John T. Watkins v. United States

by an doing business, borne be not to alone, those who injured customer indus- profit transaction. from the under- try deemed as a whole warranty. That implied write why which the the statute

we have

action was based. was for the whole record On garment say was jury finding reasonably Upon that it fit. warranty implied not, a breach established, plaintiff is en- to her verdict.

titled

Affirmed. Appellant, WATKINS,

John T. America,

UNITED STATES of Appellee.

No. 12797. Appeals

United States Court District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued en Banc March April

Decided Rehearing

Petition Denied May 22, 1956.

1954, he was indicted under 2 U.S.C.A. 192 on seven for counts refusal to an- swer of a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities as twenty-nine thirty to whether or some persons named had been members of the Having Party. Communist his waived right by jury, appellant to trial was guilty found in all the District Court on counts. He fined was five hundred dol- lars; one-year jail execution of a term suspended appellant placed probation. appeal This followed. Appellant had been named as a mem- Party pe- ber of the Communist for the by Spen- riod 1943-1946 Donald one cer, who testified before the Committee Chicago September in a Appellant again was identified Party a member of the Communist early Rumsey, 1940’s one Walter appeared before the Committee March 1954. appearance In his before the Commit-

tee, appellant answered con- cerning cooperat- himself. He admitted Party with the Communist concerning 1942 to 1946 and answered cooperation. the extent of this He de- present membership nied and reiterated these specifically respect denials with Spencer’s Rumsey’s of, details both Jr., Washington, Joseph Rauh, Mr. L. testimony about him. In the course of C., Zarky D. with whom Mrs. Norma following questioning, occurred: Sidney Daniel Pollitt Messrs. H. S. Sachs, Washington, C.,D. were on the Appendix, [Joint 85] brief, appellant. Kunzig: Now, “Mr. I have here Lane, Atty., Mr. John D. Asst. U. S. people, list of names of all of whom Rover, Leo A. with whom Messrs. U. S. were identified as Communist Atty., and Lewis Carroll and Rumsey during William Mr. Hitz, Attys., Chicago. Asst. U. S. were on testimony recent I am brief, appellee. asking you you first whether know My people. question: these first EDGERTON, Judge, Chief Before Warner Betterson?” MILLER, PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. he did not Watkins said know the first BAZELON, FAHY, WASHINGTON, three named. Then he was BASTIAN, DANAHER' and Circuit Harold asked about a Fisher whom he Judges. following knew, and the ensued [id. Judge. BASTIAN, 86]: Circuit May 11, 1954, Repre- Chairman, “Mr. Mr. On Watkins: regard contempt question, voted a to that I sentatives citation would like very against appellant and on to make a brief November statement I right ting you mo- next to at this anticipation an- of this prepared in you just conferred ment and swer. him, that correct? may proceed. You “Mr. Velde: is correct- “Mx*.Watkins: That you. I Thank “Mr. Watkins: Chairman, I thing get perfectly Scherer: Mr. one “Mr. to would like clear, go- you to direct the witness I am not ask Mr. Chairman. amendment, ing plead answer. to the fifth ques- to answer certain I refuse but This commit- “Mr. Velde: Yes. I believe are outside tions that Repre- up by set the House tee is of your proper ac- of committee’s investigate to subversion sentatives any questions answer I will tivities. propaganda to and and subversive puts me to this committee Representa- report to the House of myself. I answer will also about remedial tives of persons whom about those the Com- I knew to be members of Representatives House of “The Party and I believe munist whom very very majority, has clear however, not, I will an- are. still large majority, to en- directed us respect any questions with swer gage type work, in that of we and so I with whom associated others do, House of as a committee of the any past. law I do believe authority, Representatives, have country requires testi- me to in this jurisdiction, you to ask concern- may fy persons who ing your activities in the Communist past been Communist have concerning knowledge your Party, engaged in members otherwise any persons other who members activity but Party or who of the Communist knowledge my have best belief have been of the Commu- long removed themselves since so, you Party, Watkins, nist Mr. movement. question are directed to answer the ques- “I not believe that such do you by propounded to counsel. relevant to the work tions are “Now, you ques- do remember the do I nor believe that this committee propounded you tion that was ? right to under- committee “Mr. Watkins: I remember exposure public take the question, Chairman, Mr. and I have their activities. I because my which, among read things, wrong, may your states that committee- may power, until have this power, have this and I stand holds and so unless a court law my [Emphasis sup- statement.” firmly answer, most me to I directs plied.] political activi- refuse to discuss refusals Similar to an- directions my past associates. ties and, previously swer followed like those get Kunzig: And I want “Mr. appellant’s testimony described regard with You are the record. clear Fisher, they became the sub- raising way fifth ject of the various counts the indict- amendment? all, appellant ment. refused to an- I not. am “Mr. Watkins: although swer, so, directed to do Kunzig: you But are refus- “Mr. approximately thirty respect persons. question I have to answer argues Appellant that the trial court you? just asked failing grant erred motion upon the Based Watkins: “Mr. acquittal. dismiss indictment or for read, yes. just statement says exceeding He course, powers congres- Kunzig: you, constitutional as a And “Mr. investigating committee; He is sit- sional of counsel. that 2 advice together “‘(2) U.S.C.A. read with the The Committee on Un- authorizing resolution, Activities, Committee's was American as a whole or vague deprive ap- so subcommittee, as to indefinite is authorized to pellant law; process investiga- and that due make from time time protected appel- (i) the First extent, Amendment character, tions of against being lant objects forced to answer the propa- of un-American particular ganda questions asked him. in the United (ii) the diffusion within the States/ delimit the We must United States of subversive and un- majority before us. A of the court is propaganda American is insti- that Congress opinion of investigate that gated foreign from countries or of a history of the the Commu origin domestic and attacks the questions nist ask the Wat principle of the form kins refused to answer. It would be guaranteed by Constitution, as our Congress quite in order for to authorize (iii) questions all other rela- in investigate a committee to rate of the Congress tion thereto would aid that growth or of the Par decline legisla- necessary in remedial ty, strength and so its numerical at vari ” tion.’ times, part ous of' an inquiry into the poses extent March menace it and the the con- legislative hearings Chicago. appropri ducted be in At means their dealing expressed ate for with that menace. In commencement chairman quiry thirty persons purpose hearings. whether were Com It legislative investigate, pur- munists 1942 and for between 1947 would be a definite pertinent investigation. pose, an to such The communist infiltration into labor questions Ap- asked could asked unions. be The chairman stated [Joint legislative purpose. pendix, for a valid 44]: precise question upon The which the “Mr. Velde: committee will is a decision must rest narrow one. It be in order. I should like to make is whether the Act authorized the Com- opening regarding statement our to ask mittee kins, asked Wat- city Chicago. work here in particular context in which Congress propounded them, the Committee realizing that are there individuals the Committee’s ask- country and elements in this whose ing legislative questions was a valid aim it is to our subvert constitution- purpose. majority of A the court is of government, al form of has estab- opinion pertinent lished the House Committee on Un- legislative purpose a valid and were American Activities. In establish- by Act. authorized committee, Congress this has directed we must Legislative investi- According Reor to the gate hearings, by and hold either ganization Act of Stat. by the full committee or a subcom- pages 822, 823,1 on the Committee Un mittee, to ascertain the extent and is