Morford v. United States, 9854.

Decision Date13 June 1949
Docket NumberNo. 9854.,9854.
PartiesMORFORD v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. David Rein, Washington, D. C. with whom Mr. Abraham J. Isserman, Los Angeles, Cal. appeared on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C. with whom Mr. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, Washington, D. C. appeared on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Sidney S. Sachs, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C. also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before CLARK and WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE C. SWEENEY, District Judge, sitting by designation.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge.

Richard Morford appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia sentencing him to three months imprisonment and imposing a fine of $250.00 for violating 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, 52 Stat. 942, which is as follows:

"§ 192. Refusal of witness to testify. Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."

The first of the indictment's two counts charged that on March 6, 1946, Morford refused to produce to the House Committee on Un-American Activities records of the 1945 receipts and disbursements of the National Council for American-Soviet Friendship, Inc., although he had been summoned to do so. The second count accused him of refusing to give the names of his organization's publications committee who had prepared and edited a publication called the "Reporter". He was convicted on both counts.

Undisputed evidence showed he had in his possession the information sought by the Committee, and that he refused to furnish it. Not only did Morford tell the Committee he would not produce it; he filed with that body as exhibits a resolution of his Board of Directors directing its staff "to resist to the maximum limit permissible under the law, the production of the books and records of the Council * * *", and a letter to a member of the Committee from the chairman of the National Council which began thus:

"The National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, by unanimous vote of its Board of Directors, has decided not to accede to the surprising request of the House Committee on Un-American Activities that it be permitted to send in investigators to examine the organization's books and records."

The letter was in answer to the Committee's offer to send its investigators to the Council's office in New York to obviate any inconvenience to it which might be caused by bringing its books and records to Washington.

Thus the evidence showed a deliberate, studied, admitted refusal to furnish the requested information, exactly as charged in the indictment. The appellant says there was no criminality in the refusal because, as he contends, "* * * the government failed to prove that the documents subpoenaed and the question asked were pertinent to any matter of inquiry committed to the Committee by Congress." Upon this contention he dwells at length and relies heavily for reversal.

The "matter of inquiry committed to the Committee" by House Resolution No. 5 of the 79th Congress was the investigation of "* * * the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution. * * *" In Barsky v. United States, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 127, 167 F.2d 241, 244, we held that to be a valid authorization.

Obviously the first step in an investigation authorized by House Resolution No. 5 is to determine whether the propaganda being diffused is in fact subversive in the sense of the term as used in the Resolution.

The National Council of American-Soviet Friendship stated one of its objectives as being "* * * to take specific action against anti-Soviet propaganda aimed at dividing the United Nations." That purpose may have been innocent enough in itself; but it was implemented by a flood of propaganda pro-Soviet in character, consistently critical of the foreign policy of the United States. This printed propaganda was in the hands of the Congressional Committee before the issuance of the subpoena for Morford. The National Council's unstinted praise of the communistic regime in Russia, and its comparison of Soviet official behavior with that of the United States to the disparagement of the latter, led logically to the Committee's conclusion that here was such strong indication of an attack on the principle of our form of government as to justify inquiry.

Power to investigate the diffusion of subversive propaganda would be sterile indeed if it did not include the right to investigate the person or organization engaged in diffusing it. Having properly decided the literature before it was of the nature described in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Watkins v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1957
    ...Compare the treatment of this point in Barenblatt v. United States, 100 U.S.App.D.C. —-, 240 F.2d 875, 880—881; Morford v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 172, 176 F.2d 54, 58; Eisler v. United States, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 315, 170 F.2d 273, 278—279; United States v. Josephson, 2 Cir., 165 F.2d 8......
  • State v. Madkins
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • November 20, 2009
    ...to produce before the House Committee on Un-American Activities the records of the National Council for American-Soviet Friendship, Inc. See Morford v. United States, 176 F.2d 54, 56 (D.C.Cir.1949). During voir dire, the trial court did not allow defense counsel to ask prospective, governme......
  • Rumely v. United States, 11066.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • April 29, 1952
    ...1949, 85 U.S.App. D.C. 167, 176 F.2d 49, certiorari denied, 1950, 339 U.S. 934, 70 S.Ct. 663, 94 L. Ed. 1352; Morford v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 172, 176 F.2d 54, reversed on other grounds, 1950, 339 U.S. 258, 70 S.Ct. 586, 94 L.Ed. 815, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 256, 184 F.2d 864,......
  • Wyman v. Uphaus
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1957
    ...v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 235 F.2d 821; Marshall v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 184, 176 F.2d 473; Morford v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 172, 176 F.2d 54. The case of Rumely v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 382, 197 F.2d 166, certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 41, 73 S.Ct. 543......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT