand in in sending or him prison. off to
Four months before these hearings, petitioner had been in indicted an Indiana court for felonies involved that directly indirectly or the matters concerning which the questioned him. If he had refused to answer because of the Clause Self-Incrimination Fifth Amendment, plea his would been have admissible in the prosecution. Indiana State Schopmeyеr, v. Ind. 538, 542-543, 144, 194 N. E. 146. And our (see decisions California, 332 Adamson v. 46) U. S. such a use would not did So, counsel, petitioner under be barred. advice ground on the self-incrimination. refuse to answer ground ques- on the he refused to answer Rather, in which I am the case might prosecution tions “aid process be in denial due under and thus indictment of law.” contempt to hold in who refuses power witness has a testify before a committee dual is the either the or the Sen-
aspect. power First House custody him until ate to summon him and order held he agrees testify. though This power, not used recent States, years (Watkins v. United 206), U. S. vintage.1 power of an ancient of either House But imprison the witness at the end the ses- expires Dunn, sion. As stated Anderson Wheat. legislative power “. . . although perpetual, continues legislative body exist on moment of ceases to its adjournment periodical follows, dissolution. It imprisonment must adjournment.” terminate *34 power of courts punish
Second is the to witnesses congressional who recalcitrant or are defiant before a 2 who, summoned, committee or when default. S.U. C. law, 1857, § 192. This enacted in so that “a passed greater punishment” Congress thought than the it had inflicted. Watkins v. power impose be could States, United supra, n. 45. 207, 1 As stated Stockdale v. Hansard, [1839] 9 A. & E. 1, 114: privilege committing contempt every “The for is inherent in authority body deliberative invested But, the constitution. flagrant however the contempt, only the House of Commons can existing privilege commit till the close session. Their to commit is Though party not better known than this limitation of it. penalties, yet, being should deserve the severest his offence committed day prorogation, imprisonment before a if the house ordered his every week, every but judge for a court in Hall Westminster discharge corpus.” all the courts be bound him would habeas powers. of these the second deal here with We mechanisms push-button as courts do not sit The federal Congress refers to imprison those whom to fine or Attorney prosecution. for States United of the quorum no the case where example, for is, There is the witness when present committee is congressional v. United As said in contempt. charged with Christoffel to us con- only “This not seems States, 84, 90, 338 U. S. denies Congress but practice the rules and trary to he right. right That is that be petitioner a fundamental of all the elements of the only proof of crime on convicted not com- charged against him. A tribunal crime and it is unthinkable that such petent tribunal, is no of criminal body can be the instrument conviction.” (Italics supplied.) Ohio, Slagle 265-266, 259, held v. 366 U. S.
We though legislative bounds, yet committee acts within rulings asked and on objections the form may so it them obtuse as make violative due process punish for courts to a refusal to answer.2 Cf. Quinn States, United v. U. S. 167-168.
A court will not lend punishment its hand to inflict person of a contempt congressional committee where proceeding was fundamentally proceed- unfair.3 States, Sinclair United opposed 279 U. S. is not to this view. pending For there the civil, criminal, suit was not and the defense was that power committee had exhausted its id., investigate, process it would violate due implicated prosecution. federal courts to become in a criminal expressed Justice Frankfurter separate the idea in his States, supra: in Watkins v. Unitеd opinion *35 “By making . . judiciary agency . the federal the affirmative for enforcing authority the power underlies the to punish contempt, Congress necessarily brings play specific into provisions relating of the prosecution Constitution of offenses implied and those Id., restrictions under which courts function.” at 216. States, supra, in United
ing was held unfair Watkins v. asked it was far clear that because from question to the under “pertinent” were Id., fairness,” said, “Fundamental we inquiry. 204-214. topic “what the demands that the witness be informed reasoning whereby connective under is Id., to it.” at 215. precise questions asked relate vagueness in Vagueness investigatory like inquiries, statutes, may give criminal a witness the notice that Id., at necessary process. is under our standards of due I unfairness we is, submit, There fundamental when impossible for a to invoke a privilege make it witness grants then him off to him, Constitution send jail privilege when the would have protected we withhold guarantee him. The against self-incrimination would given petitioner immunity have full and complete but our like California, supra, decisions cases Adamson v. Hurley, decisions, and Cohen v. 117. Those 366 U. S. however, his plea make self-incrimination admissible pending prosecution the Indiana court. When we say the Self-Incrimination Fifth Clause reason, applicable Amendment is not the States Amendment, proceeding Fourteenth we turn a federal into a pretrial prosecution, state should the witness right. his constitutional invoke Since he dare not invoke it for fear of to a going up state he in a prison, ends federal prison. The turn guarantee against result self- incrimination into a sham. A witness is whipsawed stаte and agencies, having between federal way no escape prison the federal unless he confesses into himself prison. a state
haveWe at times said that this granted Hobson’s choice a witness is a product federalism. Feldman v. United States, was, U. S. indeed, a case where the man testimony compelled of a testify ain pro- state *36 But the result prison. him to federal ceeding sent federalism, consequence is a this line of cases needless against privilege makes the constitutional and one that Cohen reality.” v. “phrase without self-incrimination Why due opinion). Hurley, supra, (dissenting at 132 respect should be different process the States mystery. ais from for the Federal Government process due California, supra, v. We should overrule Adamson pro- hold a witness in a federal that no admission made him ceeding can testify nor refusal to be used in a we can- prosecution. course, state we take that Until good not in a man to a who prison conscience send federal goes solely deprived there we him of a basic because guarantee. constitutional today prior
What we do
is consistent with our
decisions
Henkel,
in Hale v.
Mur
43;
U.
United States v.
dock,
case,
There has never, my been a view, satisfactory answer to the position of the first Justice Harlan that process due in the Fourteenth Amendment something does not mean process different from due Amendment. See the Fifth California, Hurtado v. 110 U. S. 541 et seq.