*1 v. WYMAN, UPHAUS ATTORNEY OF GENERAL
NEW HAMPSHIRE. Argued 17-18, No. 34. June 1959. November 1958. Decided *2 argued Leonard B. Boudin France and Royal W. Hugh them on the brief were With appellant. cause for Victor Rabinowitz. H. Bownes and ~ Wyman, Attorney Hamp- General of New Louis C. him appellee.. With on the the cause shire, argued Bigg. Dort S. brief was John M. Coe- filed brief for
Nathan and Witt curiae, reversal. Guild, urging as amicus Lawyers National Mr; of the Court. opinion Clark delivered Justice appeal judgment from a again This case is here on appellant by the Merri contempt against civil entered Supreme County and affirmed Court mack Court appellant’s refusal It arises out of Hampshire. of New Hampshire a New documents before certain produce which was authorized committee legislative investigating alia, there were inter whether to determine, and directed present the State organizations or persons subversive appeal from the New Upon the first Hampshire. of New 130 A. 2d we 436, 278, H. 100 N. court, Hampshire 355 it, remanded case to judgment vacated Sweezy v. New light in the for consideration 16, S.U. That court reaffirmed (1957). 354 U. S. Hampshire, deeming A. 221, N. H. 2d decision, 101 its former For' in the instant case. the issues Sweezy not to control Supreme agree will we with appear, reasons which Hampshire. Court of New Sweezy, Attorney Hampshire,
As General of who a one-man investi- had been constituted gating Legislature,1 committee Joint Resolution conducting probe of subversive activities State. In his invéstigation the course of General called Executive Director World appellant, Inc., voluntary Fellowship, corporation under organized the laws Hampshire maintaining of New a súmmer camp the State. his Appellant concerning testified activities, own comply subpoenas but two refused with duces production tecum which for the called certain corporate .years records for 1955. Tb. sought (1) information of: consisted a list the names *3 of all camp’s the nonprofessional employees for those two summer seasons; (2) correspondence the appellant which had on with persons carried and concerning those who came to camp the as speakers; (3) the names of all persons who camp attended the same during periods the of time. Met with appellant’s refusal, Attorney the Gen- eral, in accordance with state N. H. procedure, Rev. Stat. Ann., c. 491, 19, 20, petitioned §§ the Merrimack County Court to appellant call before it compliance and require with subpoenas. the
In appellant court, again refused produce to in- the formation. He by claimed that the Act,2 Smith as con- by “Resolved the Representatives Senate and House in General Court convened: attorney general “That the hereby authorized and directed to complete make full and respect with to violations of the subversive activities act of 1951 and to determine whether sub- persons versive as defined in presently said act are located within this state. . . Laws, N. H. 1953, c. 307. The investigation authorized this resolution was continued
N. H. Laws, c. 197.
2 18 (1956). U. S. C. §2385 Nelson, Pennsylvania S. U. by this Court strued the field occupied so Congress completely had (1956), without'power were the States of subversive that activities he contended Additionally, area. that investigate to of the enforcement precluded the Due Process Clause that under the resolution .first, because subpoenas, vague whs operate to authorized Attorney General were not sought the documents because and, second, that argued Finally, appellant inquiry. relevant to speech of free rights his would violate enforcement association. appellant’s sustained County Court
The Merrimack nonpro names of the objection production to took no General employees. fessional Appel us. and it is not before ruling, appeal from names production to the objections lant’s pro was ordered overruled, and he camp’s were guests in con adjudged his he was Upon refusal, duce them: jail until he tempt of and ordered committed court On the complied with the court order. should- have thereto, correspondence objection for the demand question ruling made no but transferred the trial court That court Hampshire. Supreme Court list. regard guest action in to the the trial court’s affirmed requested production correspond Concerning the no but directed ence, Supreme order, Court entered “may on court exercise its discretion remand trial entry of an the com with order enforce respect *4 subpoena correspond production mand of the the of H., 130 A. at Ño remand 448, 2d, 100 N. at 287. ence.” effected, trial court has not acted having yet been the case, judgment final the and there no upon phase this appellant produce to the letters. there requiring the We question. § with that 28 C. 1257. do not treat U. S. fore Johnson, WOW 120, v. 326 S. 123- See Radio Station U. to pass now a consideration the sole (1945). We question us, namely, before the of the validity order contempt guests for refusal to at produce.the list of World Inc., of 1954 Fellowship, during the summer seasons arguments 1955. In made appellant addition the court, the trial he that the urges here “indefinite sentence” imposed him such upon constitutes cruel unusual punishment as to process. be a denial 'due that
Appellant vigorously contends New Hamp- shire Act of Subversive Activities 19513 and the resolu- creating tion committee have been superseded In Act, Smith this support position amended.4 appellant Nelson, Pennsylvania cites The supra. argu- Nelson, ment is that which prosecution involved a under law, state sedition that has “Congress held intended to occupy field of sedition.” This decision, rule of it is contended, legislative investigations should embrace made pursuant an effort Legislature inform itself presence of subversives within the State pos- sibly to enact laws the subversive field. appel- lant’s argument sweeps In too broad. Nelson itself wé , said “precise that holding of the . . is court the Smith Act . . . prohibits knowing advocacy of the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence, supersedes the enforceability of the Pennsylvania Sedition proscribed Act which the same conduct.” (Italics supplied.) S.,U. 499. The basis of Nelson thus rejects the notion it stripped States right to protect themselves. All opinion proscribed awas race between federal and prose- state cutors to the courthouse opinion door. The made clear that a proceed State could with prosecutions for sedition against the itself; State that it can legitimately investi- gate in area follows a In Sweezy v. New fortiori. Hampshire, supra, where same contention was made 3 N. H. Ann., Rev. Stat. 1955, c. 1-16. §§ 2, supra. Note *5 silentio. Act, was denied sub it identical state as to the Act in Nelson hold that the Smith our opinion Nor did of itself either activity protection state proscribed had attempted of violence “sabotage or threatened from actual pointed is opinion of the it kinds.” In of all footnote internal power to .with that the State had full deal out quo war- registration statutes, Thus disturbances. civil the sub- ranto proceedings corporations, as to subversive subjects host of other instigation of riots and a versive the State’s security grist furnish directly affecting state right of the State Moreover, mill. legislative a state- of production papers require corporate whether in an to determine corporation chartered inquiry course, is, of state activity policy is violative corporate unimpaired, in Nelson today stands upon not touched Act or the Nelson opinion. by the Smith either capsuled into Appellant’s objections other can. under the Hampshire, single question whether New from, production is here,' precluded compelling facts the Four- the Due Process Clause of the documents away some of the Let first us teenth Amendment. clear surrounding case because necessarily underbrush setting. its freedoms discussed political the academic and