one of several American Activities standing success of subversive activities di- committees elected against rected these United States. Representatives. The act sets subject terms in no uncertain forth investiga- “On the basis of these intrusted to this hearings, tions and the Committee provides, page Stat. at Committee. reports Activities Un-American 828: findings Congress to the “ ‘(A) Un-American makes recommendations activities. these Cong., Reorganization 1st lative Act H.R.Res. No. 83d as rules 1. See Sess. of the adopting provisions Legis- Congress. (1953) 83d York; City, Phila- New hearings York new New investigations and delphia, Pennsylvania, and Colum- this com- hearings, a result As Chicago, bus, here Ohio. We are investigations and mittee’s Illinois, realizing cen- Security Act the Internal great area of ter of the mid-western was enacted. States. the United years this past fifteen “Over the existence, has been “It cannot be said that subversive greater special permanent com- nor has had infiltration both as a infiltrating forty-seven rec- mittee, im- made it has success lesser portant hearings today area. The ommendations against security investiga- proper sub- of an insure culmination proud able I am has been conducted version. tion that forty-seven competent rec- that of these staff and state committee’s part eight ommendations, all but the committee’s intention way holding hearings or an- in one acted various Among country. recommenda- these parts other. Congress has not tions which by that “The committee has found provide upon which are those acted investigations conducting its appearing before con- that witnesses holding hearings parts in various granted gressional be committees country, it has been able to se- prosecution immunity from comprehen- a fuller and more picture cure they furnish. information efforts of subversive sive recom- has also “The committee throughout Every our nation. wit- secured mended evidence subpoenaed ap- who has been ness pear devices be admissible committee here in before the confidential involving the national se- cases hearings in curity. Chicago, inas all conduct- executive branch committee, by are known to this ed has also asked the now Government Congress possess information which will as- such A performing in its the committee sist being study various Congress is now made of function to the directed dealing with this matter. bills [Emphasis sup- United States.” Congress referred has also plied.] “The on Un-Ameri- year, Later, April same a in of the at a which would can Activities bill hearings, March of the continuation chairman, upon Security Act of amend the National calling the committee to law, bill, into This provide if enacted prior order, announced, just to the swear- the Subversive would appellant at [id. 70]: should, aft- Activities Control’Board “Mr. Yelde: Committee will hearings procedures, er suitable in order. be empowered to find certain labor record show that I “Let the have organizations in fact Commu- appointed aas for the subcommittee groups. Fol- nist-controlled action lowing hearing purposes of this Mr. Scher- groups action, labor this such Moulder, Frazier, er, Mr. Mr. not have available use would myself chairman. as Labor Relations Board provi- the National morning they under the now have “The Labor-Management hearings of the Re- sions of the continuation Chicago recently Act of lations in held were composed “During of Mr. session of this subcommittee Scherer, first Moulder, myself. Congress, Mr. House Un-Amer- 83rd witnesses un- time two ican Activities Committee has held At Angeles hearings available, at least in Los and San California; Francisco, Albany to find these were unable two staff subpoena Party depend tivities of to issue a witnesses the Communist large Subsequent time I them. to that measure on the character and Barsky believe that witnesses number of said, these its adherents. In we proceed, subpoenaed, page so we will 167 F.2d at 246: Counsel, present time Mr. power inquire “If with the witnesses.” subjects into the of Communism and Party, it has words, identify the individuals who be- hearing was to aid it the Committee’s lieve in Communism and those who study pro of a [the Committee] belong party. The nature posed Internal Securi amendment to the program of the and activi- ty Act of amendment was 1950. That large depend ties measure after fact enacted law four months into the character and number of their testify.2 appellant’s It made refusal to part adherents. Personnel is found to be unavailable to labor unions subject. Moreover, accuracy procedures estab communist-infiltrated depends the information obtained Labor-Management Rela lished large part upon knowledge Act of 29 U.S.C.A. et tions seq. witness, the attitude of the example proper This is present rep- before the Committee or legitimate legislative pur exercise testimony resented of anoth- pose. point er. We note Barsky This court’s decision in arguments invalidity directed to the States, U.S.App.D.C. 127, of this under the First 241, denied, 1948, F.2d certiorari 334 U. apply inqui- Amendment would to an 843, 1511, 1767, S. 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. ry person directed to another as well well as the decisions United States v. as to one directed to the individual ” Josephson, Cir., 1947, 82, 2 165 F.2d cer himself. denied, 1948, 838, tiorari 333 U.S. 68 S. page And at 247 we said: 609, 1122, 92 L.Ed. and Ct. Dennis v. “Moreover, governmental 1950, States, 162, United 339 U.S. 70 S. ideology described as Communism light 519, 734, 94 read Ct. L.Ed. by held is States, 1929, Sinclair v. United 263, 279 U.S. principles antithetical to the 268, 692, 49 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed. establish underlie the form of in contempt statute, es that the 2 U.S.C.A. corporated in the Federal Constitu together 192, when read with the Com § guaranteed by tion and it to authorizing mittee’s resolution is not so States, explicit vague in the basic docu or indefinite as to be invalid. systems; ments of the two and the respect appellant’s With to claimed potential view that the former is a protection Amendment, under First by menace to the latter is held suffi Barsky case, supra, refer we to the ciently respectable authorities, both that, having this court indicated where power judicial lay, justify Congres to inquire subject to into the of com- inquiry subject. sional into the In Party, munism and the Communist Con- fact, opinion recitations gress authority identify has the in- Supreme of the Court in Schneider who believe in dividuals communism and belong States, 1943, Party, man United v. those since 320 U.S. program 118, 1333, of the 1796, nature S.Ct. ac- 87 L.Ed. do, part least, Communist Control Act of 1954 had to with infiltra- August passed 1954, by 775, 68 Stat. tion communists was into- labor unions. seq. (Supp.1955). changes having 841 et § U.S.C.A. Other do with com- contained, among things, organizations This munist infiltration into were Security to the Internal amendments included. Act also 1950, seq. 50 U.S.C.A. et Moreover, inquiry. unbridled justify To cause. power even if are sufficient subject exposure upon claimed some uninformed remain Congress, would the claim a failure members of represented would be thus any particular responsibility.” not inquiry. use in Congressional establish its judge inquiry in each We must Congress the im has before setting own its own facts. its effectively, legislate duty portant authorities, Appellant many be- cites prob wisely, upon the time same ginning Thompson, Kilbourn v. communist posed by world lems 377, U.S. 26 L.Ed. to the effect that duty perform that It cannot movement. general Congress possess does ought try It information. without making pri- power inquiry into the We perform information. it without point This vate affairs citizens. inquiry into an Act authorized think the exploration. The in- needs no additional un into labor communists infiltration legis- quiry here had do a valid to with inquiry such an was this and that ions purpose. lative Act seems to inquiry. of the The face Young U.S. inquiry speak here itself. The us to App.D.C. 54, 212 F.2d certiorari plain It was on its face. is likewise denied, 1954, U.S. 74 S.Ct. persons, whether certain pointed 98 L.Ed. court out in union, communists. were indeed holding committee, that a specific. us it was quiry seems to report pertinent substantiate earlier directly part the Commit legislation pending before Con tee was directed make. engaged legislative gress, func appel four and five of Points subject competency was not tion