Uphaus v. Wyman

• Decision Date: 08 June 1959
• Docket Number: No. 34,34
• Citation: 360 U.S. 72,79 S.Ct. 1040,3 L.Ed.2d 1090
• Parties: Willard UPHAUS, Appellant, v. Louis C. WYMAN, Attorney General, State of New Hampshire
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

360 U.S. 72

79 S.Ct. 1040

3 L.Ed.2d 1090

Willard UPHAUS, Appellant,

v Louis C. WYMAN, Attorney General, State of New Hampshire.

No. 34.

Argued Nov. 17, 18, 1958.

Decided June 8, 1959.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1959.

See 80 S.Ct. 40.

Messrs. Royal W. France and Leonard B. Boudin, New York City, for appellant.

Mr. Louis C. Wyman, Manchester, N.H., for appellee.

Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is here again on appeal from a judgment of civil contempt entered against appellant by the Merrimack County Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. It arises out of appellant's refusal to produce certain documents before a New Hamphir e legislative investigating committee which was authorized and directed to determine, inter alia, whether there were subversive persons or organizations present in the State of New Hampshire. Upon the first appeal from the New Hampshire court, 100 N.H. 436, 130 A.2d 278, we vacated the judgment, 355 U.S. 16, 78 S.Ct. 57, 2 L.Ed.2d 22, and remanded the case to it for consideration in the light of Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire, 1957, 354 U.S. 234, 77 S.Ct. 1203, 1 L.Ed.2d 1311. That court reaffirmed its former decision, 101 N.H. 139, 136 A.2d 221, deeming Sweezy not to control the issues in the instant case. For reasons which will appear, we agree with the Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

As in Sweezy, the Attorney General of New Hampshire, who had been constituted a one-man legislative investigating committee by Joint Resolution of the Legislature,¹ was conducting a probe of subversive activities in the State. In the course of his investigation the Attorney General called appellant, Executive Director of World Fellowship, Inc., a voluntary corporation organized under the laws of New Hampshire and maintaining a summer camp in the State. Appellant testified concerning his own activities, but refused to comply with two subpoenas duces tecum which called for the production of certain corporate records for the years 1954 and 1955. The information sought consisted of: (1) a list of the names of all the camp's nonprofessional employees for those two summer seasons; (2) the correspondence which appellant had carried on with and concerning those persons who came to the camp as speakers; and (3) the names of all persons who attended the camp during the same periods of time. Met with appellant's refusal, the Attorney General, in accordance with state procedure, N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann., c. 491, §§ 19, 20, petitioned the Merrimack County Court to call appellant before it and require compliance with the subpoenas.

In court, appellant again refused to produce the information. He claimed that by the Smith Act,² as con- strued by this Court in Com. of Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 1956, 350 U.S. 497, 76 S.Ct. 477, 100 L.Ed. 640, Congress had so completely occupied the field of subversive activities that the States were without power to investigate in that area. Additionally, he contended that the Due Process Clause precluded enforcement of the subpoenas, first, because the resolution under which the Attorney General was authorized to operate was vague and, second, because the documents sought were not relevant to the inquiry. Finally, appellant argued that enforcement would violate his rights of free speech and association.

The Merrimack County Court sustained appellant's objection to the production of the names of the nonprofessional employees. The Attorney General took no appeal from that ruling, and it is not before us. Appellant's objections to the production of the names of the camp's guests were overruled, and he was ordered to produce them. Upon his refusal, he was adjudged in contempt of court and ordered committed to jail until he should have complied with the court order. On the demand for the correspondence and the objection thereto, the trial court made no ruling but transferred the question to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. That court affirmed the trial court's action in regard to the guest list. Concerning the requested production of the correspondence, the Supreme Court entered no order, but directed that on remand the trial court 'may exercise its discretion with respect to the entry of an order to enforce the command of the subpoena for the production of correspondence.' 100 N.H. at page 448, 130 A.2d at page 287. No remand having yet been effected, the trial court has not acted upon this phase of the case, and there is no final judgment requiring the appellant to produce the letters. We therefore do not treat with that question. 28 U.S.C. § 1257, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1257. See Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 1945, 326 U.S. 120, 123—124, 65 S.Ct. 1475, 1477—1478, 89 L.Ed. 2092. We now pass to a consideration of the sole question before us, namely, the validity of the order of contempt for refusal to produce the list of guests at World Fellowship, Inc., during the summer seasons of 1954 and 1955. In addition to the arguments appellant made to the trial court, he urges here that the 'indefinite sentence' imposed upon him constitutes such cruel and unusual punishment as to be a denial of due process.