First, supra, here Sweezy Hampshire, v. New present are not Fellowship neither degree, since same World questions Next, since university political party. nor act as it authority the committee to concerning Illinois, Dreyer S. v. 187 U. law, of state questions are did Hamp accept as controlling we 71, (1902), conclusion that Court’s Supreme “[t]he shire reasonable beyond it clear doubt history makes these, an and does desire Legislature] did answer [the 221-222. H., 2d, at 136 A. 101 N. questions.” Uphaus had assume, deciding* we Finally, without any. whose standing rights guests sufficient assert identity the seeks to committee determine. See National Association the Advancement People Colored *6 for Alabama, (1958). S. 449 357 U. The interest of the in guests Fellowship at World their privacy associational having asserted, been we have for decision the federal question public of whether the interests overbalance these conflicting private ones. “justifica Whether there was production tion” for the order turns on the “substan tiality” of New Hampshire’s obtaining interests the identity guests when weighed against the individual interests which the- appellant asserts. National Associa tion the Alabama, Advancement People Colored supra. -
What was the interest of the Attorney State? The General was commissioned5 to determine if there were any persons6 subversive . within Hampshire. New The obvious starting point of such an inquiry was to learn persons what were within the State.- It is therefore clear requests directly relate to Legislature’s area e., interest, i. presence of subversives in State, as announced in its resolution. Nor was the demand of subpoena burdensome; time, as to only few months years each of the two were involved; place, only as to the camp conducted by the Corporation; nor as to the lists of names, which included about 300 each year. supra. 1, Note 6Section 1 of the Subversive Act, Activities Ann., N. H. Rev. Stat. 1955, 1-16, c. person”: defines “subversive §§ “ person’ any 'Subversive person commits, attempts who .means commit, to commission, or aids in the. advocates, abets, or advises or teaches, by .any any person éommit, means attempt to commit, to or aid the commission of overthrow, act intended to destroy or alter, to overthrow, or assist destruction or of, alteration government constitutional form of the States, of the United or of the state of Hampshire,- any' political New or subdivision of either of theni, by force, violence; or or who is a member of a subversive' organization foreign or organization.” subversive Attorney had Moreover, General valid.reason guests Fellowship that the speakers believe World persons meaning subversive within the might be Hampshire Supreme Act. The Court of the.New Hampshire Uphaus’ contrary position found “unrelated nexus reality.” Although evidence as to the may Fellowship between World and subversive activities not be we believe relevant conclusive, sufficiently support Hamp General’s action. The New shire definition of persons subversive was born of the determination the Communist movement posed security a serious threat of the State. appellant record reveals that participated had “Com munist front” activities and that less than nineteen “[n]ot *7 speakers by Uphaus invited to talk at Fellow World ship had Party either been members of the Communist or had or affiliations with it or with one or connections organizations more of the cited as subversive or Com munist controlled in the Attorney United States General’s atH., 442, 2d, list.” 100 N. 130 A. at 283. While list is for designed purpose General’s the limited determining' of fitness for federal employment, Wieman Updegraff, v. guilt by U. S. 183 associa (1952), tion remains a thoroughly discredited is doctrine, it with legislative investigation a criminal prosecution— —not Certainly we deal here. investigatory power of until, the State need not be constricted sufficient evidence of gathered subversion is to justify the institution of proceedings. criminal
The nexus Fellowship between World and subvérsive activities disclosed adequate justi- record furnished fication investigation for the we here The review. Attor- ney sought General to learn if subversive persons were the State because of the legislative determination that persons, statutorily such defined awith view toward the Party, posed Communist security serious threat to the was, therefore, under the State. “the ultimate self-preservation, in the interest taken States, S. society,” Dennis v. United U. value of 509, outweighs This interest 494, (1951). governmental privacy which, in an how associational rights individual Association National circumstances, real other cf. ever Alabama, People the Advancement Colored camp supra, operating were here at best. The tenuous furnishing lodging per both public one, board Hampshire As to New law applying them, sons therefor-. requires that maintain a Fellowship, Inc., register, World open inspection of sheriffs and officers.7 It police might contended that the list be “circulated throughout the states the Attorney throughout Generals - states have files, -any guest cross-indexed so that whose name is in that immediately mentioned kind of proceeding becomes even in suspect, place his own of residence.” Record, p. 7. The record before us, however, only reveals report -a Hampshire Legislature made Attorney General in accordance requirements with recognize; course, We that compliance resolution. with subpoena will result exposing fact that the persons therein named guests Fellowship. were at World But so long as a committee must to its report Since there has following been in effect the statute in New *8 'Hampshire: keepers “All persons hotel keeping public and all lodging houses, camps, tourist keep- or cabins system shall a book or card and cause guest sign each to legal therein his own or name name he commonly is known. system Said book or card shall at times be all open inspection to of deputies the sheriff or his police and to officer. . . .” Ann., 353, N. H. Rev. 1955, Stat. c. 3.§ represents The General public camp of World Fellowship, Inc., clearly is purview within of this statute. Al- though sought the lists were required by more extensive than those statute, appears it that most of the pursuant names were recorded it. an in of disclosure —is exposure the' sense parent, —in presence an into of escapable incident th.e govern And the a State. persons within of subversive sufficiently com self-preservation is interest mental privacy the interest pelling to subordinate associational guest regis at to the extent of persons who, of least the associa public inception made statute, tration .at such light In the of keep private. wish to they tion now interest has not been that the State’s a record we conclude come point to a has “pressed, instance, where constitutionally overriding” fatal collision with the into may represent. he rights appellant and those protected Connecticut, S. 296, (1940). Cantwell 310 U. the sen- validity question now reach the We contempt appellant judgment orders tence. produces until he the documents called confined to the court that He himself admitted the subpoenas. failed to only not had he they hand, were although he had that, further, him but court, them bring with In appellant’s them. view of producing no intention of As one. proper think the order a refusal we unjustified States, in Green v. United S. U. was said (dissenting opinion): (1958) perhaps it should going any further,
“Before with that we are not at all concerned emphasized imprison-. conditional power impose of courts to obey compelling person purpose ment for the order; defendant coercion, where the Such valid to com- willingness in his keys to freedom carries essentially a civil is directive, the court’s ply with parties for the benefit of other remedy designed exercised for centuries properly been quite has judicial decrees.” compliance secure with committee’s demand for have that the concluded We judg- legitimate one; it follows that the documents valid; produce for refusal to them contempt ment *9 impugn appellant’s good We do not faith in the assertion he rights. of what believed to his But three courts rights. have with him in If disagreed interpreting those appellant adjudica- chooses to abide the result of the obey Hampshire’s courts, tion and the order of New he not jail. If, however, disobey, need face he continues to find objection we on this record no constitutional remedy contempt exercise of the traditional to secure compliance.