of errors can be com lant’s statement subsequent prosecution. in a says purposes He here. for our bined Further in that case we indicated that independent asserted an legislative purpose for which exposure. power of had convened was not subcommittee vi exposure exposure incident by the incidental desire of tiated legislative function. give to the exercise Congress parties subcommittee interested certainly has of in reply a chance statements made in investigation quiry in when the or of report. such investigation subject upon quiry or is Having volunteered an attack on legis concerning credibility prior witness, appel of a inquiry or that such an The fact late. not later lant could refuse to answer investigation may something reveal or concerning Party Communist something “expose” incidental membership of other union associates of upon validity of the without effect inquiry. prior appellant and of witness on the ground particular phase that this of tes timony beyond was judge Appellant us would have investigating power. Committee’s In controversy upon present basis deed, inquiry may only not be de speeches made members Con credibility when tailed involved but “a others, gress upon newspaper legislative inquiry may broad, be as as articles, cannot do so. Such etc. We searching, and as exhaustive is neces evidence. material is not sary to make effective constitutional one, individual whether the is an Congress.” powers of Cf. Townsend v. legislative pertinent to a is indeed valid States, App.D.C. 223, 95 F.2d general cannot be solved purpose. 352, 361, denied, 1938, certiorari 303 U.S. speeches—many from culled ities 830, 82 58 S.Ct. L.Ed. 1121. partially extemporaneous doubt no them partisan assailants, appellant’s critics, have examined from We —or other urged project appeal points of some on this defenders or and find friends no hearing judgment Chicago error. The of the District of the Committee in Rumsey Court is March one testified that in 1942 or 1943 Watkins recruited him into Affirmed. Party Party and collected his dues. April response BURGER, Judge, to a sub- Circuit took of- poena, appeared fice after the testified consideration this, Washington. case, before the part took no decision. “I He not said: am nor I now ever card-carrying been a member of the EDGERTON, Judge, Chief with Party. Rumsey wrong Communist BAZELON, Judge, joins, whom Circuit when he said I had recruited him dissenting.* into party, that I had received his dues appellant been convicted ** Spencer wrong *. when he refusing questions be certain to answer any meetings termed which I attended fore a subcommittee1 Party meetings. as closed Communist Representatives on Un “I would like to make clear that for He told the Com American Activities. period approximately of time from cooperated mittee he had with cooperated 1942 to 1947 I with the Com- Party 1942 to 1947. He did munist Party participated munist in Com- plead Amendment. Asked the Fifth degree munist such a persons as whether he knew certain persons may honestly some believe that freely Communists, he con answered Party. I was a member of the I have cerning all whom he believed to be Com made contributions occasions to hearing. He at the time of munists signed Communist peti- causes. T have concerning per to answer refused tions for Communist causes. I attended said in sons. As the District Court sentencing caucuses at an FE convention at which “attempt him, he did Pax*ty present. Communist officials were any respect, impede the committee oth freely cooperated Since I with the Com- his er than dealing refusal to answer Party munist I have no motive for mak- who, to use ing the cooperation distinction between Cqm words, ‘may have been membership except simple fact or otherwise en munist gaged that it is the truth. I never carried a activities, in Communist but who Communist accept- card. I never knowledge my and belief have best discipline ed and indeed on several occa- long since removed themselves from the ” opposed position. sions I their movement.’ We have expose refusal special decide whether his “In a convention held in the history past a fight their was crime. summer of I led for com- pliance with Taft-Hartley byAct he been United Auto- Since FE-CIO International fight Union. This organizer. From mobile Workers became so bility any bitter possi- that it ended employed by he to 1953 was the Inter- cooperation.” of future Company Harvester national East “ * * * Moline, Illinois, but from 1942 to 1953 He was asked: with you participate he on leave and worked for the whom did in the Commu- * * * Workers, Equipment CIO, Party Farm in its nist activities [its] ?” hearing of successor. At a people. the Commit- named Kunzig, He several Mr. Spencer counsel, in tee one named “Now, him as Committee said: I have having been a member of the people, a list of here names of Communist all of Party between and 1946. At a were identified whom as Communist Par- nearly opinion superseded This with identical rehearing one which was when a which, majority as the of a division of banc in was ordered. January court, 26, 1956, we filed 1. We shall call the subcommittee mittee. during testifying Stern, Joseph Rumsey After ty Mr. list, Chicago. ask men on the am one Committee’s testimony I recent Party peo activities, you had carried on he said: these ing you know first regard you “In to the other names that three. first ple.” not know the didHe read, answer, Spencer, fourth, I will not have based who was He knew He the that I into the rec- statement read fifth, Fisher. Harold one and the direct- you Fisher ord The Committee asked, Harold know “Do again. him answer. Par ed He refused to ty member of be a *****8 The did him counsel consulted his He ?”2 further. the Commit then read this statement get thing per like to one “I would tee: fectly clear, indicted He was November notj I am Chairman. Mr. May and tried 1955. He waived amendment, going plead but fifth government only jury. The witness, the Committee called one questions that I certain refuse to answer counsel, put who proper I outside the believe are transcript the record of the into your I will committee’s activities. examination of Watkins. Committee’s any questions com this answer guilty, fined court found Watkins myself. puts I will mittee me about year’s $500, im- sentenced him to a him per those about also answer prisonment, suspended sentence, and I knew to members be whom probation. sons placed on him still I believe Communist any not, however, I are. questions I will respect with others Un-American Ac- past. I do whom I associated standing committee of the tivities is country re law in believe that this Representatives. The Commit- quires testify persons who me to tee and its are authorized subcommittees may past have Communist “to make from an Act engaged otherwise members or investigations (i) time to time my Party activity who to but character, objects extent, of un- long knowledge and best belief have propaganda American removed from since themselves the Com (ii) the diffusion within movement. munist and un- United States subversive instigated propaganda American that is “I do not believe that such foreign countries of a domestic are relevant to the work this commit- origin principle and attacks I nor do believe that committee tee guaranteed by form of right public has the ex- undertake the Constitution, (iii) all other our posure because their questions in relation thereto that would may wrong, I activities. and the any necessary Congress in remedial aid legislation.” power, until Stat. unless court law so holds and congressional answer, firmly before a com- me to I re- A witness directs most guilty political of a misdemeanor if he to discuss the of is fuse mittee any question perti- my past to answer associates.” “refuses questioning appellant except other, about As to all Fisher one mittee was 2. and testify questions expressly past. He did not refuse to the Committee’s were the present. past Party membership. His statement which the about As to about quote persons, proceed questions to shows that when he two the those were we present question present replied phrased about mem- in the to a tense. But standing bership by statement, testimony on the of the earlier Rum- view of denying sey Spencer, ap- in effect that he knew who set dates of he was the present pellant’s 1943-46, Party individual to be a affiliation from the named refusing appellant’s the to uncontradicted statement member past membership. cooperation that he had ceased the answer 1947, plain it is that the Corn- 690 guaran- inquiry specific question found in the individual

