Larche v. Hannah

dаmages judgment course, liability today will, of for entered its limitation legal negligence bear its interest from date at the its own caused agreement spelled for rate. to be lighterage out Al- entered into services judgment be entered in will favor agent shipper and con- coa as against respondent the libellant and signee. circumstances, limi- Under such $28,631.48, in the sum of with costs. implied. liability is to be tation of Appeals for the Fourth As the Court of pointed Robert Herd C. out Circuit 1958, Machinery Corp., & Co. v. Krawill 1959, 949, affirmed 256 F.2d 297, 79 3 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. rejecting claim a stevedore liability-limiting inference lading applied provision in a bill seaboard, it, “on the eastern stevedores Margaret al., Mrs. M. LARCHE et upon charges such factors base Capacities Reg Their Individual and as difficulty etc., weight, handling, istrars of in and for Voters Pari Their carrier, not, offer a choice do like Louisiana, shes of the State of in which the rates declared value of v. cargo possible amount of lia- al., Individually John A. et HANNAH fixing bility charge.” is considered as Members of the Commission on equally principle applicable This here Rights. Civil respondent for the makes no claim that Civ. A. No. 7479. any it offered choice of rates or that limi- United States District Court liability tation was a of its factor in fix- Louisiana, W. D. ing light- the rates for its services for Shreveport Division. erage. Nor it assert other does ba- Oct. liability negli- sis its gence should limited. follows that judgment must be entered respondent for the full amount of the damages, $27,821.48. question

I then to turn amount to be interest included in judgment. admiralty An court in its control discretion the allowance of by fixing the interest rate of interest time from which

and the it shall run. Calvert, Cir., 1958, v. The Gardner F.2d certiorari denied sub nom. Lines, Steamship Gardner, Inc. Sound 2 L.Ed.2d Annotation A.L.R.2d 337. Un der all the circumstances of this case I just accordingly

believe it hold that pay respondent should interest per annum the sum rate of 6% July 22, $10,800 from the date the from mandate came down the Court of Appeals legal Wisdom, Judge, which determined its lia Circuit dissented bility pay part. not less than that sum. The 818- Judge, WISDOM, BEN

