Maynard v. De Gregory
| Decision Date | 30 April 1965 |
| Citation | 209 A.2d 712,106 N.H. 262 |
| Parties | William MAYNARD, Attorney General, v. Hugo DE GREGORY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
William Maynard, Atty. Gen., R. Peter Shapiro, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joseph F. Gall, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for the Attorney General.
Lawrence J. Walsh and Howard S. Whiteside, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
The first issue raised by the defendant is whether under the circumstances of this case the Attorney General has power under RSA 588:8-a (supp) to question him, and whether the Superior Court has power to commit him for his refusal to answer the questions asked.
RSA 588:8-a (supp) reads in part as follows: 'At any time when the attorney general has information which he deems reasonable or reliable relating to violations of the provisions of this chapter he shall make full and complete investigation thereof and shall report to the general court the results of this investigation, together with his recommendations, if any, for legislation'.
We held in Wyman v. De Gregory, 103 N.H. 214, 216, 217, 169 A.2d 1, 3, that this relating to subversive activities. This judgment was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. De Gregory v. Attorney General of New Hampshire, 368 U.S. 19, 82 S.Ct. 137, 7 L.Ed.2d 86. That Court, as recently as March, 1963, reaffirmed the broad inherent power of a Legislature to conduct investigations 'concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes'. Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Com., 372 U.S 539, 545, 83 S.Ct. 889, 893, 9 L.Ed.2d 929. See Annot. 3 L.Ed.2d 1647, 1650.
The defendant argues, however, that the Attorney General did not comply with RSA 588:8-a (supp) in that he failed to show (1) that he 'has information which he deems reasonable or reliable relating to violations of the provisions of' RSA ch. 588, and (2) that he has reasonable cause to believe that the defendant has evidence pertinent to the subject under investigation.
It has long been recognized that the tenets of the Communist Party include the overthrow of government by force and violence. Nelson v. Wyman, 99 N.H. 33, 50, 105 A.2d 756; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 128, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115. That the State of New Hampshire has an interest in the preservation of its government against the menace of Communist subversion is firmly established. Nelson v. Wyman, supra; Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Com., 372 U.S. 539, 547, 83 S.Ct. 889, 9 L.Ed.2d 929. Furthermore our Legislature has manifested a continuing concern to be kept informed by its investigating committee, the Attorney General, as to the need of 'further legislation in the field of subversive activities.' Wyman v. De Gregory, 103 N.H. 214, 217, 169 A.2d 1, 3; RSA 588:8-a (supp); Laws 1961, 224:1 (p. 311) and 225:1 (p. 402); Laws 1963, 198:1 (p. 201) and 199:1 (p. 298).
In the present proceeding instituted in 1963 the Attorney General introduced in evidence a report to the Legislature, made by a prior Attorney General, showing the existence of a Communist Party and Communist influence in New Hampshire and the probable continuance of such activities in our state. Report of the Attorney General to New Hampshire General Court (January 5, 1955). In prior proceedings beginning in February 1960, the Attorney General attempted to obtain information from the defendant, which he is still seeking in the present proceedings. We hold that given the nature of the Communist movement and its mode of operation the above report could constitute information which the Attorney General could deem reasonable or reliable relating to violations of RSA ch. 588 and the proper basis for his present investigation of subversive activities on behalf of the Legislature. Wyman v. De Gregory, 103 N.H. 214, 217, 169 A.2d 1; De Gregory v. Attorney General of New Hampshire, 368 U.S. 19, 82 S.Ct. 137, 7 L.Ed.2d 86; Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Com., 372 U.S. 539, 547, 83 S.Ct. 889, 9 L.Ed.2d 929.
It was also stated in the above report that the then Attorney General had reliable information concerning defendant's participation in the Communist Party as an officer, a presiding officer at conferences in New Hampshire, and in numerous other party activities. (pp. 204-206). When questioned by the Attorney General on November 22, 1963, and also in the Superior Court in the hearing which is the basis of this appeal, the defendant made the following statement: 'I am not now a member of the Communist Party and have not been at any time since the authority you have cited, RSA 588:8-a; that I have no knowledge of any Communist activities in New Hampshire during this period or of any violations of RSA 588 during this period of six and one-half years'. Even if taken at its face value, this statement does not render otherwise proper and pertinent information regarding his prior contacts and involvements with the Communist Party and its members in this State beyond the legitimate interest and jurisdiction of the Attorney General acting as the investigating committee of the Legislature. Nelson v. Wyman, 99 N.H. 33, 39, 105 A.2d 756; Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 U.S. 72, 78, 79 S.Ct. 1040, 3 L.Ed.2d 1090.
We hold, as we did in Wyman v. De Gregory, 103 N.H. 214, 217, 169 A.2d 1, that the Attorney General had reasonable and reliable information relating to violations of RSA Ch. 588 which provided a valid and relevant basis for the investigation of the defendant. We hold further that the Superior Court could properly hold the defendant in contempt under RSA 491:19, 20 for his refusal to answer whether he was ever a member, a paid member, or an officer of the Communist Party; if he ever had access to or control of membership or financial records of the Party in New Hampshire or attended Party meetings; the extent of control of the Party activities in this state exerted by a Party unit in Boston of which he is alleged to have been an officer; if he attended Party meetings in New Hampshire where advocacy of the overthrow of the Government took place or persons conspired to so do; also questions as to his knowledge about the books, records or files of the Party in this state and about his contributions to its support. Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 U.S. 72, 79 S.Ct. 1040, 3 L.Ed.2d 1090; Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115; Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399, 81 S.Ct. 567, 5 L.Ed.2d 633; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig..
...a state statute—the individual's interest in the overthrow of the United States or in other subversive acts. See Maynard v. DeGregory, 106 N.H. 262, 209 A.2d 712, 713–14 (1965). The individual refused to answer the questions and was held in contempt in state court. See id. at 714–15. The Su......
-
Gregory v. Attorney General of State of New Hampshire
...for a period of one year or until he purged himself of contempt. That judgment was affirmed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. 106 N.H. 262, 209 A.2d 712. The case is here on appeal. 382 U.S. 877, 86 S.Ct. 162, 15 L.Ed.2d The substantiality of appellant's First Amendment claim can best be ......