nent to the under ” * * * 102, Rights, 192, tees such as the R.S. the Bill of 2 U.S.C.A. § against privilege 942, Fifth is Amendment’s 52 Stat. as amended. Pertinence ** Quinn government’s part v. In order self-incrimination case. the 160, plead States, 1955, 155, convict, must United 349 U.S. to the 161, 668, 672, prove questions the witness 99 L.Ed. 964. 75 S.Ct. added.) pertinent (Emphasis to an would not answer were Congress inquiry Sin had authorized. only limitation with in the dealt privilege 263, States, 279 296- clair v. United U.S. Quinn against case the 692; 268, 297, 49 L.Ed. Bowers S.Ct. self-incrimination. The fact Supreme that 79, 80, States, U.S.App.D.C. v. United to Court called attention 448; Keeney United F.2d v. including necessity limitations, States, U.S.App.D.C. 369, 218 F. legislative suggests purpose”, “valid that 843, 2d concern, the Court both shares “wide preliminary question Congress, important is An as- in and out of over some authorizing congressional pects to whether is be Act of the exercise broadly narrowly investigation.” the power construed purpose States deciding ques Rumely, 41, 44, whether the v. 73 S.Ct. U.S. were Watkins would not answer tions pertinent inquiry authorized. The to the very questionable expo- It is whether narrowly must if a nar Act be construed public contempt or sure of individuals con row construction avoids serious legislative hostility purpose”. is a “valid question. stitutional United States Congress powers “no of law Since Rumely, L. U.S. 73 S.Ct. power, no enforcement” it would have Ed. 770. legislative pur- the absence pose, a valid Communists, questions expose would former even If pertinent au- requiring for- were if there were a law that answer Act, exposed. we should have to If were er Communists be obliged we thorized they within decide what the Committee’s decide Congress. power asking Like purpose inwas Wat- constitutional Rumely case, this might answer, kins would we present- serious, we shall question is forced to conclude pur- that, ly follows show. ex- asked them for the sole case, con- Act must be poses of posure. narrowly Wat- if the strued By injurious “exposure” pub- we mean would otherwise refused to kins Chicago licity. Rumsey, The fact pertinent. appear March, publicly called Fisher Com- no doubt as “There can be munist, does not mean that Watkins through Congress, by itself or power of Washington April, had so at done investigate committees, matters its publicity repetition in and new relating contemplated conditions press in- out would not have been * * * This Obviously publicity jurious. the new power to with the co-extensive indeed legislate. injurious. As the law would have used, It cannot be recognizes, fact of slander libel private inquire unrelated into affairs derogatory statement has been that a legislative purpose. Nor does valid to a previously not make harm- made does area it extend Rumsey had And fact less. legislate. Similarly, the forbidden a does not show called Fisher Communist investigate power must to not con- sought to Committee serve the powers law the en- of fused injurious purpose pub- than some assigned powers