Before Circuit Jr., DAWKINS, Judge, C. Chief Judge. HUNTER, District

Judge. HUNTER, District originated case This Shreve

port of Division District of Western upon filing complaint Louisiana aof July 10, regis on 1959'. are Plaintiffs parish trars of voters in and for certain es in Louisiana1. The Commission Rights temporary agency Civil is a States, United the Civil created Gremillion, Atty. Gen. F. Jack P. Act Law under Public George Ponder, Louisiana, Asst. First M. 85-315, Congress, § 85th 42 U.S.C.A. Louisiana, Atty. M. William Gen. seq. 1975 et The Commission scheduled Attys. Shaw, Cashio, Asst. Ferdinand A. July 13, 1959, for in Shreve Culligan, Louisiana, New M. E. Gen. of port, purpose in Louisiana for the Jr., La., Jackson, Orleans, Wil- John E. vestigating allegations writing (un Schuler, Orleans, N. La., liam P. New affirmation) der oath or certain citi La., Rouge, Dalton, W. Cleburn Baton being deprived zens were of their Wilkinson, La., Shreveport, Albin Scott to vote on account or color2. of race Lassiter, Monroe, La., J. P. Frank allegations registrars, These accuse Sr., La., Looney, Shreveport, H.L. Pad- through having acts, their official gett, Jackson, Jr., City, La., Bossier Fred deprivation, caused such and summoned Clarke, Homer, La., Thompson St. L. appear them to before the Commission. Minard, Joseph, La., Colum- Cameron C. subpoenas regis required The also Natchitoches, bia, La., Hughes, H. Lester produce inspection trars for various La., La., Clinton, Kilbourne, Richard H. voting registration and records within Watts, Franklinton, La., J. Jr., France custody their and control. Boone, Many, La., plaintiffs. Reuel the Commission suit is The Vice-Chairman, Storey, Robert G. object is Its declared its members. and Dallas, Tex., Rights, Commission on Civil stay of the Commis the effectiveness Legal Washington, C., Clark, E. D. C. Asst, subpoenas subpoenas duces and sion Storey, W. Wilson to Robert G. enjoin tecum, restrain ‍‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‍and and to Fitzhugh Gen., White, Atty. Asst. T. hearing. proposed The of the conduct La., Shreveport, Wilson, Atty., U. S. they registrars insist are entitled Director, Tiffany, Berl I. Gordon M. seeking is Commission relief because the Attys., Mottolese, Bernhard, A. William hearing pursuant rules such hold Washington, Rights, on Civil Commission vires, procedure are ultra which C., defendants. D. deny proce them traditional which regis safeguards. Atty. Bennett, Moreover, Arkan- Gen. dural Bruce procedure sas, the rules assert curiae. trars amicus “Registrars”. tion, forth the facts which to as shall set referred 1. Hereinafter ” * * * based; beliefs are or such belief 104(a) Act empowers Section Under the Commis- Act' also empowered and directed to: sion, Commission or authorized subcommittee investigate allegations writing hearings “(1) thereof, to hold places or affirmation that oath certain such times under act deem United States advisable. Said citizens deprived empowers of their vote and Commission to re- Act also testimony quire that vote counted reason of their attendance production religion, color, race, origin; national written witnesses writing, under oath other matters. affirna- adopted by vened violate consider the constitutional at rights; and tack. fundamental constitutional entirety unconstitu the Act in its principal object purposе an uncon tional it constitutes because three-judge aof federal court to de delegation power 3 stitutional cide the validity Detailing supported complaints, Congress sought Act of enjoined. to be allege registrars affidavits, sworn But they presented, where other issues are subpoenas served with were here, they too should decided. subpoenas issued duces tecum parties agree readily so that this is Commission, Chairman command issues, that all both constitutional ing testify appear them to before and non-constitutional, are before this' 1959; July 13, on Commission court6. they na have not been informed of against them, complaints nor ture of the Constitutionality Act they will been assured that Itself complaining wit confronted with the Complainants declaratory judg- seek a nesses; repeatedly that the Commission ment to the effect that the Act uncon- is Attorney has informed the General stitutional appropriate because it is not any not, Louisiana that it would under legislation. Manifestly, position with, circumstances, plaintiffs furnish cannot be sustained. permit examine, or them to the written complaints against them, filed nor pertinent The Constitution and divulge it the name or names of the decisions of the make complainants; secret un the rules Congress may, clear pursuant der which the is to be conducted power conferred it Article 1 specifically right registrars deny to legislate Constitution, to secure the 4. cross-examine accusers right to vote in federal elections. That July 10, heard the case 1, 1959 was been On found in Article Sec Jr., Dawkins, parte Siebold, 1879, Ben Honorable C. Ex 4. U. 100 Judge 383, 371, 717; of the Western District parte S. 25 Chief L.Ed. Ex F.Supp. Yarbrough, mat 1884, 176 791. The 651, 660, Louisiana. 110 4 U.S. argued extensively 152, 274; and briefed. ter was 28 S.Ct. L.Ed. United States Judge granted Mosley, 1915, July 383, Dawkins 12th v. On 238 U.S. 35 S.Ct. restraining 904, temporary order issued 59 L.Ed. 1355. It has been found 1, 8, 18, and its mem parte a rule on Commission Article Yarbrough, supra, Section Clause Ex interlocutory why 658, an page cause to show 110 bers U.S. at Judge injunction page should not issue. Daw 4 S.Ct. at 155. has been found issuing temporary 1, kins, 2, restrain in Article v. Section United States ing order, opinion 1941, Classic, 299, 316, not intimate did 313 U.S. 61 S.Ct. constitutionality 1031, And, of the statute as to the 85 L.Ed. as 1368. the Su three-judge preme case, con court This itself 5. Court noted in the Classic proce- Registrars also contend 3. The truth of these facts is not con- 4. provisions of the Administrative dural tested. applied. Act should be We Procedure Judge opinion part Dawkins’ is made a prescribes agree. The cаnnot A.P.A. hereof reference. (5 1006) specific U.S.C.A. § section hearing procedures respect City with to two Water Service 6. California Co. v. (5 processes; Redding, 1938, 252, section § U.S.C.A. 304 U.S. 58 S.Ct. respect making”, 1003) 865, 1323; Wallace, to “rule L.Ed. Davis v. 1004) (5 482, U.S.C.A. § section with re- S.Ct. “adjudications.” spect The Act & 66 L.Ed. Louisville Nashville R. hearing requirements Garrett, except no 298, 304, tains Co. v. making adjudications rule where 58 L.Ed. 229. involved. Civil performing neither function here. enacting enforcing stat- at officials from page supra, 313 TJ.S. deny equal protection of the utes which page 1038: “ * * * laws. since restriction command legislate Congress may Since those limitation, unlike powers, pursuant to its constitutional guaranteed by the Fourteenth investigate may ob those and since it Amendments, secured Fifteenth legislate jects upon may which it of individuals the action investigative delegate it its since well of states.” function8, the issue the constitution equally clear It is creating ality of the acts in the Commis 15th may, pursuant to Section solely question wheth sion rests on the prevent states Amendment, legislate fact, Congress was, er the action quali denying from and their officials implementation of its constitutional account persons act, fied to vote powers. purpоses The stated race, previous condition overwhelming color, reading, fair its its States, (Guinn United legislative servitude proof positive history 926, L.Ed. 347, 59 238 35 S.Ct. Congress did that create 1959, 170 F. Wallace, pursuant power, D.C. as well In re to 1 its Article pur 2 Congress may, powers 63). Similarly, as to under Sections 5 its Supp. Amendments9, re of 14th the and 15th Amend 14th 5 of the to Section suant spectively. legislate prevent ment, states to present the subsection the enactment of States, 1957, 354 U.S. v. United 7. Watkins (b) In author- of Title 42. section 1 1273. L.Ed.2d pre- izing government to the federal Corp. Perkins, 1943, Johnson 8. Endicott types by of conduct indi- vent certain 501-510, L.Ed. carefully viduals, limited its are to terms 424. And, as House Re- federal elections. port, ls), Congress (at pages supra, report Il- (A). makes clear of House From the provision Judiciary Representatives in its rooted this Committee power. Congress, (Report Article First No. 85th Finally, history Congressional Session, the of the terms of and Ad- U.S.Code prescribe 1966) 1957, p. Act which the duties accom- News ministrative perti- became, it created panying reveals that was Commission the bill power. pursuant to the Article Sec- part, Act of the Civil nent 104(a) legis- Congress Committee tion directs that was manifest it is lating pursuant power. shall: Article to its investigate аllegations writing “(1) report portion Thus, of the des- ignated under oath or affiz'mation that certain notes: “General Statement” provisions are citizens the United States the bill I-I.R. 6127 “The deprived right designed of their to vote and have a more effective to achieve are ” * * * (Emphasis rights already guar- vote that supplied.) counted of the enforcement anteed by Constitution and laws of by language particular- inserted The italicized This is the United States. right ly regard out the House after the bill came of Com- fran- to the true mittee, Representative Hoffman, page 5.) (At favor- matters.” in Federal chise amendment, regarded ing por- Similarly, its inclu- Statement” the “General page since Court had crucial 6: continues at sion part integral proposals regard of the to be an involv- held it to the “With Classic, vote, right States v. right vote in United ing to the Federal Gov- to 4716). Thus, Cong.Rec.App. by supra (103 placed it article ernment to was directed investi- Commission Constitution the au- the gate of the section aspect deprivations thority regulate manner of con- authority right had been enunciated ducting vote which and that is elections suppemented the Article 1 which involved in a case the 14th and further Congress. power of amendments.” 15th through- (B). Amendment. In the evidence is further nth There Congressman Congress Celler re- debates House was con- its deliberations out 16088) Cong.Rec. (103 power. the Act ferred to Article clear of its scious exorcise “ * * * implementation power clear is illustrated of that 1,' 2). (Article in federal elections Sec. argu mindful We are So, very we have here involved the reg repeatedly appearing ments powers says which the are Constitution power that the effect istrars’ brief to the reserved the states. The action spe legislate granted is power here not an invasion of state cifically Tenth Amend limited regis- merely voting because state Amend Tenth On face the ment. its tration records involved. The recognizes powers certain ment gressional power complete in itself prohibited the Constitution may be exercised to its full extent. states, reserved are not and therefore investigation alleged discrimina- prohibitions of these to the states. One tory practices appropriate step in is an deny protec may equal no is that state process enforcing protecting Amendment). An (14th its tion of laws right qualified electors to vote. deny may no statе other very ap- definitely The Act color, constitutes race, account vote on legislation. propriate (15th previous of servitude condition provision of Amendment). another Still The Rules gives specifically Constitution legislate remaining pertinent to secure serious presented qualified questions to vote electors be thus stated: Congressional Record, Similar- at 14th and 15th amendments.” 