Affirmed. Brennan, Justice with whom The. Chief Jus- Mr. Douglas tice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice join, dissenting. today
The Court holds the constitutionally pro speech tected rights assembly of appellant and those whom may represent he are be subordinated to Hampshire’s legislative investigation becausé, as applied the demands made him, investiga on rationally tion is connected with a legisla discernible tive purpose. With due respect my Brothers’ views, I do not agree that a showing any requisite legislative purpose or other state interest that constitutionally can subordinate appellant’s rights is to be found Exposure record. purely for the sake of exposure is not a valid subordinating purpose. such Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 187, 200; Sweezy Hamp v. New shire, 354 234; Alabama, U. S. NAACP v. S.U. 449. record, This I think, only not fails to reveal interest of the State sufficient to subordinate appellant’s constitutionally protected rights, affirmatively but shows the investigatory objective was the impermissible one of exposure for exposure’s sake. I therefore dissent from judgment of the Court.
I fully appreciate the delicacy judicial task of questioning the workings of a legislative investigation. function primacy for the regard A proper *10 scope investiga of the for the broad field, in its and own ends, necessarily should tory to achieve power indulge every reasonable judiciary to constrain the validity inquiry. of legislative of the intendment favor imposes also another of However, government our frame protect that of judiciary, duty upon inescapable of and speech of freedom rights ing the constitutional by the national invasion, whether assembly improper from States, v. United See Watkins legislatures. or the state NAACP v. Ala supra; Sweezy Hampshire, v. New supra; as I think bama, invasion is as clear that supra. Where is entitled to our discloses, appellant this record judgment of reversal. of the investi of the collision
Judicial consideration constitutionally protected rights gatory' function with in our assembly development is a recent speech of and has often examined the The Court constitutional law. of federal and validity under the Federal Constitution imposing action criminal and state statutes and executive pro to be alleged on conduct other traditional sanctions speech of and of guarantees tected of freedom sanctions of assembly. state-imposed The role of the prohibitory injunctions fines and directed imprisonment, their limitations under against speech association or and First Fourteenth Amendments has been can quite fully, beginning early vassed as as Gitlow New York, Minnesota, Near v. 697. 268 U. S. U. S. of action, deprivation public And other state such as to a employment profession, and the denial of admission subject has been restraints recognized being also g., of See, Updegraff, the Constitution. e. Wieman v. Examiners, 183; S. cf. Schware v. Board Bar U. of U. 232. S. only recently
But required begin has Court been exploration impact a full of the governmental is intro- on freedoms.1 Here investigatory function these investi- power weighty duced the consideration legis- of the gation, governmental whether exercised aid States, or in supra, lative see power, Watkins v. United adjudicate disputes, see governmental power aid Alabama, supra, functioning NAACP v. is vital to the governments necessarily But free and is therefore broad. where the with investigatory power exercise of the collides constitutionally guaranteed power too freedoms, has inevitable diffi- limitations, always and the delicate and cult accommodation two with minimum sacrifice of either is judiciary ultimately the hard task this Court.
It was
the
logical
adverse effects of unwanted
publicity
exposure
exercise
concomitants
—of
—as
of the investigatory power,
recognized,
should come to be
in certain circumstances, as invading protected freedoms
and offending
upen
constitutional
governmen
inhibitions
tal actions. For in
era
an
of mass communications and
mass opinion, and of international
tensions and domes
anxiety,. exposure
group
and
tic
identification
state of
holding
those
unpopular and dissident views
are fraught with such serious consequences for the indi
as inevitably
vidual
to inhibit seriously the expression of
views which' the Constitution intended to make free. Cf.
Speiser Randall,
v.
that New appellant, demonstrably clearly outside wide power must limits be conceded to State In exposure. even it be attended some demon- though I examination of the stration turn to the detailed - requires. facts which this case group The is of a appellant, Uphaus, Executive Director Fellowship called program World which runs discussion n ata camp Hampshire, pub- summer in' New at which the lic is to stay. speakers camp invited Various come primarily for political, discussion of economic and social matters. The appellee reports Uphaus and some of the speakers persons have been said third to have a history of association" with “Communist front” move- ments, to have followed the line,” signed “Communist amnesty petitions and amicus curiae and carried briefs, on similar activities of a sort recently which have been hostilely viewed and suspiciously by many Americans. A strain of pacifism runs through appellant’s think- ing, appellee and the apparently seek would to determine whether there should be therefrom drawn an inference " of harm for our institutions; conjectures, officially, he whether advocacy “the of this peace so-called crusade purpose for the achieving quicker and a cheaper n occupation by the Soviet Union and Communism.” There is no evidence that any *of activity a sort violates the law of Hampshire or could in fact be constitutionally punished went on at the camp. What is clear is that there was- some sort assemblage camp that was polit- oriented toward the discussion of ical and public other matters. going activities on were private those of citizens. expounded The views obviously minority views. But assemblage was, we.re on its face, purposes to which the First and Fourteenth give Amendments constitutional protection against incur-
87 powers government. Sweezy sion of Cf. v. New Hampshire, supra, at 249-251. which this case is with concerned was authority
undertaken under of a 1953 of the Resolution Court, 1953, New General N. H. Laws c. 307, Hampshire 1955, Laws, and extended an enactment N. H. 1955, c. 197. The Resolution directed the General here) of (appellee complete the State to a “full make and investigation” of of “violations the subversive activities 2 act of 1951” and to per- determine whether “subversive Hampshire, The Act was c. 193 the Laws of of New 1951. After preamble, provided including an definitions, extensive various § (cid:127) organization” of “foreign definitions “subversive subversive organization”; person,” provided, definition “subversive also “any commits, person was: attempts commit, who to or aids commission, abets, or advocates, teaches, by any any advises or means person commit, attempt commit, or aid commission destroy act to overthrow, alter, intended or or to the over assist in throw, of, -or destruction alteration constitutional form government States, Hampshire, or state United of New any political them, by violence; or force, subdivision of either of or organization or who is member foreign a of a subversive or a subver organization.” definition, sive For a discussion of the breadth of this Sweezy Hampshire, supra, see 246-247.