forcement; are those licity you asked Watkins “Do when it Executive our Constitution the under Fisher to Harold be member of Judiciary. know further limita- the Still and Party?” investigate are on the tions would have Watkins not answer could II government purpose now served the the argues attributes the Committee. asking questions the mittee’s in investigate questions pres- infiltra the These concerned Communist unions, deter order to ence of Communists in a union between of labor in tion legislation presence pending to 1942 and Their or ab- need 1947. mine the for nothing deprive unions in unions had little sence then question or Communist-infiltrated whether, Labor Relations the National to do with the the use of the hearing aspects of Com time in But the of the Committee Board.3 several of Watkins tend unions were numer- Communists in so mittee’s examination active, ous, ask effective as to cre- the did not so and so show Committee purpose, problems or for for for that ate that called these any purpose partly lapse except exposure. is true of the This because time, chiefly had but because times attempt (1) made no The Committee changed legislation changed. had total from either the to learn Watkins union, or in his affiliation betwen 1942 and of Communists number positions did not af- held mean what Communist what Communists far, how, union, or how In filiation meant in December or whether or they joined direction, the influenced Russia in what States against Germany. inter- showed no war President union. anything list names. wrote Admiral in Jan- Roosevelt Land est uary terribly infiltration un- “I 1942: still disturbed Whether Communist am legislation adequate would the fact number ions creates need about that an number, depend ships are available Russia. on not seem nature, extent, of the effectiveness * ** This has made a Government activities, in unions. of Communists pledge simply firm to Russia and we can people, ap- named several go February not back on In it.” parently had been fellow-members 25th General MacArthur honored the having union, while Communists been Army anniversary of Red mes with a “ * Party. cooperated If with the he sage in which he said: questioning him for had hopes rest of civilization hardly legislative purpose, it could courageous worthy Rus banners what, * * him about ”4 failed Friendly Army. rela sian anything, these Communist United States and tions between union did. throughout continued the war Russia immediately govern- clear, did not cease at the and the end (2) suggest, how war. does ment Washington involving opening in “cases admissible devices”