13138: Report, purpose ly, the House is the the -words of “That central give supra, page meaning 6: bill: to the 15th amend- “ * * * op- 14th amendment ment of the Constitution of the the United prevent Rep- enact- State from See to also the statement of erates States.” enforcing ing would a law which resentative Celler in the House debates immunity abridge privilege Congressional and of the at 103 Record 16088. denying citizen and a United States 10. Under our system protection person equal of constitutional the a the qualification of is a amendments ex- voters matter com- laws. These two the pressly subject Congress states, the mitted to to federal authorize to enforce sup- prohibiting by (Emphasis legislation.” constitutional restraints dis- them race, color, plied.) on of crimination account “ * * * sex, But etc. is also truе 14th and amend- it the the 15th expressly ballots, ments, right confer of which of to east both citizens and have upon Congress congressional elections, the to enforce the counted them in regulations.” by appropriate (At applicable them page in accordance with state 13.) right laws, constitution, is a secured the federal all, right, itself Above the terms of the Act and this those unlike amendments, which to the Commission on Civil relate the 15th carried 14th and conclusively against demonstrate that Con- secured is the actions of indi- gress part upon powers its relied in under well viduals as as states. Article Sec- pro- Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment. 2 of section the in its By 104(a) section the Commission is di- for the election of visions of members Representatives, to: rected House of the and the study “(2) Amendment, provi- collect information con- and Seventeenth in its developments cerning constituting legal pro- Senators, for the sion election of equal protection “by denial that officials will be chosen vide people”. of of (em- provision Constitution; goes latos under and Each on to phasis supplied) that “the electors in state each State “(3) appraise policies qualifiсations requisite the laws and have the shall for respect the Federal Government of electors of most numerous branch of equal protection Legislature.” So, right to laws under the the State while the of (Emphasis supplied.) suffrage ‍‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‍ Constitution.” federal elections is estab- Congress Constitution, subject italicized The inclusion in the lished it to language imposition its manifests reliance state standards which concept only discriminatory (Lassiter found Amend- 14th are Northampton County v. Elections, ment. Board of (C) The 15th Amendment. For ex- 3 L.Ed.2d ample, the statement of Senator Bush decided June 1959. apply creating particular Congress, cases order (1) in' Did generalities disputes. Commission, it which no one specifically authorize investigations adopt conducted Greene, rules Under the rationale of (1) Act 104(a) under Section by eight justices, a decision curred investigated parties deprive which required is not now constitution- and ality confrontation deprivations. these is suffi- right nothing be Act that we cient find and their cross-examination expressly permits which authorizes charges against them? apprised of the per- inform refusal Commission’s (2) authorize did so If investigation sons, under criminal consti- is such authorization Commission conduсt, nature, source and cause tutionally permissible ? against them, and accusations authorizing nothing there is in the Act reading opin- the several careful Groban12, deprive per- the Commission to these Anonymous13, ions right sons of the of confrontation that, applied to Greene14 convinces us cross-examination. case, serious of this circumstances Here, plaintiffs subjected are presented issue public opprobrium and scorn adopted rules or not the whether adequate opportunity fair and to dis- plain- deprived these Commission, which prove against them. accusations confrontation tiffs They being subjected are the distinct and the cross-examination They losing jobs. likelihood them, apprised complaints with, charged have been are under There of the Constitution. violative investigation conduct, for, criminal can be which formula no talismanic examined connection with term, applied. Every constituting offenses federal state particular circumstances crimes15 in would com- examines Anonymous Baker, 13. authorized the Nos. 6 1 hearings (42 1975d § U.S.C.A. 3 L.Ed.2d hold specific 15, man (f)). June 1959. enumerated respect to certain less funda dates with McElroy, 474, 14. Greene v. 360 U.S. 79 aspects procedural (42 § U.S.C.A. mental 1400, 1377, 3 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d decided June expressly 1975a). Congress au did 29, 1959. par deny to to the Commission thorize right apprisal, investigated the ties plans admittedly 15. The Commission to confrontation, cross-examination. hearing investigate the to hold allegations written assumed that had The Commission registrars deprived the power to so do. right certain of their citizens to vote be- they adopted own, a rule On color, race, religion, cause of their or investigated parties denying to the origin (see Reg- national Affidavits right The rule is cross-examination. Stipulation 5). istrars and ingly, No. Acccord- 3(i) follows: and reads as reg- it must be admitted that “Interrogation witnesses at hear- being istrars examined in connection only by ings be members shall conducted alleged commission federal or authorized staff of personnel.” crimes, follows, and state to wit: 27,2 § 18 U.8.O.A. informed that be would When rights "Deprivation under color charges investigate against them, held law requested right registrars to see “Whoever, any law, under color of against and affidavits filed the accusations statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or They specifically requested also them. subjects willfully any inhabitant of of their accusers. The the names Com- Territory, State, dep- or District requests. refused both mission de- any rights, privileges, or im- rivation nial in each instance resolution protected by or munities secured the’ (see Stipulation). States, or laws of the United Constitution Groban, punishments, pains, In re 352 U.S. different S.Ct. or penalties, or 12. February 1 L.Ed.2d decided 'of such account inhabitant alien, color,. or reason of his pletely comport findings, with traditional fail evidence used fact prove play and would American ideas of fair Government’s case be must every justice. violate element natural disclosed to the that he individual so opportunity has an show it hearing sought to be restrained untrue. important in While this is pursuant to, and herein has been called evidence, documentary the case of with, would be accordance conducted in it important is even more where right deny rules which of confronta- testimony evidence of the consists registrars tion. The would be denied memory might individuals faulty be whose They right of cross-examination. might who, fact, per- be right apprised denied jurers persons motivated mal- identity person, persons, ice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prej- making charges against them, well udice, jealousy. We have formal- charge. as the exact nature These protections require- these ized products denials are the of administra- ments of confrontation and cross- explicitly tive decision not authorized They examination. have ancient by Congress. When we consider that They expression roots. find this executive commission has been provides Sixth Amendment granted subpoena in- all criminal cases the accused vestigate allegations true, which, if enjoy shall ‘to be confront- would constitute the commission ed with witnesses him.’ law, crimes under state federal pro- This Court has zealous to been required that it port further re- make a tect these from erosion. findings of its to the Execu- Chief only spoken has cases, out not criminal duty tive whose it is to enforce federal g., States, e. Mattox v. United laws16, criminal we can reach no other 237, 242-244, U.S. S.Ct. say conclusion than to that if ever 339-340, 409; Kirby L.Ed. procedural safeguards, spoken traditional States, United 574, 174 U.S. 19 S.Ct. Greene, protect ap- required of in were 890; 43 L.Ed. Motes v. United pearers commission, before a then this States, 458, 474, S.Ct. There, is the instance. 993, 999, re 44 L.Ed. In Court, through speaking its Chief Jus- Oliver, 257, 273, tice, said [360 U.S. 1413]: 499, 507, but also L.Ed. principles “Certain types remained all of cases where administra- relatively juris- regulatory our immutable tivе and action un- were prudence. scrutiny. g., One these is that der E. Southern Co. R. governmental seriously Virginia, action where injures v. Commonwealth of 290 individual, an 190, 148, and the rea- 54 78 L.Ed. U.S. 260; S.Ct. depends sonableness Telephone action Ohio Bell v. Co. prescribed race, pun- perform any duty required than are lawfully or to citizens, any him, perform shall be duty ishment fined not to or such $1,000 imprisoned or more than not more unlawful manner. year, or than one both.” “Whoever commits crime of mal- LSA-R.S. 14 :lSJf feasance office shall be fined not more dollars, office imprisoned “Malfeasance than five hundred or “Malfeasance office committed months, more not than six or both.” any public public or when officer em- ployee requires 1975c(b) shall: 16. 42 TJ.S.C.A. § Intentionally “(1) per- or refuse fail to to to the submit President duty required lawfully any him, comprehensive report form final and find- its employee; ings. required or officer or as such Since the Commission is Intentionally perform “(2) report President, make this to duty manner; land, unlawful in an Chief Executive Officer it is “(3) Knowingly permit any pub- presume prime purpose other fair that a public employee, report lic officer under his is to secure execution and en- authority, intentionally presently refuse or fail forcement laws in effect. 824 “It, therefore, necessary Commission, 301 U. becomes Public Utilities 1093; 292, 724, for me to 81 L.Ed. reach the constitutional S.Ct. S. 1, States, Morgan United 304 U.S. issue. v. 776, 773, L.Ed. 19, 999, 82 58 S.Ct. “Dr. Peters condemned Kubler, 1129; 320 U.S. v. Carter informers, faceless whom some of Reilly 26; 1, 243, 88 L.Ed. 64 S.Ct. were not known to the Board even 110, 269, Pinkus, S.Ct. v. U.S. that condemned of these him. Some Nor, bas been as it 94 L.Ed. not under oath. informers were even ignored out, pointed has None of them had to submit requirements these fundamental enacting cross-examination. None had legislation. regulatory face Peters. So Dr. far as we or Refugee Commit Anti-Fascist

