Grumman v. United States, 15747.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1961
• Docket Number: No. 15747.,15747.
• Citation: 294 F.2d 708
• Parties: Frank GRUMMAN, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

294 F.2d 708 (1961)

Frank GRUMMAN, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 15747.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued November 2, 1960.

Decided June 30, 1961.

Petition for Rehearing Denied August 1, 1961.

Mr. David Rein, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Joseph Forer, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. William Hitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., at the time of argument, Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time of argument, and Miss Doris H. Spangenburg, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Mr. Justice REED, retired,^* BAZELON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the offense of contempt of Congress because of his refusal to answer a question put to him by a member of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities at hearings held in Washington, D. C., on July 18, 1957.

The Committee on Un-American Activities is a standing committee of the House of Representatives, elected at the commencement of each Congress.¹ The Committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to investigate "(i) the extent, character, and objects of un-American can propaganda activities in the United States, (ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and that attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation."² In Watkins v. United States, 1957, 354 U. S. 178, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273, the Court said that to enable a congressional investigating committee to compel disclosures from an unwilling witness who objects to a question on grounds of pertinency, an explanation of pertinency is required. "But as the Watkins opinion recognized, Rule XI is only one of several possible points of reference. The Court in that case said that `the authorizing resolution, the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee, or even the nature of the proceedings themselves' might reveal the subject under inquiry." Wilkinson v. United States, 1961, 365 U.S. 399, 81 S.Ct. 567, 572, 5 L.Ed.2d 633. Moreover, in Barenblatt v. United States, 1959, 360 U.S. 109, 79 S. Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115, and Braden v. United States, 1961, 365 U.S. 431, 81 S.Ct. 584, 5 L.Ed.2d 592, as well as in Wilkinson (all subsequent to Watkins), the Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the authorization does enable the Committee to act and states further that persons can be convicted of contempt of Congress whenever the Committee's range of inquiry is narrowed to a specific subject matter sufficiently connected with a valid legislative purpose and whenever the witness is apprised of the subject matter of the inquiry and the pertinency of the particular question asked.

It is against this background that we turn to the case before us.

The hearings in question were opened on July 17, 1957, at which time the chairman of the subcommittee, Congressman Doyle, stated in pertinent part:

"The committee has long been interested in the situation which exists in the communications industry in the United States, namely, the position and influence held by members of the Communist Party and organizations dedicated to furthering the Communist objective."

He then read into the record a resolution adopted by the full committee on July 10, 1957, under which the subcommittee was then acting. That resolution authorized hearings

"for the purpose of considering whether or not members of the Communist Party or persons subject to its discipline are employed in various media of communications used in the transmission of vital communications, and the advisability, in the national defense and for internal security, of the adoption of remedial legislation authorizing the Defense Department and other Government agencies to adopt and enforce appropriate regulations designed to protect and preserve inviolate secret and classified Government information, and investing in appropriate Government agencies, power to preclude access to vital communication facilities in time of war or other national emergency, persons who probably will engage in, or probably will conspire with others to engage in, acts of espionage or sabotage."

Mr. Doyle then continued his own statement, in pertinent part, as follows:

"In these hearings * * * the committee hopes to ascertain the extent of the penetration and control exercised by members of the Communist Party over an industry which is vital to our defense; namely, communications. * * * It is the purpose of the subcommittee in the conduct of these hearings, to discharge the duties placed upon us by the Congress by calling witnesses who, we have reason to believe, possess information which will be of value to us and to the Congress in the consideration of such legislation."

The subcommittee then called one Michael Mignon, having satisfied itself in advance that Mignon would be a friendly witness. Mignon testified that he had been employed in the communications industry since before 1923; that in 1937 he was employed by American Communications Association (known at that time as American Radio Telegraphers Association); and that in 1938 he became vice president of that union, in charge of the radio and cable department. In 1940, he returned to work in the industry. He stated that he was a Communist Party member from 1936 to 1940 and that appellant was also a member. He further stated that appellant was and, in his belief, "still is" secretary-treasurer of Local 10, American Communications Association.

On the question of communist infiltration into the union and the industry, Mignon testified in part as follows:

"Mr. Scherer Committee member: I understand * * * your testimony * * * was to the effect that during the time you were a member of the Communist Party and a member of the American Communications Association, the Communists both in and out of the union desired to control the union, so that if a revolution should take place at some indefinite future time, or if we should be at war at some indefinite future time with the Soviet Union, then, and in that event, it might be possible either to commit espionage or sabotage more effectively if the party controlled the union. I understand that that was the substance of it.

"Mr. Mignon. I would place control before sabotage and espionage. * * * I would say control, and if unable to control, sabotage. * * *

* * * * * * "Mr. Scherer. * * * No actual steps had been taken toward planning how any sabotage might be committed, should these eventualities arise, namely, revolution or war with Russia.

"Mr. Mignon. That is right, sir."

The following day, the subcommittee called appellant as a witness. He stated that he had been employed by RCA Communications, Inc. as a radio operator for over twenty-five years and was currently on leave of absence to permit him to hold office as secretary-treasurer of Local 10, American Communications Association. He further stated that he had been president of Local 10, which had a total membership of approximately 1300. When the subcommittee began to question him about his alleged communist affiliation, appellant offered to read a type-written document containing objections to the questioning. While the subcommittee did not permit appellant to read his prepared statement in its entirety, it did permit the statement to be filed and made a part of the record. That document reads in pertinent part as follows:

"I have conferred with counsel, in the light of the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the Watkins and Sweezy cases. I am advised by counsel that the powers of this committee are strictly limited, especially when the committee seeks to compel a witness to testify `about his beliefs, expressions, or associations.\' Such questioning, said the Court, constitutes governmental interference with free speech, press, and assembly.

"The Court further pointed out that a committee may not call witnesses just to expose or punish them, but only for a necessary legislative purpose. So, said the Court, the protected freedoms of free speech and assembly `should not be placed in danger in the absence of a clear determination by the House or the Senate that a particular inquiry is justified by a specific legislative need.\'

"`There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. * * Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to "`punish\'" those investigated are indefensible.\'

* * * * * *

"The subcommittee asserts that it has been authorized by the committee to conduct this investigation. But that does not meet the test laid down by the Supreme Court — namely, that the House of Representatives make such an authorization. So far as I know, the House has never authorized this investigation either before or after House Resolution 5 was declared by the Supreme Court in the Watkins case to be unconstitutionally vague.

* * * * * *

"Finally, because there has been reference in these hearings to the possibility or potentiality of espionage or sabotage in this industry, I wish to make it clear that I have never heard of any worker, in any section of the industry, being engaged in or even charged with, let alone indicted or convicted on a charge of espionage or sabotage.

"And so, with all respect to this committee, acting on the advice of counsel, I shall decline to answer questions concerning my beliefs, expressions or associations on the ground that such questioning constitutes an interference with my rights under the first amendment to the Constitution and that such questioning is beyond the jurisdiction of the

...