United States v. Harris, Crim. A. No. 1212-49.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1953 |
| Docket Number | Crim. A. No. 1212-49. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HARRIS et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Benjamin F. Pollack, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Burton K. Wheeler, Edward K. Wheeler and George F. Hirmon, all of Washington, D. C., for defendant Robert M. Harris.
William E. Leahy and Ben I. Melnicoff, both of Washington, D. C., for defendants Ralph W. Moore and National Farm Committee.
Hugh Howell, Atlanta, Ga. and Victor Davidson, Irwinton, Ga., for defendant Tom Linder.
In the case of National Association of Manufacturers v. McGrath, D.C., 103 F. Supp. 510, a three-judge court of this district held that Section 305 of the Regulation of Lobbying Act was unconstitutional, U.S. C.A., Title 2, Chapter 8A, Section 264.
This conclusion was based on two grounds: First, that the definition of the offense, as contained in the statute, was too indefinite to comply with the requirement of constitutional law, and the due process clause particularly, that a criminal statute must define a crime with sufficient precision to apprise persons as to what would constitute a violation.
The second ground was that the penalty prescribed by the statute was unconstitutional in that, in addition to a fine or imprisonment, or both, it proscribed any person convicted under the statute from attempting to influence the passage or defeat of legislation for a period of three years. 2 U.S.C.A. § 269. The Court held that this provision was a violation of the constitutional rights of every citizen to petition Congress.
The penalty provision of the Act is applicable not only to violations of section 305, but also to violations of section 308, 2 U.S. C.A. § 267, which may well be severed under the separability clause. To repeat, the penalty, however, applies to both aspects of this statute.
The court does not agree that the separability clause goes far enough to make it possible to cut the penalty clause in two. In fact, if the present contention now advanced by the Government were correct, then the decision in the National Association of Manufacturers case was erroneous insofar as this ground of the decision was concerned. The court feels that that case is at least stare decisis, if not res judicata.
To be sure, the judgment in that case was set aside and the complaint dismissed by the Supreme Court, but merely on the ground that the case had become moot during the progress of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SECURITIES AND EXCH. COM'N v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 14258.
...citizen to petition Congress. The court held no section unconstitutional except the sections mentioned above. In the case of U. S. v. Harris, D.C., 109 F.Supp. 641, the court did not decide that Section 30811 of the 1946 Lobbying Act, which in some ways is similar to Section 12(i) of the Ho......
-
Food Fair Stores v. Square Deal Market Co.
...event the plaintiff "would be barred under the present circumstances * * * by virtue of its long acquiescence in an adverse use * * *." 109 F.Supp. 641 Plaintiff had challenged defendant's use of the name, without result, shortly after defendant opened its first "Food Fair" store in 1936. T......