3. In security”. testified, April 29, said, Another, national ho tlie which Watkins provide nothing Ac- direct- “would Subversive chairman said should, purpose. hear- Control Board after suita- ly He said: “The tivities hearings procedures, morning continuation of the be em- is a ble Chicago organiza- powered find labor hearings if certain held which were ®* opening recently fact Communist-controlled the Chi- tions groups. Following action, hearings, cago the chair- action in March groups labor would not have avail- directed the Com- such had said man the use of the National Labor Re- suc- able the extent and “to ascertain mittee they now have Boai’d as under the directed lations provisions subversive cess Labor-Management States”, against Re- men- those United pending Act of be- lations 1947.” of two sorts as bills tioned Committee, one of which would fore Sherwood, E. Robert Quoted Roose- “secured confidential make evidence Hopkins, p. (1948). velt 692 cerning knowledge Act, your any Management other Relations The Labor persons requires affidavits who are members of the Commu- non-Communist Party or the Na nist who have been members unions that use from officers of Party, so, Board, not the Communist kins, you and Mr. Wat- tional Labor Relations passed directed to 1947, are answer to the end until close you by propounded ques question counsel.”

period which the Committee’s ade Act is tions relate. Whether the (4) The seems to have had Committee strengthening requires would quate or possession, questioned in its before it happened depend what has seem to Watkins, information other already happened. since, what had not supply.5a persons which it asked him to Security Act the Internal Likewise (5) purpose at- The Nationality Act, Immigration and Committee, practical- to the tributes 1952, in effect passed in 1950 and ly purpose except exposure, Committee at the time might by questioning have been served the time to which but not at But a closed session. Watkins in questions relate.5 mittee’s questioned public him (3) refused to Watkins When hearing. saying questions, he the Committee’s thought “public purpose was ex- their Ill posure of their because and conduct of the Committee Words activities”, no was under the Committee go far to confirm the on other occasions obligation reply. However, chair- purpose that on this occa- inference its reply. reply did not His man chose exposure. sion was legisla- suggest questions had a that the purpose unions. It did Committee and its members related to “The tive Instead, repeatedly in terms or in effect that it claimed said not mention unions. by authority purpose exposure main is to do unlimited for the Committee concerning publicity what it believes 5b legislation.” by knowledge validly done of former Communists. set chairman said: “This committee is trial, offered in evi At the the defense Representatives up the House “excerpts from House committee dence investigate subversion and subversive reports, hearings, House committee Con propaganda report House and to to the gressional and news Record statements Representatives going point papers, Rep- The House of remedial independent power asserts an very major- resentatives has clear legislation expose apart per all large very majority, ity, directed us knowledge.” public The court sons engage work, type of and so we excerpts evidence, in that excluded these n do, Rep- they House of as a committee record as an offer of are in the authority, ju- They printed resentatives, proof. have the cover some concerning They beyond doubt, you your pages.6 risdiction, and it show to ask disputed, Party, the Committee in the Communist con- is not .activities Barsky seq.; Dissenting opinion in § 50 U.S.C.A. et 5. 64 Stat. 5b. U.S.App.D.C. 127, seq. 1101 et U.S.C.A. 66 Stat. many quotes footnote Control Act 1954 is 256. A F.2d pertinent connection, since statements. such passed August 1954, after stipulated excerpts 6. Counsel hearing. 68 Stat. 775. are sources accurate from official newspapers Education, “true Slochower v. Board of those from Cf. 5a. digests quotations, reports S.Ct. 637. and correct U.S. may be of the statements as the case reported events therein.”