Section 2 of the Act defines crime of sedition. The definition quoted person,” except based on the of “subversive definition “membership present the final is omitted clause” “clear and danger” regard advocacy, advising abetting, test is introduced in teaching. Assisting organiza- formation of subversive foreign organization, managing one, contributing tion or subversive destroying papers, hiding support, funds, “knowing its its or its organization foreign organization said to be a subversive or a sub- organization” offense, punishablfe versive also constitutes which is by twenty years’ imprisonment $20,000, or a fine or Those both. organization who or remain or become members a subversive foreign organization, “knowing dates, after subversive certain said organization organization foreign to be a subversive or a subversive organization,” years’ under imprisonment are liable to five or' a § $5,000 fine, disqualifies or both. those Section convicted under *14 located presently in said act are within
sons as defined Hampshire law, constituted state.” Under New ordinarily is law-enforce- Attorney (who chief General State) commit- ment official of the one-man prosecution of individuals and dis- The sanctions tee. solution of organizations for violation of the 1951 law seem discarded, passage to have been with the the Resolu- A tion, exposure. provision favor of sanction of the 1951 Act for treatment mate- providing confidential reflecting loyalty rial on individuáis’ inappli- was made f cable to investigation Attorney General was directed to conduct, and the was author- General in sweeping ized terms give publicity to the details of his investigation. A report Legislature of the fruits of the investigation was to day be made on the first of the session; the 1955 extension called for a 1955Jegislative report similar to the 1957 session.3 Efforts to obtain from appellant the disclosures relative to World Fel- lowship in controversy here began during period covered the 1953 Resolution, but his final refusal and the proceeding contempt under review here occurred during extension.
The fruits of the years first two of the investigation were delivered to the Legislature in a comprehensive vol- ume on January 5, 1955. The Attorney General urges this report on our consideration as extremely relevant a consideration of the investigation as'it relates appel- lant. I think that this quite is the case’; the report is an official indication of the nature of the investigation and is, fact, the stated objective of the duty assigned by the Resolution to the Attorney General. It was with this public or 3 from employment, § office or § 9 erects a similar § disqualification in the case of persons.” all “subversive Section 5 provides' for the dissolution organizations foreign subversive organizations subversive functioning Hampshire. in New appears None been have made. it that report Legislature before renewed the investi- characterizing and it be taken as gation, nature must report proper before us. The is divided into sections. First series of. numerous general introductory essays by various authors en- Aspects titled “Pertinent Today.” World Communism Essays discuss “The Nature of the Threat”; Russian “The Role of the Communist Organizations”; Front “Some Important Aspects of Marxism and Marxism-Leninism” ; “The Test of a Front Organization”; and “Communism vs. Religion.” descriptive General matter on the Com- munist Party Hampshire hardly follows. It *15 needs be said that this introductory material would to focus attention on report the whole in terms of “Com- munism” regardless of what was said about the indi- viduals later named. Next comes a general section titled “Communist in Influence a Field of Education” wfiich replete with and biographical material of indi- names viduals; a similar section on “Communist in Influence Labor”; Field of generieally and one more captioned in “Organizations,” appel- various details as to the lant, his organization, pre- and others associated in it are sented. Last a comes section entitled “Individuals” in which biographical persons presented. sketches of 23 are
The introductory in put matter volume, matter mildly, showed consciousness practical effect of the change of policy judicial from expo- prosecution sure the Attorney persons reported General of be connected with groups charged to be “subversive” or “substantially Virtually Communist-influenced.” entire “Letter of Transmittal” of the Attorney .General addressed to discussing policy itself in used in report disclosing the names of individuals. The Attor- ney General drew a significant distinction as to the names he would disclose: past “Persons with membership of with Party affiliation the Communist substantially or have not been disclosed groups
Communist-influenced this, provided have assistance persons those report where good reasons exist It is felt that no investigation. cooperative names of witnesses requiring listing of “ his re- A declared that categories.” “Foreword” [t] these subject,” and, concentrat- port deals with controversial list an extensive report the fact that the contained ing on activities addresses, their and miscellaneous persons, of made several dis- them, and associations attributed not to be considered an indict- report claimers. was any Attorney suitably General individual, ment jury only authority that a pointing;out grand was the formal indictment. Hampshire having power inquisition. it “the result of an No witness Nor was been treated ever, any time, this has Attorney than courteously.” Finally, other General reporting stressed that of facts herein does NOT “[t]he reader) (nor by any should it be taken to constitute charge against any witness.” He that “facts are observed „to .... opprobrium facts Conclusions of relative individual, privilege personal opinion, while within the encouraged are neither recommended nor intended to In any-phraseology report.” fact, listing might many names well contain the names innocent people, implied This permis- General. *16 sible, believed, interpreted he in the courts because, New Hampshire, scope questioning “the of relevant in the investigation goes beyond requirements far of indi- fact, vidual felonious intention. In the General Court inquiry has directed that made determine the extent ignorant membership, innocent or affiliation support or organizations of subversive . . . .” The report certainly is one that suggested by would be quoted parts opinion of the foreword. No was, as matter of course, expressed Attorney General as to person whether named therein was in fact a “subversive person” within the meaning of the statute. report The did riot disclose whether any indictments under the 1951 Act would be sought against any Its person. sole recommendations legislation were for a evi- broad dentiary statute applied to be persons trials of under Act as really State which cannot be said “subversive/’ to have been the fruit of the investigation, being copied from a then recent Act of Congress,4 and which made apparently change no the 1951 law’s standard of guilt, immunity for an measure calculated to facilitate future investigations. The report, once the introductory material with, on Communism is done contains primarily an assorted list of descriptions names with of what had been said about the In persons. named most cases, the caveat of General the information violation, should not be understood as indicating, Hampshire Subversive was, say Activities Act least, well-taken, in the of the conduct ascribed to light them. Many of the biographical would strike summaries a discerning analyst as mild stuff indeed. In many very cases, positive diligence was demonstrated efforts to _add the names of individuals to a list and then render a Scotch proven” of “not in regard to them. verdict example most vivid of this rs the material relating to the appellant’s group, World Fellowship. After some intro- ductory pages, there comes extensive biographical mate- rial relating to reported memberships, associations, advocacies, and signings open letters on the part of certain speakers at the World Fellowship camp. veryA few had admitted membership the Communist Party, or had been “identified” as being members third persons generally not named. Others were said to be or to have been members of “Communist influenced,” “front,” “officially or cited” groups. Some were said 4 The Communist 1954, Control Act of 886, 776, c. § Stat. 50 U. S. C. 844. § *17 open petitions against letters signed