Joint know, psycho- Board paths 123, McGrath, 168- 341 U.S. tee v. people, venal like Titus 646-647, 624, 169, L. 71 S.Ct. Oates, who revel in inform- ours.) (Italics Ed. 817. grudges. They may ers. bear old niston United States taya American Power 456, 461, curities 70 S.Ct. quire, Ex muke v. United Sung 329 U.S. 143, 172, nese 300, 23 S.Ct. raised serious constitutional lems, due ^[******] “Where afford those affected parte process. See, e. 91 L.Ed. Immigrant 56 S.Ct. the traditional v. v. the Court Mfg. S.Ct. 611, 614, Fisher] McGrath, 90 L.Ed. 90, 107-108, or the President Endo, administrative Co. Exchange 208, 94 L.Ed. 103; Hannegan 400, States, Case 323 U.S. v. 47 L.Ed. & 189 U.S. has assumed 217, Rumely, 345 586; Wong U.S. 339 Davis, Light 81 L.Ed. 97 L.Ed. 770. safeguards of [Kaoru 156, g., 89 L.Ed. 616; Cf. An 67 S.Ct. Commission, L.Ed. by the ac action 721; Co. v. 283, U.S. 66 S.Ct. intended 86, 101, Yama v. Es Yang Japa prob 299- 243; U.S. 561; Dis 133, 167, has Se ernment. ployees firms —things employees faceless informers where spread fair ness, used ty life. We deal here tion of men nation under oath the American of observation and though sincere, twisted Their turn out to ries Under Corss-examination their sto- suspect “Confrontation and cross-exami- remain a vital force itself. We authority trial. might disappear having government whispered through minds, more class and the outer dark- only * * *.” who work for and their contracts ideal of Government, precious the rudiments of a condemns a man have yarns vast domain. It practice confidences with memory. get with the by people here a poor due like bubbles. conceived than all essential, rid of em- apparently our process its the Gov- facilities but private proper- reputa- system might using work who, also if the Court’s con cases reflect These Greene, Supreme Court, in forms of fair that traditional cern procedure salutary clearly concisely and charted by im restricted not be followed. and sensible course to be ex plication without the most and procedures under the cir Whether plicit Nation’s law action constitutionally here are cumstances makers, in areas where it even ac permissible we not decide. In do pre possiblе the Constitution teachings Greene, with cordance inhibition.” no sents only that in a we decide concurring envisaged here, Douglas, Mr. Justice And one Regis deny Hobby, 331, accused v. 349 U.S. S. had no in Peters rights 1129, says: of confronta- 790, 800, 99 the traditional L.Ed. trars Ct. judge whether, asked to absence the cases, ti and cross-examination security congressional text person explicit clearance authorization may deprived be do so. professions to follow his chosen held In Greene the safeguards hearings without full accus- where denied these to be were not may be confronted, ers it must alleged being investigated for to one made clear that President sympathies communistic associations and Congress, within constitution- their explicit authorization the absence of powers specifically al decided has Congress. from either President imposed procedures nec- that the essary are Surely, duly are chosen officials state au- and and have warranted especial- protection, to the entitled same * * * Such thorized their use. ly se- national since no considerations by ac- decisions cannot be assumed curity every citizen. are involved. So is * * * quiescence or non-aсtion. government Greene, take In not did They explicitly must be not made him, petitioner’s job away but from only are that individuals gov- job lose his result ‍‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‍of he did assure deprived un- not of cherished finding he ernment effect procedures actually der not author- good security risk. If was not a * * * ex- but because ized. also charges here finds Commission against plicit action, especially in areas registrars true, they are requires constitutionality, doubtful only and not with scorn faced purposeful careful by consideration possible jobs, with also loss but enacting responsible those indictment, prosecu- probable arrest implementing laws. With- our tion. lawmakers, explicit action out per impressed, not We are but great im- decisions of argument government’s suaded, by the relegated port effect would be legislative history Act who, by default to administrators proves that the acted at system government, under our adopting implied direction of authority endowed argu the rules here under attack. This decide them. implied sus ment of cannot be direction following lan the face tained in administrative action has “Where guage from Greene: prob raised serious constitutional issue, it, “The as we wheth- see lems, the Court assumed has Department er Defense intended President been authorized to an indus- create ac those affected to afford program security trial clearance safeguards traditional may persons under which affected See, g., Japa process. e. due jobs restrained lose Immigrant Yama [Kaoru Case nese following professions their chosen 101, 86, taya v. U.S. Fisher] on the basis fact determinations 721; Dis S.Ct. L.Ed. concerning their clearance fitness for States, United muke v. proceedings in which 561; made S.Ct. 80 L.Ed. procedural traditional are denied the parte Endo, 323 Ex U.S. 299- safeguards of confrontation 208, 217, L.Ed. cross-examination.” Light Power & Co. Se American Exchange Commission, acquiescence implied curities “If rati- 90, 107-108, enough delega- fication were to show Hannegan 103; 143, authority Es 91 L.Ed. v. take actions tion of 156, 146, quire, 66 S.Ct. 327 U.S. questionable area con- within the Wong Yang 586; 461, 456, L.Ed. might agree stitutionality, we with 49, McGrath, Sung 33, delegation v. 339 U.S. respondents been that * * * 453, 616; 94 L.Ed. 70 S.Ct. Before we shown here. safeguards Mfg. Davis, Anniston cused was F. v. not afforded the C. Co. L.Ed. 301 U.S. confrontation S.Ct. and cross-examination. In Rumely, general President, terms, United v. Greene the States in Department 770. had 97 L.Ed. authorized U.S. of De- the procedures reflect the Court’s fense сreate restrict the These eases information, fair dissemination cern that traditional forms of classified by acquiesced procedure apparently im- had the in not restricted expli- program plication or elaborate the most the established Secretary lawmak- cit action in- the Nation’s which denied Defense possi- vestigated parties ers, is where it of con- even areas presents no frontation ble that Constitution The the cross-examination. strong- inhibition.” case authorization there was here; IY, g., Greene, er than Part e. ignore Moreover, even if were we 2 of Executive U.S.C.A. § Order Greene, do and which we have no note, specifically § stated: re- certainly do, still will not we would “ * * * agency investigative the argument government’s im- ject the may refuse to disclose names the Congress rejection by plication. informants, provided confidential it explicit neither more extensive rules is furnishes sufficient information authority implied nor eliminate the basis about such informants on safeguards cir- fundamental under department requesting of which the present. that true cumstances here is agency adequate can make Congress provide explicitly refused to evaluation of fur- information equally true safeguards, but is it by them, provided nished ad- it history nothing that there is requesting department or vises the Congress legislation this that show agency writing that it essen- is any writing into the Act even considered protection tial inform- away do investigation ants or to the of other apprisal, confrontation, cross- identity in- cases Congress examination. silence ” * * * formants not be revealed thought- apparently product of Clark, thought dissenting, Justice compromise. Con- members of ful Some specific: authorization was gress positively the fundamental wanted despite say, “How the can safeguards spelled out, others while facts, had these President legisla- approved probably would have sufficiently pro- authorized the denying specifically accused gram beyond me, the Court is unless Congress rights. remained silent. these necessary means it specially found In Greene the Court Indus- to write out President Department Defense had been Security trial Manual his own apply an in- authorized to fashion and hand.” program clearance dustrial but Court, majority, an 8-1 Department had either not shown that rejected the authorization as in- explicitly or the had President sufficient.17 We are not free tо do other- proceedings in which ac~ authorized wise here. pass- the issue of Equally as decisive on 17. meat had to be “[blefore satisfied any explicit port person.” authorization areas of