693 in all infiltration the of Communism inde- claims Activities Un-American 10 society.” phases exposure some- of our power pendent of purpose investigates of ex- times posure. the publicized the The Committee has give illustrations. few We a as Com- to it names of identified Its Re- or former Communists. munists the Dies, chairman Mr. the first port a 54 total for 1952 devotes out during Committee, debate said pages 89 names and addresses the appoint for the resolution House on his Report persons. for 1953 of such Its Committee, not in “I am ment a of such pages to a similar devotes 59 of 193 out legis say position we can list. effectively mat to this late reference Though Report ter, exposure in a but I do know that Committee’s hearing, democracy year of Watkins of subversive names, points weapon have in it that we does contain list of most effective not * exposure possession.”7 function. as the Committee’s our ple like most ed us lation but addition to the at the Watkins and that gress hearing: mittee in the by Congress sticks.” American way May 20, 1938, tions That sentatives Un-American * * * formation sure Chairman Mr. The # required to aware attempting for the ” ^[*] Velde, Committee said 78 still its duty United States House systematic “we feel that we have a The House Committee Activities was started congressional committees, in - inform the Walter said expose people and 83d the Chairman purpose of remedial possible Activities, May 26, 1938. make the hearing, said at another legislative function we job, Congress, only subversive House Committee destroy way and to that of the extent people imposed began report American 1951: of the Com 1955: instructions who elect activities. organiza presided with country. to Con on Un “Expo Repre on its job legis “Un- duty peo- us on posure, made claims of an reports exposing moved from their mittee on Un-American Activities proves have been ence issued and distributed Committee said: tee’s tion the bers of the Communist as Communist ** tems of Detroit and influential tained. tee separate pamphlet prove says, years special “reported investigation, * Most District Court States of this action e. identity * * * During held hundreds suspended Watkins g., positions in independent without hundreds Party Committee’s of over “This committee and positions. The in 1952 during hearing, it other communities. issued ruled that operations particular its fronts.” uncovered mem permanently throughout the school teachers 600 individuals exposure. over hearings thousands in 1954 do investiga Commit commit was ob express holding refer- called tend sys ap ex- re In 26, 1938). August Cong.Rec. (May Report, News and 10. U. S. World 7. Carr, 26, 1955, p. House in Robert K. 71. Quoted Activities Committee on Un-American Activities, 11. Un-American p. (1952) 15. Report 1954, pp. for the Year Annual 14- Things You About Should Know 17. 8. Sess., (3951), Cong., 82d 1st Communism House 12. This is YOUR Committee on Un- 136, pp. 19, Document No. 67. Activities, p. American 25. Hearing Before the Committee on Un- Repre- Activities, House of American Sess., p. Cong., sentatives, 83d 1st 694 Although engaged propaganda, quired, opinion or that our general this was error. sought con to propositions not decide the Committee learn do they they help did. cases, to decide them. crete By to in acts. Intentions tend claiming result possibly (iii) As to clause of the Act: authority the that it had concerning questions implied duty expose, the Committee might “ques- membership be considered expose. And as the that it intended “extent, the char- tions in relation” to recently said, “of course Fifth Circuit objects” “diffusion” acter propaganda, the person’s it state be inferred from phrase if relation” “in the something, to do ment that he intended very broadly, were construed but these actually did Mutual it. that he later questions certainly so consid- cannot be Hillmon, York Ins. Life Co. New phrase if narrow- ered the is construed 909, 295, 285, 36 L.Ed. 145 U.S. S.Ct. ly. Moreover, (iii) the clause contains States, 1955, v. United 706.” Shurman questions requirement further that the 290, 282, footnote 9.13 219 F.2d necessary Congress any “would aid legislation”. remedial If a mere theo- IV slight very chance of aid were to retical questions might opinion Watkins sufficient, possibly the In our be considered pertinent thought not questions are