to have deportations, to have criticized the Federal Bureau of to Investigation, given have free medical treatment Party officials, Finally Communist and the like. the re- port speakers: addresses itself remainder of to.the easily “Information available to this office does not indi- cate records support of affiliation with or of Communist part causes on the people. However, these due imposed of work on the staff of the House Com- burden mittee such on Un-American Activities thousands of requests received from all over the it has not been country, possible persons to check each of these Inas- thoroughly. hope much as no committee public agency or can to have all the information its files all subversive concerning activity all over this country, possible not for this guarantee, office to the following individuals do not activity backgrounds. have such their Therefore, it is necessary report their Court, identities to the General éxplanation with the upon that based what information following we have been able to assemble, individuals appear contingent at this time to be the usual .wopld _ unsuspecting persons that surround ‘dupes’ almost
every instigated propelled venture that is or ‘peren- apologists nials’ and articulate for Communists and Soviet chicanery, but of this fact we are not certain. This list (cid:127) does not include the many persons merely who were guests . . . .” The names of persons with 3b ^their
addresses then followed.5 5Although the nature of the is difficult individuals convey reproduction report, two without of the full individual names, write-ups (the from other sections of the book are use.d .report here) but not are illustrative. two-page
A item is begins: entitled “The Matter . . . [X]It years “In opposition legislative investigations recent there has been made, some academic circles. Charges^have been without usually accompanying an evidence, 'hysteria’ 'cduntry rules the scintilla *18 report is. individual of the entire emphasis The on. questionable and individual near-guilt, individual guilt, of intro- tone, its regardless Its flavor and behavior. help but stimulate réaders disclaimers, cannot ductory of ‘the the teaGh truth’ because that are afraid to and teachers ‘witch ‘Daily- repeated the Communist is ad infinitum-in hunters.’ This line Worker.’ investigation, Hampshire, during this a case New the course of
“In concerning-a . . .” teacher. arise where rumors were circulated did concerning whom the rumors report proceeds: The “The teacher city] public [X], school the were circulated was a teacher [Y concerning Mr. came the attention system. When the rumors .to [X] testify. office,he ...” this was invited to of “voluntarily” appeared testified report that X and The relates Attorney any organization “fully” a of on the that he was not member prepared “This was make list, never had been. office General’s and to. investigation public make the results of such the facts and to full of purposes the of the current effectuate an if. would state. resigned employment outside the secured probe. [X] resignation, of his such course decided to submit Had not [X] not taken; been but facilities were available would have action inquiring problems. into moot . . noting report, none of its usual informants
The after available X, anything damaging say to its of had about concludes discussion oppose per se “It should be to factions who this “matter”: clear investigations legislative investigation such can into subversion that against insuring legitimate purpose of academic interests serve conjecture gossip.” are to whether unfounded rumor or We left Attorney X General’s conclusion. Mr. would subscribe Y, 11-page write-up story of of Police An Chief in a municipality. having been a Hampshire Y admitted Communist withdrew, currently then, he but said that from till regarded Party something par the Communist as on a with Hitler. Party witness that Y’s name was on a secret Communist list A said Pages then. statements and after details inconclusive regard follow, including in this a “confrontation” counterstatements Attorney office, Y and a witness in the at which of Chief General’s present Board of town for he was were Selectmen report then lists various “situations in which Police Chief. investigation” not able to of assistance this was Chief [Y] finally conspiratorial, to the “Due to the comes “Conclusion”: “badge infamy,” Updegraff, attach a Wieman named in it. The 183, 190-191, persons
U. S. to the authorizing requested Gen- Resolution eral whether ascertaining himself there were address and the persons” Hampshire, report “subversive in New indicates of lists interpreted making that this was as. persons amorphous either who were classifiable result, category, so, presenting or almost and the Legislature, and to public, document, official the public generally. The main thrust Resolution of. itself in terms of individual behavior —violation of presence, State, Act and the of “subversive objects persons,” investigation. were the The collection *19 data, peripheral such of data refer- having some it, ence' to explicit with detail as to names and places, was what the in Attorney doing response General set himself to to it. As the itself report stated, very “A considerable amount questioning is absolutely separate essential to the wheat from the in applying- chaff the formula to conduct part individual which involves that of the spectrum very close to the line of subversive con- duct. Only through questioning such is it possible to be able to report Legislature activity the of a whether given individual has been or not subversive subversive; whether intentionally or not knowingly so or so on his clandestine, currently underground nature the Communist Party, inability as testify well as the to force to witnesses concern- ing activities, testimony subversive the in above conflicts here have not been presented they record, resolved and are exist on the without further . comment. . .” biography
The usual individual is shorter and less detailed than this; many just the state address, individual’s name and street set Daily forth a in reference to him the or Worker an “identification” Party with the Communist at some group, 'date or wrara “front” subject refuga, and state that the privilege invoked or in took against questioned when "Attorney self-incrimination before the General.
part.” report, One must on feel, reading first very sentence —“A considerable amount question ing is in absolutely applying legisla essential ... tive formula to conduct which involves individual part spectrum very of the close to the line of subversive conduct” —is a in overstatement, serious because usual citation in person expression no' report his innocence or or in guilt, precise his coloration Attorney General’s still spectrum given. was But report activity was made terms of the of named indi viduals. Of if course, General Attorney had informa relating guilt tion statute, under the he empowered to seek indictment and conviction offenders criminal proceedings, in which of rights course normal afforded criminal defendants and the normal limitations on prosecution state political for conduct related to asso ciation expression, Constitution, under the would apply. The appear citation of names the book does not to have relation of an possibility orthodox or traditional criminal prosecution, and the Gen eral acknowledge seems to The investigation this. question here was ancillary prosecution not one —to grand jury or procedure. trial If had if been, a definite prosecution undertaken, were- we would have that nar rowed context in relate the State’s demand *20 exposure. Alabama, Cf. NAACP v. supra, at 464-465. process This part relation is parcel examining and the “substantiality” of the State’s interest the concrete con text it is But alleged. here we are without the aid of precise such requires issue and our task that we va look further to ascertain whether investiga tion, as applied upon the demands made appel the lant, rationally connected with general a- discernible legislative end to rights which the of the appellant and represent those he may whom constitutionally can subordinated..