doubt issued to constitutionality Dulles, context, Kent ful In 213. the Secre- § C.A. for, tary petitioners 2 L.Ed.2d refused asked There, leg required stating file, had enacted affidavits requiring every passport applica they islation then were or ever had been whether party. “contain tion to true recital of each the Communist members Thereupon, every Secretary matter of fact refused to fur- n required * * * petitioners’ application rules” of the consider un- ther Secretary State, require- required and that time as filed the til such voting subject right, cise conclusion is here that the the The inevitable to legitimate upon government pre- to the burden is the the to state Congress “explicit by non-discriminatory scribe ing show action” the fair vot- and adoption authorizing qualifications. rules the the of this Often in cases permit nature which cross-examina- the between refuse to Court must balance governmental tion, confrontation, apprisal. In individual and and interests. government Here, no this we examine the madе the for that case has record purpose attempt point any “explicit action” and find to to no conflict. No better procedure Congress finding no of authorization. made has exists out truth the give authorization, such than to and absent the accused notice explicit authorization, opportunity in these case him the rules full and to Hearings particulars gener- clearly meet it. vires. are ultra so conducted gov- feeling, popular ate a so vital in a Equities ernment, The justice being that is done. voting length Proper practices corner- We dealt at are have with the the im- damage upon irreparable stone balance and our democratic mediate that upsets registrars by is would maintained. be caused the forc- Discrimination ing proceed Moreover, giving that balance. clearly discrimination them to them Steps rights. and No the Constitution. basic traditional violates designed good purpose by to whether there determine be review- served ing phase been discrimination are therefore to the case. Suffice it grave importance. say public and that we stand interest on we have said what agree orig- Judge charges, there When therе are we Dawkins’ by opinion registrars here, means inal which state one these —that irreparable to another the vote qualified denied faced with immediate in- jury. injury, will person, damage, will interest What the what learning giving Cer- all facts. be served the the suffer to these finding registrars way safeguards all tainly, the surest out their traditional affording everybody, process law, hear from facts is to due the veracity justice? of a In them the tenets natural the surest test witness’ opinion, and cross-examination. our humble all the Commission his confrontation perhaps will suffer inconven- a little say in counsel to Government seem days them three ience. take investigation is so their briefs that very important get than the How rather one facts. not should Court they perform major task can best “finding safeguards traditional hold that give all the than out facts” registrars. inWe afforded the should be investigated legal persons basic disagree way with counsel no government concerning safeguards. We vain searched in value throughout extensive filed briefs precious place But to vote. on government in out an effort to find nothing have, inimi- we find as we search damage, irreparable dam- or what what giv- government’s interest cal to agе all, could done the Commission registrars rights they ing in- holding by prohibiting them from a hear- goal of The ultimate here. sist ing pursuant rules “ultra vires” these creating truth, resolutions. all of out the facts—the find parts prejudiced opinion possibly just find various do We —so safeguard government’s free exer- briefs able several statements courts, scholars, whose abroad would travel affidavits. a Communist Attorney Executive, security, Gen- to our national Chief be inimical pass- explicit agreed provide must so all issuance eral “discretionary years again ports been had for had con- once terms. part narrowly Department. delegated power very State act” strued Supreme Court funda- decided order or dilute curtail substantial Secretary deny passport rights. for the mental sug- damage. fairly conducted, to unite re- will tend It was toas intimations damage sponsible irreparable people gested be common in a effort will that Investigation problems. these and ex- solve hearings suffered because the Commission will bring proper will into focus pire action The recent in November. extending responsibility the the areas of of the federal life of in the government argument. dispels and of the states undеr our Commission this Through system. greater constitutional suggests if government that also public understanding, therefore, the copies the names and the accusations may prog- a chart course regis- the furnished were of the accusers guide years ahead, ress to us but in might be- accusers in it trars result finding investigation a fact as conducted prosecuted perjury. a ing is That proposed this to be conducted one strange argument person makes one—if only misunderstanding, can result in allegation an- oath that under a written suspicion, hostility, and unneeded bitter- and this crime committed other has ness. untrue, public out to oath turns be gov- justice require require not Natural does not interest gov- perjurer. frontation, apprisal, protect and ernment cross-examina- argues every Commission, also tion ernment possi- judicial only where, here, should take notice but instances making persons pressure abundantly to which ble record makes it clear subject un- complaints being investigated this field are and those suspected are accused This Court present circumstances. der criminal conduct. single where instance not know of does Believing pro we do actually pressure been has cedures the rules and of the Commis sincere, brought. honest, well- and Some particulars sion in the heretofore dis this, really meaning people but believe cussed are ultra vires and threaten the going (in total to assume are not we registrars irrepa and immediate people evidence) that the absence of damage, believing rable further that guilty prac- of such a will State government, pub the interests of the argues government Finally, tice. lic, and the Commission will best telling point in these is no that people there holding full served of a fair they they are did because what hearing wherein all accused crimes- they they registrars know what given develop a fair all chance regis- assumes did. This contention facts, we have to take but one course guilt, assumption itself trars’ government’s —that is to dismiss the concept of the American violence to does grant summary judgment motion for persons justice accused all —that prayer injunction, for an accord presumed until be innocent crime opinion. ance with this guilty competent evidence. proven right to cross-examina- Insofar as the Judge WISDOM, (dissenting). Circuit government concerned, offers holding I concur that the Act is-- why this should be denied. no reason They that the Administra- they merely say do not inapplicable. tive Procedure Act I congressional give com- it because compelled, however, feel to dissent from not, did and that mittees do holding that under Greene v. it. them do intend McElroy the rules of the Commission are- authority to hold The Commission ultra vires. hearings on vital public Knowledge issues. I. understanding every give greater problem will Commission’s rules be in- element clarity perspective adequate, one of the terms traditional safe- facing guards questions our accorded a defendant difficult coun- crim- most trial, study, investigation, but are the try. such an inal rules Such Con- hearings by gress the In 1957 several bills for were introduced authorized containing procedural provi Rights the Commission. same Civil bill, as sions the 1956 as amended. One radically from Greene This differs case subject of these was S. of the Senate pains McElroy. Here, took hearings position in 1957.3 The of the delegation Act, in its set authority, in the out Department Justice, of as stated the mandatory proce- rules of of Attorney General, was that “it would be by the Commission. followed dure rights legisla a mistake make [civil lan- follow The Commission’s rules the experimenting tion] vehicle guage on based the statute of Hearings, Judiciary new rules”. Senate 2Thus, on the the intent of the statute.1 Committee, Cong., Sess., p. 85 1st 14. important of cross-ex- issue of hearings In the House Civil pro- amination, the Commission rule Rights proposal Represen Senator, then “Interrogation of witnesses at vides : tative, Keating Attorney asked General hearings