Watkins v. United States, 12797.
Citation | 233 F.2d 681 |
Decision Date | 23 April 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 12797.,12797. |
Parties | John T. WATKINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Mr. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mrs. Norma Zarky and Messrs. Daniel H. Pollitt and Sidney S. Sachs, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. John D. Lane, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll and William Hitz, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON, FAHY, WASHINGTON, DANAHER and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
Argued en Banc March 6, 1956.
On May 11, 1954, the House of Representatives voted a contempt citation against appellant and on November 22, 1954, he was indicted under 2 U.S.C.A. § 192 on seven counts for refusal to answer questions of a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities as to whether some twenty-nine or thirty named persons had been members of the Communist Party. Having waived his right to trial by jury, appellant was found guilty in the District Court on all counts. He was fined five hundred dollars; execution of a one-year jail term was suspended and appellant was placed on probation. This appeal followed.
Appellant had been named as a member of the Communist Party for the period 1943-1946 by one Donald O. Spencer, who testified before the Committee in a hearing in Chicago in September 1952. Appellant was identified again as a member of the Communist Party in the early 1940's by one Walter Rumsey, who appeared before the Committee in March 1954.
In his appearance before the Committee, appellant answered questions concerning himself. He admitted cooperating with the Communist Party from 1942 to 1946 and answered concerning the extent of this cooperation. He denied past or present membership in the Communist Party and reiterated these denials specifically with respect to the details of both Spencer's and Rumsey's testimony about him. In the course of this questioning, the following occurred:
Watkins said he did not know the first three persons named. Then he was asked about a Harold Fisher whom he knew, and the following ensued id. at 85, 86:
Similar refusals and directions to answer followed and, like those previously described in appellant's testimony with regard to Fisher, they became the subject of the various counts of the indictment. In all, appellant refused to answer, although directed to do so, with respect to approximately thirty persons.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to dismiss the indictment or for acquittal. He says the Committee was exceeding its constitutional powers as a congressional investigating committee; that 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, read together with the Committee's authorizing resolution, was so vague and indefinite as to deprive appellant of due process of law; and that the First Amendment protected appellant against being forced to answer the particular questions asked him.
We must delimit the question before us. A majority of the court is of opinion that Congress has power to investigate the history of the Communist Party and to ask the questions Watkins refused to answer. It would be quite in order for Congress to authorize a committee to investigate the rate of growth or decline of the Communist Party, and so its numerical strength at various times, as part of an inquiry into the extent of the menace it poses and the legislative means that may be appropriate for dealing with that menace. Inquiry whether thirty persons were Communists between 1942 and 1947 would be pertinent to such an investigation. The questions asked Watkins could be asked for a valid legislative purpose.
The precise question upon which the decision must rest is a narrow one. It is whether the Act authorized the Committee to ask the questions asked Watkins, in the particular context in which the Committee propounded them, and whether the Committee's purpose in asking the questions was a valid legislative purpose. A majority of the court is of opinion that the questions were pertinent to a valid legislative purpose and were authorized by the Act.
According to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812, at pages 822, 823,1 the Committee on Un-American Activities is one of several standing committees elected by the House of Representatives. The act sets forth in no uncertain terms the subject and scope of inquiry intrusted to this Committee. It provides, 60 Stat. at page 828:
In March 1954, the Committee conducted hearings in Chicago. At their commencement the chairman expressed the purpose of the hearings. It was to investigate, for a definite legislative purpose, communist infiltration into labor unions. The chairman stated Joint Appendix, at 43, 44:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watkins v. United States
...dissenting. Upon rehearing en banc, the full bench affirmed the conviction with the judges of the original majority in dissent. 98 U.S.App.D.C. 190, 233 F.2d 681. We granted certio- rari because of the very important questions of constitutional law presented. 352 U.S. 822, 77 S.Ct. 62, 1 L.......
-
Anastaplo, In re
...'Are you now a member of the Communist Party?' and 'Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?' The Court of Appeals, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 190, 233 F.2d 681, affirmed but the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of......
-
Wyman v. Uphaus
...v. Barry, 3 Cir., 29 F.2d 817; Bowers v. United States, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 79, 202 F.2d 447, 452. See also, Watkins v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 190, 233 F.2d 681, at page 694. 'It is clear that authority over a subject matter does not import authority over all activities of persons conce......
-
United States v. Peck
...difficulty in determining the nature of the subject under inquiry. Relying on the subsequently reversed Watkins v. United States, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 190, 233 F.2d 681, and subsequently remanded Barenblatt v. United States, D.C. Cir., 240 F.2d 875, decisions of the United States Court of Appeal......