The extended the Legislature, upon receiving report, the during this investigation, years. for a further two It was period that infor- appellant the refusals of the to furnish mation with The place. which we are now concerned took Attorney already had the names of published. General speakers at the he wanted Fellowship camp. Now World correspondence Uphaus speakers. between and the Attorney unlikely The that General admitted that it was correspondence Uphaus speakers was between and of a to going damning purpose to contain admission government (presumably advocate the overthrow of He said Hampshire) by of New force and violence. might that the ad- purpose indicate a sinister behind vocacy pacifism purpose achieving quicker —“the a cheaper occupation by the Soviet. and Com- Union guest munism.” The of which list, nonavailability Attorney pas- to the on in the General commented sage report quoted above,6 from the 1955 was also desired. Appellant’s counsel, hearing giving at the in court rise contempt finding review, protested to the under that appellant Attorney did not want to to allow General expose have the names to them. Attorney General also wished the names of nonprofessional help at the . camp cooks and like. dishwashers and It was the. —the objected that the cooks and dishwashers were from hired pool local labor if employment such were trip attended General’s office and possibility public exposure, help might become hard camp. objection find at the This last was sustained court, inquiries the trial but the other two were allowed failure appellant’s respond relating to the one contemptuous. list was. guest found experience difficulty First. The Court seems to in dis- . cerning appellant standing plead rights has supra. p. 92, See
97 he does because the material of free and association speecn may technically belong to World he seeks to withhold may Inc.,, corporation, pro a Fellowship, relate other rather than those of persons, tected activities of. Alabama, corporation In supra, himself. NAACP v. membership plead its permitted represent for ing rights public their to freedom association if appellant, corporate, Here as a officer one purposes. list will, protect seeks to of those who have assembled together public corporation’s prehit discussion on the technically ises. Of course this is not a membership list, distinguish but NAACP v. Alabama on this ground point. point to miss its The is that if the members of the assemblage only plead could rights their assembly themselves, interest v,ery being safeguarded by the Constitution here never be protected meaningfully, could require guests right since to that the claim this themselves “result right very nullification of the at the would Id., moment of I its assertion.” at 459. dó not think it likely that anyone deny right would of a bookseller (including corporate bookseller) produce decline to purchased names of those had his who books. Cf. United Rumely, 41, States v. S. 57 (concurring U. opinion), opinion and the below that case, 90 U. S. App. 166, 172.7 D. C. F. 2d In examining right Second. of the State to obtain this information appellant by from the compulsory Court, apparently, support Hamp draws some from the New lodging registration shire house statute for its conclusions about the substantiality guests’ lack of interests in nondisclosure. Since General, admittedly the statute not cover what the .would Hampshire to obtain and since the New courts themselves desired it, did not rest on it is difficult to basis for find this reliance. enough production It be time would to deal with a order based on that statute when it arose. *22 recently so said in
process, we must recollect what we Alabama: NAACP v. ‘advocacy public private of both and
“Effective is view, particularly ones, controversial points as this undeniably by group association, enhanced remarking recognized by Court has more than once upon speech the close nexus between the freedoms of Jonge Oregon, De assembly. 353, and v. 299 S.U. Collins, Thomas v. 323 It 364; 516, U. S. 530. is beyond debate that freedom to in engage association for the advancement is insepa of beliefs and ideas an assured, rable aspect ‘liberty’ of the. the Due Process Clause of the Amendment, Fourteenth which n See Gitlow v. embraces speech. freedom of York, Connecticut, Palko v. 652, 666; 268 U. S. 302 Connecticut, Cantwell 319, 324; S. v. U. 310 U. S. City Baxley, Staub v. 296, 303; 321. 313, U. S. course, it is sought Of immaterial whether the beliefs pertain be advanced association political, economic, religious and matters, or cultural state may action which curtailing have the effect of the- subject freedom to associate is scrutiny.” to the closest S., 357 U. at 460-461.
And in examining the interest carrying State’s out legislative investigation, as was said a similar context in United States v. supra, must strive 44, we Rumely, not to be “that ‘blind’ Court, against Mr. which Chief Justice Taft admonished passage, famous . . . that ” does not see what 11others see can and understand.’ ‘[a] The problem protecting the citizen’s constitutional rights from legislative investigation exposure and is a practical one, and we must take a practical, realistic approach-to it.
Most legislative investigations unavoidably involve exposure of some sort or another. But it quite clear deliberately pur- and very core, was the exposure are con- investigation we so, posefully a broad passed had Legislature here. cerned with sanc- included criminal which comprehensive statute, least, readily sus- say the That statute was, tions. might enter applications ceptible many States, Yates v. United danger zone. See constitutional at all applied could not 319. And it U. S. directed for behavior as it amounted to a sanction insofar Nelson, Pennsylvania States. against United fraught with would be Therefore, indictment U. S. 497. of an obvious and problems evidentiary constitutional *23 why the reason may suggest This subtle nature. hardly Activities the application of pattern the of Subversive through processes not the Hampshire in New was statute of an was cast terms of The Resolution indictment. statute. by existing this of conduct restricted investigation implementa- and the General’s The Resolution The choice was making of it of a choice. tion reveal of inves- process exposure through to reach the end of making power and tigation, contempt backed with the persons groups of and reports Legislature, of to the related to offenses under thought to be somehow of conduct or, further, penumbra to an uncertain statute And, as was said area of the statute. proscribed about the Sweezy Hampshire, v. New investigation of the same sub- supra, rooting out of program for 248: “[T]he regard presence to the version . . . drawn without .[was] The guilty knowledge those affected.” or absence of widely much more than exposure applied was sanction judi- traditional anyone remotely suggest could that even in this area. might applied cial sanctions accept preservation truism that may One Court’s undoubtedly proper purpose State’s existence this descending peak from legislation. But, this must ask the case, abstraction facts of one to the question: investigation What did this of indi- relation vidual conduct have to legislative ends here? If bills of attainder a legitimate were legislative end, still is clear it that investigations reports naturally might and have starting point only that) furnished the (though for a legislative adjudication guilt under Act. But actually what other being ful- purpose filled the course taken with its investigation, emphasis overwhelming on individual associations and ' - conduct? .investigation, as revealed by the was over report,
whelmingly
predominantly
roving,,
self-contained
behavior,
group
individual
constitutionally protected
in a
behavior
area.