only by au- shall be conducted Department Brownell if object personnel.”3 This is based staff thorized inserting to the Committee in the bill a statutory provision, on the Section provision up “similar to those set in the hearings (c): may be “Witnesses at the rules for the House conduct accompanied by own counsel for congressional committees”. General concerning advising purpose them Department Brownell stated had rights.” The limi- objection procedure. no to such rules of lawyer a activities of tation 6127, adopted H.R. Rights law into as the Civil giving to his client on constitu- advice 1957, incorporated Act of way saying just tional ” Play House “Fair Rules4 as Section client) lawyer (or his cannot cross- 102 of the Act5. witness. examine an adverse refusing The action of controversy A central issue adopt particular adoption bill and rights legislation was whether over civil guide another bill often unreliаble traditional witnesses should congressional safeguards notice, confrontation, But the intent. circum- law, cross-examination. Rights The 1956 Civil stances H.R. 6127 became which reported by Bill, H.R. than 83 H.R. the. rather S. make it Judiciary Committee, House contained Congress, clear after careful deliber- special procedure. Rep. no rules of H. ation, procedures. made a choice of Con- Cong. 2d Sess. It was No. safeguards gress rejected the traditional floor of the House amended on the in a criminal defendant accorded trial safeguards of elaborate addition accepted Play House “Fair Representative pro Dies of Texas Rules”. Cong. posed. Rec. 13548. Play required Rules” “Fair The House were This amendment notice of the congressional subject inquiry the conduct confronta drawn investigating They tion, committees. were the allowed limited cross-examina legal product House, innumerable passed ar no indirect tion. The bill but judicial dicta, ticles, and editorials 6. taken on it action was Senate. Cong.Bec. 23, 1955, Appendix Appendix March 3569- A and ed 1. B. See Bules House Besolution invariably 2. This rule followed Bepre- Manual, House of United States of the House Senate. committees sentatives, 735(i)-(q). 1959, section permits a form of cross-examination: questions put of written (i) submission 102(a) through of 5. Section by the Chairman —for to the witness the House is identical with “Fair statute as cross-examina- is worth whatever Play Buies”. tion. pro- the various a discussion of 6. For Appendix 3. C. See procedure posals for a code before committees, congressional Maslow, (25) see Bule XI of the Buies 4. Amendment Congressional Bepresentatives. Adopt- Procedure In- Fair House product They of careful direct were the (cid:127)II. say study when the safe It is I therefore reach issue of the adopted Play Rules” were “Fair House stitutionality procedure. Act of the Civil Section subjecting subpoenaed every House member public opprobrium, witness explicit regarded loss of that action as an Senate reputation, affirmatively job, possible Congress loss of a and declaration state and extending prosecution federal based rejected to witnesses on rules testimony brought hearing, confrontation, out at notice, cross- rights and Congress carries instead, au sanctions no ; that, less severe a than examination Rights criminal trial. Fundamental fairness directed Civil thorized require would seem limited that such a wit- its more follow Commission to opportunity ness have Play to assert Rules”. “Fair rights notice, confrontation, cross-ex- distinguishes background the case This amination, process and other due safe- McElroy. There, the ma- from Greene guards. gone No court has however reasoning jority’s the President far. delegated Congress have not Clark, only Mr. de- Department Defense Justice member job prive result of Court who his reached man of Greene, no constitutional issue in he stated: in which has “(T)his ago cross-examination, long repeated- frontation delegation express ly approved au- including in the administrative action where by-pass due the traditional of cross-examination and con- thorization Here, permitted.” safeguards. frontation process ex- were 360 by-pass. 79 S.Ct. 1423. pressly authorized Chase, Improving Congressional Proposed Code, Investi- vestigations: 54 Cal. gations, Temp.L.Q. (1957) ; pro- (1954). 30 126 For the code 839 L.Rev. posed Requirements Davis, Trial-Type Association, of a Bar American Hearing, (1956); (1954). 70 Harv.L.Rev. 193 Ass’n Journ. 900 Am.Bar 40 see McKay, Right Confrontation, following, The some before and some See (1959). Play Rules, adoption Wash.U.L.Q. 122 See fol- the Fair after lowing procedurе directly dealing recent notes and comments: Due with the some Right Counsel, congressional Process and the 33 and some committees before (1957); rights gen- St. L.Rev. 67 dealing John’s The of witnesses ‍‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‍Civil Rights Contempt hearings investigative erally Act of 1957 before Court, (1958); bodies; Landis, L.Q. 48 Cornell 661 Con- Constitu- administrative Legislative Congressional stitutional Limitations on the on Limitations tional Investigations, Investigation, Power of 7 Buffalo 40 Harv.L.Rev. L.Rev. Power Representation by (1958); Potts, Legisla- Counsel, (1928); 267 Power of 1953 (1958). Contempt, 58 Cal.L.Rev. 395 See for 74 also to Punish tive Bodies Barth, by Investigation (Vik- (1926); Government I-Ierweitz Pa.L.Rev. U. of ing Press., N.Y.1955) Legislative Taylor, Investigat- Mulligan, Grand Inquest (Simon Schuster, N.Y.1955). Committee, (1933); ing & 33 Cal.L.Rev. Congressional Investigations Morgan, 7. In 1954 both houses of held Review; Thompson Kilbourn & Judicial hearings extensive on the matter of com- Revisited, (1949); Cal.L.Rev. procedures. Hearings mittee before the Requirement Opportun- Davis,. The Legislative Subcommittee on Procedure ity Heard in the Administrative bo Committee, Legisla- of the House Rules (1942); Process, L.Journ. 51 Yale Procedure, Cong., tive 83d 2d Sess. Liacos, of Witnesses Before Con- (1954); Hearings before Subcommit- Committees, gressional 33 Bos.U.L.Rev. tee on of Committee, Rules the Senate Rules and Ad- Symposium Legislative (1953); on ministration Rules of Proce- Safeguаrds Investigations: Witnesses, Investigating Committees, dure Senate Law., (1954); Dame 29 Notre Keat- Cong., (1954). 2d Sess. See 83d also Re- Investigating ing, Congress, Power port of Senate Committee Rules and (1954); Kefauver, 14 Fed.Bar Jour. accompany Administration to S.Res. Congressional of Conduct A Code In- Investigat- Rules of Procedure for Senate vestigations, (1954) ; ing Committees, Cong., 8 Ark.L.Rev. 369 84th exception, have the courts no process Without witness entitled to due investiga- investigation. drawn a distinction between an adjudicative proceedings. Wit- tive and Taking is, the law as it the Commis- hearings investigative do not nesses sion’s rules constitutional. rights of a wit- hearing. adjudicative in an ness III. gives protec- Amendment witness Fifth The rub in this case from comes investigation; opportunity tion in Act gruity itself. comes from the incon- process all to assert due legislative of a in- commission of adjudicative proceeding later is a suffi- quiry investigating specific complaints protection8. Groban, 1957, cient In re individuals accused of crimes9. 510,1 L.Ed.2d my mind, To com- creation such a Baer, Cir., 1954, Bowles F.2d grave danger legisla- mission carries 787; Norwegian Nitrogen Co. Products usurpation. questionable tive is of States, 1932, v. United legislative propriety, at best. 77 L.Ed. 796. investigation specific The violations majоrity In Groban a of the grand legis- juries, for the law is not very denying went far indeed in lative commissions. With all deference right statute, to An counsel. Ohio Congress, commission, to a constituted authorizing the Fire Marshal to State investigate problem a broad nation- investigate fires, the cause of conferred interest, holding al has no hear- business powers investigating broad officer. ings inevitably develop must into investigation pri- He could hold the in legislative trials of individuals. When vate, counsel, punish exclude witnesses subpoenaed a witness accused of a crime summarily testify by who refuse mitting com- may subjected exposure, trial a jail, and, them to if he believed fact-finding punish- determination conviction the evidence warrant a ment, rights he have the should same crime, for arson a similar he could cross-examination, notice, confrontation, investiga- the witness arrest after the and all other hard-earned em- appellants, The called tion. upon were who process anyone ac- bodied in due testify concerning cause a breaking cused of