refused that “would the Act, inquiry the even authorized the aid”. would be a broad con- But that narrowly. If construed Act is not the nar- struction of those words. Construed narrowly, questions rowly, require construed the it is more than the words clearly pertinent. questions not are theoretical chance. The Wat- plainly kins would not answer do (i) key “ex- are words Act The requirement. meet this objects tent, un-Ameri- character suggests “The United States activities”; (ii) “dif- propaganda can * * * presumption regularity is sufficient un- of subversive fusion proof. But, determin- without without “ques- (iii) propaganda”; and American ing presumption applica- whether that would aid in relation thereto that tions enough say matter, to such a it is ble leg- necessary any Congress remedial stronger presumption of that the inno- questions relate do not islation.” The the cence attended accused at the trial.” States, way any the ex- or direct clear 263, Sinclair v. United 279 U.S. objects, or tent, character, the the 296, 268, that S.Ct. 273. We conclude diffusion, any propaganda, subversive show, failed to either otherwise. and un-American or government beyond a reasonable doubt or even in ask- not shown that evidence, preponderance of questions Committee was these would not answer indirectly, seeking, information even investigation pertinent were objects character or the extent or about was authorized to malee. propaganda. It has not or diffusion of union, Barsky States, Watkins, U.S.App. or his or the v. United shown 127, 241, 167 F.2d is not whom the Committee in- D.C. perti- U.S.App. clearly mittee’s v. United Morford 54, investigation 56, F.2d reversed on to its authorized nent D.C. nothing grounds, in its examination of the 339 U.S. 70 S.Ct. witness ques- contrary. suggested it did not ask 94 L.Ed. purpose. presumption give for that tions refused Morford legislative purpose, resulted, which Activities the financial aof Un-American publica by impugning records, be rebutted names “cannot committee, individual of the National Coun motives tions U.S.App.D.C. Friendship, page American-Soviet Committee.” cil propaganda page put one’s “a flood of 176 F.2d No mo- out had impugned by showing of the nature described tives Com- duty. concept case, Com- of its Unlike mittee’s Resolution”. that, contrary. The court held The UNION NATIONAL BANK OF case, of that circumstances CLARKSBURG, corporation, Activi Un-American the Committee on Appellants, et al. “power to make an had ties may elicit the an individual HOME LOAN BANK BOARD et al. witness is believer swer Appellees. of the Com a member Communism or No. 12960. page U.S.App.D.C. Party.” at munist Appeals United States Court of page cir 136, 250. But the 167 F.2d at District of Columbia Circuit. are and of this of that case cumstances Argued 9, April 1956. point (1)

very As the court different. 3,May Decided 1956. Barsky co-defendants out, and his ed political to state their “were not asked They to account were asked opinions. page U.S.App.D.C. at funds”. (2) page As the 244. F.2d at Congressional out, pointed court Bar- informed been had Anti organization, Joint sky’s engaged Refugee Committee, was Fascist U.S.App. propaganda”. “political page at page 167 F.2d D.C. at Congres shown has not been any comparable in had sional (3) ques this case.

formation related, Barsky to answer refused tion though present indirectly, Com to his membership. questions Wat

munist related to refused to

kins membership of other munist Barsky does, long hold, past. To as

time may inquire whether that the Committee organization to en shown of an

members

gage propaganda now Commun may inquire imply

ists, that it does not of a union shown engage, likely engage, toor Communists.14

propaganda once appellant’s other not consider

needWe

contentions. the House Committee Un-American U.S. Lawson v.

14. In properly appointed Activities, aor sub- App.D.C. the Com 176 F.2d thereof, “prominent to in- each of two mittee ask-'d subpoenaed quire picture whether a witness indus motion writers” not member of is or is try he ever or not had “whether Par of the Communist or a believer a member Communism * Though question ty”. included The court held that since “are, capable present membership, pictures or are well as motion as opinion being, potent propaganda briefs nor the medium neither perti- dissemination”, consideration fact. show court expressed, U.S.App.D.C. ruling, pages 170, 171, is limited nent. 85 The court's regarding present pages member 176 F.2d at expressly ship: hold herein that “we

Case Details

Case Name: John T. Watkins v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: May 22, 1956

Citation: 233 F.2d 681

Docket Number: 12797

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.