Its' whole
approach
names,
was to name
disclose information about
those
observe
“facts are facts.” The
named/and
Hampshire Supreme
has.upheld
investi
Court
gatiori as
it
In
being proper legislative inquiry,
is true.
Wyman,
H. 33,
Nelson
99 N.
A.
756, 763,
2d
said: “No sound basis can
for denying
Legis
exist
power
investigate
lature the
to so
the effectiveness
its
though,
act even
as an
general
incident
inves-
tigation,
it may be
necessary
inquire
to whether a
particular
has
person
.
violated the act.
. . When thé
investigation provided
a general one,
for is
discovery
*24
of a specific, individual violation of
is
law collateral and
subordinate
object
to the main
inquiry.”
the
In eval
uating this, it must be admitted that
maintenance
the
separation
powers
in
is
not,
the States
itself,
and of
a concern of the Federal
v.
Sweezy
Constitution.
New
Hampshire, supra,
Benson,
at 255; Crowell v.
285 U. S.
22, 57. But
investigation
for an
in the field of the con
stitutionally protected
of speech
freedoms
and.assemblage
upheld
-to be
by the broad standards of relevance
permissible in
legislative
inquiry, some relevance to a
certáinly
purpose must
legislative
valid
sh^wn,
Legis
state
the
that
the
law
below,
made
under
ruling
the
Wyman
Uphaus,
v.
inquiry,
the
has authorized
lature
not con
278, 285,
130 A.
does
436, 445,
H.
2d
N.
Legisla
that
fact
the
the issue here.
bare
clude
not
that
inquiry
does
mean
ture has authorized
in the
legislative
is
end when viewed
inquiry
for a valid
must, apply.
we
test
light of
federal constitutional
the determination
weight,
is
while it is entitled
Nor,
to a
legislative
relates
valid
inquiry
a state court that the
Court,
the task of this
as the Court
end
It is
conclusive.
today,
evaluate
recognizes
theory
faqts
¡deter
legis
actually
if
has been demonstrated
mine
there
alvalid
related.
all due
inquiry
end
is
With
lative
to which
Hampshire
respect, the
observations of
quoted
in the case of Nelson
v.
bear
Supreme
Court
Wyman
as
little
to the course of the
relationship
inquiry,
repealed
report
after
decision.
''The
.by
report
published
processes
an
of law
discloses
which
submerged entirely in
law-evaluating were
making and
of a
adjudication,
behavior —in
exposure
individual
through
exposure
sort,
disclaimed,
much
however
trial,
conducted
process.8
’investigation
If an
or
the application
organ
State,
aimed
must
upheld,
to be
it
sanctions
individual behavior is
law
meet the
standards
common
traditional
country
application
has
for the
of sanc
established
constitutionally
individual,
permissible
or a
tions
Kilbourn Thompson,
modification of them. Cf.
a State
general
as a
matter
is true that
can distribute
While
fit,
governmental
as it
far as the
Con
powers
its
sees
Federal
(regardless
organ
concerned,
stitution is
it is also true that
of what
functions)
apply
tests
different constitutional
in examin
exercises
adjudicatory powers.
ing
state
Bi-Metallic
state
See
Equalization,
Investment
v. State Board
It is not I enough say¡ the Court's fear position may to, amount that whát was an inves taking place was tigation and until the the Legisla General and ture in data, precise had all the shape necessarily action to be taken was unknown. Investi gation and exposure, the area which we are here with, concerned recognized are not leg as self-contained powers islative in themselves. See v. Watkins United States, supra, Alabama, at 200. Cf. supra. NAACP v. so, hardly Since this is it fulfills the responsibility with charged, protecting the .Court consti tutional rights of freedom speech and assembly, admit that an investigation going indefinitely in on time, roving subject matter, and cumulative in detail in this area can be aid of a valid on the legislative end, theory day some it may come to point. some Even the most abusive investigation, the one totally most com mitted to constitutionally impermissible end of indi adjudication vidual through publication, pass could such a test. At stage of this investigation that arewe with, concerned it'continued to be a cumulative, broad inquiry specific into the past details of individual and associational political behavior area. It appears to have been a example classic of “a fruitless in vestigation personal into the affairs of individuals." Kilbourn Thompson, supra, at 195. Investigation appears to have been a satisfactory product end State, but cannot be so for in. us this case as we *26 Nor can of the Constitution. demands the evaluate investigation, renewal of the legislative the accept vse measures to facili- legislative taking of other or the themselves the being investigation, tate the that it report indicates inquiry. the justification of renewing the legislation them; requesting so viewed statute, immunity investigation an investigation and if renewal stated that significantly Attorney General not substitute were investigatory or some legislation investigation, no mean no further it “would passed, con- This activities . . . .” upon check Communist tinuing existence of the investi- continuing just to admit the inquiry. for the justification gation as self-contained rely content on the may the State be However much perfectly plain I it sanction, as its think investigation own justification as a here. Ñor can regarded it be that cannot already questionably that an broad possibility the faint broadened, if constitu- statute be further might criminal subordinating legis- permissible, be considered tionally in the here, light of what purpose particularly lative by report. as revealed its Of was fact investigation reports, and further after further course, eventuate, or at least be con- might of some sort legislation rejected because of serious Perhaps might sidered. think, I constitutionality; would, its doubts as to —which airy spec- But on such making. I am point underline say we can that the State has I do not see how ulation, this which on its any showing investigation, made appearance simple, of a overwhelming has an surface presents an wide-ranging exposure campaign, implemen- subordinating lawmaking interest as the that, of a tation must be shown to have. concedes, the State Court very problem to a similar approach This Court’s Alabama, supra, guide should furnish a NAACP here. There thé course of decision State proper admittedly which was purpose a definite demonstrated ascertain- was the purpose That competence. its within carry- unlawfully foreign corporation whether ment because borders, Alabama’s within ing on local activities required the manner to do business qualified not as its having this proceeding In a judicial state law. obtain sought the State purpose, stated express carefully This Court corporation. list membership freedom of associational curbing recognized It then would entail. inquiry this disclosure called inquiry relationship between analyzed the *27 cón- was no rational concluding, that there and, purpose, impermissible. constitutionally inquiry it held the nection, no extreme; more there is dem- Here the is even situation outside purpose is, legislative onstration at all of what the of vio- investigation violations, suspicions of violation, of raising question and conduct some lations, fear say, an It is anomalous to existing statute.9 I says today, vaguer that the the State’s interest the Court and laxly will the Court view the matter is, the more of a valid subordi- indulge a of the existence presumption roving investigation In and nating effect, staté interest. politi- exposure past expressions associations and Gossett, Mr. T. Vice-President and 9 Cf. address of William Company the Annual Brotherhood General Counsel of Ford Motor Detroit', 20, 1958, Dinner, Michigan, in which he'said: November urge scrupulous exactness, par upon “We must our law-makers investigative ticularly powers. their we are in the exercise of When subversives, feeling people suspected frustrated that certain — society gangsters example racketeers, or flaunted labor —have through impunity, tempting pillory prolonged it to' them with is public exposure hearsay testimony, intemperate and to invective those, destroy try by abuse. But to such means to other forms of may destroy process law we are unable to convict due whom safeguards against tyranny very protect us all and instead the arbitrary power.” upheld might