the law is entitled place business, refused to at fire by jury judge. when he is a before a tried They testify in the absence of counsel. formally ad- does nоt The Commission jail. a habeas were committed to In guilt impose judicate a sen- formal proceeding, they corpus contended tence, individual an whom a but right a to counsel had constitutional complaint is made to the Commission process due of the Four- under the clause may exposed hardships to all the of a held, Amendment. The five teenth court many punishment in forms. trial and to four, appellants constitu- had no giving testimo- to counsel in tional ny Play “Fair House Rules” are a investigative body before proper step con- direction —for adjudicate legal rights and re- not does gressional committees. Procedures suit- sponsibilities. If Groban not en- Congress’ committees, own how- for able ever, protections en- to counsel adequate titled than for trial are less concept process, compassed of due commission to which an autonomous emphasized legislation investigate allegations Proponents (1) of the 8. mission shall — repeatedly; writing “The created oath or Commission under affirmation that purely investigatory proposal of the United are citizens States certain only empowered deprived to make recommenda- of their vote H.Rep. Cong. counted reason of No. 85th 1st have that vote tions”. race, religion, color, origin; Sess., p. or national writing, affirmation, under oath or which 104(a) (1) (Duties of the 9. Section Act the facts forth shall set Commission) provides: based;” “The Com- or beliefs belief re- delegated in- Whoever sent of the Commission. its leases uses quiry. tes- evidence or sent of the Commission animating crea- high purposes timony shall taken executive session do Commission Civil $1,000, im- be fined not more than dangers in inherent diminish year. prisoned for not than one more legisla- degenerate hearings apt into They simply obscure trials. tive (h) In discretion of the Commis- dangerous ends used to attain means sion, may brief witnesses submit legislation. writing pertinent sworn statements however, The Com- These, considerations record. inclusion long judge perti- Congress10, as Groban sole mission it) McElroy nency testimony (as I read state adduced evidence Greene v. hearings. at its law. Appendix thereof, (i) Upon payment of the cost Commission transcript Procedure of the copy Rules of obtain a witness testimony given public ses- his 102(a) or one des- Chairman Sec. session, given or, if executive sion at an ignated by Chairman at him act as by the when authorized Commission. an- shall sub- opening statement in an nounce (j) attending any A session witness hearing. ject of the for of the Commission receive $4 shall copy rules (b) the Commission’s of day’s time and for the each attendance be- to the witness made available necessarily going shall be occupied re- to and Commission. turning same, per fore the and 8 cents from the returning going hearings may and be mile for from (c) at the Witnesses place who for his by of residence. Witnesses accompanied own counsel their concerning advising points at far removed from attend so purpose them of respective prohibit rights. residences day day shall be return thereto from Acting (d) Chair- Chairman or allowance of entitled to an additional may punish of order breaches man day subsistence, per expenses of $12 including unprofessional ethics decorum necessarily occupied time counsel, and exclusion censure part of going returning to and from hearings. from Mileage place payments of attendance. (e) determines the Commission If shall be tendered to the witness testimony any hear- at evidence or subpena of service a on behalf issued degrade, defame, in- ing may or tend to any the Commission or subcommittee (1) any person, re- it shall criminate thereof. testimony in ex- evidence or such ceive person session; (2) (k) afford such ecutive Commission shall not issue voluntarily appear any as a opportunity subpena an the attendance dispose (3) witness; testimony receive pro- of witnesses or for the person subpoena requests from duction written other or matter which witnesses, (f) Except pro- require party presence additional 105(f) hearing subpenaed 102 and of this in sections vided at a to be held outside Act, shall receive and the State, Chairman wherein the witness dispose requests to shall found or resides or transacts business. subpena additional witnesses. Appendix B testimony (g) or No evidence taken statutory provi- be or- addition to these executive session released In sions, adopted the con- the Commission has sessions used body application provision requiring of the stat- The inclusion to a court mandatory procedure process ute of rules for enforcement of gressional sensitivity indicate con- unique legislation setting up problem. an in- to the vestigatory This, commission. following Pro- advance. The committee 24 hours in supplеmentary Rules Commission or subcommittee shall de- cedure : reading permit cide whether to provisions of (a) Section All the such statement. 85-315, incorporated in Law Public (h) applicable above, to and The Commission or subcommittee be shall Rule govern proceedings all subcom- shall decide whether written statements appointed documents to it shall be the Commission submitted mittees pursuant hearing. 105(f) placed of Public in the record to Section incorporated 85-315, Rule 1 Law (i) Interrogation of at hear- witnesses above. ings only by shall conducted members of the Commission authorized staff (b) the Com- At two members of least personnel. any present at mission must (j) any pursuant sub-commit- If the Commission or 2(e), thereof, thereof. tee Rule subcommittee testimony determines that evidence or hearings by (c) holding of any hearing may defame, de- tend to appointment of a sub- Commission or grade, any person, or incriminate it shall hearings pursuant committee hold person advise such such evidence in Rule 1 above must be the Provisions given has been and it afford such shall approved majority members person opportunity per- to read the by majority of the Commission or testimony appear tinent as vol- present the members at which at least untary file present. witness a sworn state- quorum of four members ment in his behalf. (d) Subpenas for the attendance and (k) Subject physical to the limita- testimony production of witnesses or the hearing tions of the room and considera- may of written or other matter be issued physical tion of the comfort of Commis- signature over the Chairman of staff, members, witnesses, equal sion by by the Chairman or coverage and reasonable access for of the upon request the Chairman of a hearings provided shall be to various member the Commission. including of communications, means (e) Subpenas for the attendance and newspapers, magazines, radio, news testimony production of witnesses or the reels, However, and television. no wit- may of written or matter other be issued televised, photo- ness shall be filmed or signature over Chairman a sub- graphed during hearing objects if he appointed pursuant committee to the ground distraction, harassment, on the provisions by of Rule 1 above Chair- physical handicap. or by upon man request or the Chairman a member of the subcommittee. Appendix C S. 83 (f) Adversely transcript An by accurate of Persons shall Affected be Testimony testimony made of the of all witnesses hearings, public all either or executive (q) person a shall be considered to be sessions, any of the Commission or of adversely by affected evidence or testi- subcommittee thereof. Each witness mony aof witness if the Commission de- inspect shall have the to the record (i) that; termines evidence or tes- testimony. of his transcript own copy timony would constitute libel or slander testimony may purchased by of his be presented if not before the Commission pursuant a 2(i) witness to Rule above. (ii) testimony alleges or the evidence or Transcript copies public may sessions disgrace crime or misconduct or tends by public upon obtained payment be expose person pub- or otherwise to of the cost thereof. contempt, hatred, lic or scorn. (g) Any desiring practicable, (r) any person witness Insofar as to read a prepared hearing subject statement in whose activities are the shall of in- copy vestigation by file Commission, with the Commission or or sub- about upon any or proposed al disclosure of or comment information whom adverse by or hearing it Commission members of the public presented at a tо be taking fully Commission staff of similar Commission, or advised shall be testimony public hear- into or evidence matters to the the Commission as ing, to in- proposes heretofore conferred Commission

which the inspect as much of at least quire adverse material and the testimony evidence adverse or presented. Insofar proposed to be reflecting pub- ad- witness material as will be made practicable, material all hearing. subject public lic or the reputation of aof versely character proposed be (u) individual which is Any (except a member witness hearing public the Com- presented press profession- who in his testifies execu- be shall first reviewed capacity) gives mission testimony al who before reliability its tive session to determine hearing open in an pre- ‍‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‍probative shall not value and adversely which reflects character on the pursu- except at a sented reputation person of another majority the Commission. ant to vote of required by the Commission disclose information, his sources of do unless to (s) adversely person affected If a endanger security. so would the national given testimony pub- ain evidence or person have the hearing, shall lic right; (i) testify appear or file a behalf, (ii) own sworn statement his recalled witness have the adverse thirty days application after made within deter- of such evidence or

introduction testi- of the adverse witness’ mination mony, (iii) represented counsel to be (iv) provided, cross- as heretofore Sally Shirley by counsel) Matter of person Ann HITSON and (in examine Joyce McGowan. subject witness, (v), adverse Commission, Misc. No. 1245. obtain discretion Commission of sub- issuance the penas United States District Court witnesses, documents, oth- California, N. D. N. D. oppor- in his defense. Such er evidence Sept. tunity afforded rebuttal shall be and, practicable, promptly so far as such hearing shall conducted at the same place under circumstances the same hearing at which testi- as the mony adverse presented. shall be limited Cross-examination witness, hour for each

one unless by majority extends vote group of each witness time for or witnesses. (t) person adversely If affected given testimony in execu- evidence or material tive session Com- records, public files or and if re- mission evidence, testimony, such lease person contemplated, such material prior have, to the release of shall testimony evidence materi-

Case Details

Case Name: Larche v. Hannah

Court Name: District Court, W.D. Louisiana

Date Published: Oct 7, 1959

Citation: 177 F. Supp. 816

Docket Number: Civ. A. 7479

Court Abbreviation: W.D. La.