cal field is because it lead to some sort of legislation might be as constitutional, sustained process the entire is said to become the more de- rather than the less vagueness fensible because says appellant of the issues. The Court that the cannot argue against exposure because is an investigation exposure make may lead some- where, to possibly just action. But this is to say investigation, that an once under state it is law classi- “legislative,” showing fied as needs no of purpose beyond its A own existence. start must be made somewhere, and if the principles announced, this Court has and to which have., today the Court deference, makes some are to meaning, up must be to the State to make some at least disclosure of its plausible lawmaking interest' so that the relevance of its inquiries may to it Then the tested. justification courts could begin evaluate the for the impact on the rights individual’s of freedom speech assembly. only, But here not has the State failed begin interest; elucidate such an it has positively demonstrated, it appears rae, through Resolution, it's General’s and the state interpretation courts’ it, and the re-enactment, Resolution's that what it is interested exposure, lieu of prosecution, and *28 nothing definable else.
The precise details of the inquiry we are concerned with here this. Attorney underlines The General had World Fellowship’s speaker list and had already publica- made in tion of it the fashion I to which He had have alluded. considerable other data about World Fellowship,' Inc., already published. he had which What reason has been in demonstrated, legislative terms of a inquiry^ going in depth? into the matter further Outside of the fact that might it afford some further evidence .to existence as. persons” of “subversive within the I State, which have matter related not in itself a to show was endeavored investi- except function self-contained any legislative themselves, the relevance of further gation exposure effect on damaging But its detail is not demonstrated. in list is obvious. And persons guest to be named investigation on only purpose since the discernible investigation exposure this record is revealed to be se, per purpose the names and the relevance of the constitutional- quite apparent, alone is discloses in us infirmity inquiry requires to strike down adjudication contempt question here. describes the in this inquiry Court we must make matter as a I balancing of interests. think I have indi- legislative cated that there has been no valid interest of actually the State defined and shown as it operated, really so that there is nothing against which appellant’s rights expression of association and can be if But some proper balanced. end of the inquiry can be surmised, through process what must be a I speculation, think it is patent really that there is no subordinating interest on part demonstrated the''State. The inquired evidence about was simply an effort get further details about an activity as to which already there were considerable details the hands of the I General. can see no serious and substan- relationship tial between the furnishing of these further minutiae about going what was on the World Fellow- ship camp and process of legislation, and it is the process of legislation, the consideration of the enactment of laws, with which ultimately we are concerned. We have a detailed inquiry into an assemblage the general contours of which were already known on the hand, one and on the other the remote and speculative possibility of some legislation sort of legislation in a field —albeit where there are serious constitutional limitations. We *29 in inquiry an which was in the context of have this as a overwhelming its thrust in practice.being conducted had been fol practice, exposure, of and where vehicle proven” of a “not names on the basis publishing lowed of that the State cannot are not asked to hold verdict. We compul without fact-finding all, at with or carry on such general as a asked to hold that Nor are we sory process. facts to amass cannot be used compulsory process matter interest legislative to an ultimate initial relevance whose Daugherty, S. remote. Cf. McGrain v. U. may be narrow and more subtle deal with a 135, 176-180.10 We into the areas of inquiries deal here with problem. We compul assemblage process where the speech free and effect. Cf. repressive itself tends to have sory disclosure Randall, supra. power with the Speiser deal We only compel asked, are such disclosure. We State to our statement context, only give meaning narrow States, supra, the mere Watkins v. United at “that justify an purpose would not semblance of Bill Here we must inquiry Rights.” the face of the showing by initial the State sufficient demand some privacy as it relates to counterbalance interest Daugherty congres legislative justification McGrain v. found in a inquiry presented strong exposure sional a rather element of legislation wrongdoing, possibility past to be sure. But the legislative subject here, mat more real than is the case much workings regulation an of the structure and execu ter —control and fraught prob with the constitutional department one not tive —was by legislation advocacy political in the field of presented lems significantly, assembly. inquiry itself, most was not directed And public assembly discussion, but at the of a private conduct at inhibitory political office; effect on basic official in it did not have (cid:127) inquiry presents. we are here concerned with freedoms that Daugherty States; supra, 200, n. Watkins v. United 33. Cf. then, relating powers basically, one to the distribution case among branches of Federal Government. *30 speech assembly.
freedom of On basis that has practical New meaning, Hampshire has not made such a showing here. I judgment would New reverse Hampshire Supreme Court.- Douglas Justice Black and Mr. would Justice
Mr. decide this case the ground on being appellant deprived rights under the-First and Fourteenth Amend ments, for the reasons developed Adler v. Board of (dissenting U. S. opinion); Beau Education, Illinois, harnais S. 250, 267, 343 U. 284 (dissenting join opinions). they But dis Justice Brennan’s Mr. sént because he clear makes to them that Hamp shire’s program resulting in the incarceration appellant contempt violates Art. I, § provides Constitution which that “No State shall. . . . pass any Bill of Attainder.” Lovett, See United States v. 303, 315-318, S.U. and cases cited; Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee McGrath, 341 Committee v. U. S. 123, 142-149 (concurring opinion).