Appellant vigorously contends that the New Hampshire Subversive Activities Act of 1951³ and the resolution creating the committee have been superseded by the Smith Act, as amended.⁴ In support of this position appellant cites Com. of Pennsylvania v. Nelson, supra. The argument is that Nelson, which involved a prosecution under a state sedition law, held that 'Congress has intended to occupy the field of sedition.' (350 U.S. 505, 76 S.Ct. 481.) This rule of decision, it is contended, should embrace legislative investigations made pursuant to an effort by the Legislature to inform itself of the presence of subversives within the State and possibly to enact laws in the subversive field. The appellant's argument sweeps too broad. In Nelson itself we said that the 'precise holding of the court * * * is that the Smith Act * * * which prohibits the knowing advocacy of the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence, supersedes the enforceability of the Pennsylvania Sedition Act which proscribes the same conduct.' (Italics supplied.) 350 U.S. at page 499, 76 S.Ct. at page 478, 100 L.Ed. 640. The basis of Nelson thus rejects the notion that it stripped the States of the right to protect themselves. All the opinion proscribed was a race between federal and state prosecutors to the courthouse door. The opinion made clear that a State could proceed with prosecutions for sedition against the State itself; that it can legitimately investigate in this area follows a fortiori. In Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire, supra, where the same contention was made as to the identical state Act, it was denied sub silentio. Nor did our opinion in Nelson hold that the Smith Act had proscribed state activity in protection of itself either from actual or threatened 'sabotage or attempted violence of all kinds.' In footnote 8 of the opinion it is pointed out that the State had full power to deal with internal civil disturbances. Thus registration Statutes, quo warranto proceedings as to subversive corporations, the subversive instigation of riots and a host of other subjects directly affecting state security furnish grist for the State's legislative mill. Moreover, the right of the State to require the production of corporate papers of a state-chartered corporation in an inquiry to determine whether corporate activity is violative of state policy is, of course, not touched upon in Nelson and today stands unimpaired, either by the Smith Act or the Nelson opinion.

Appellant's other objections can be capsuled into the single question of whether New Hampshire, under the facts here, is precluded from compelling the production of the documents by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let us first clear away some of the underbrush necessarily surrounding the case because of its setting.

First, the academic and political freedoms discussed in Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire, supra, are no pr esent here in the same degree, since World Fellowship is neither a university nor a political party. Next, since questions concerning the authority of the committee to act as it did are questions of state law, Dreyer v. People of State of Illinois, 1902, 187 U.S. 71, 84, 23 S.Ct. 28, 32, 47 L.Ed. 79, we accept as controlling the New Hampshire Supreme Court's conclusion that '(t)he legislative history makes it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that it (the Legislature) did and does desire an answer to these questions.' 101 N.H. at page 140, 136 A.2d at pages 221—222. Finally, we assume, without deciding, that Uphaus had sufficient standing to assert any rights of the guests whose identity the committee seeks to determine. See National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama, 1958, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488. The interest of the guests at World Fellowship in their associational privacy having been asserted, we have for decision the federal question of whether the public interests overbalance these conflicting private ones. Whether there was 'justification' for the production order turns on the 'substantiality' of New Hampshire's interests in obtaining the identity of the guests when weighed against the individual interests which the appellant asserts. National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama, supra.

What was the interest of the State? The Attorney General was commissioned⁵ to determine if there were any subversive persons⁶ within New Hampshire. The obvious starting point of such an inquiry was to learn what persons were within the State. It is therefore clear that the requests relate directly to the Legislature's area of interest, i.e., the presence of subversives in the State, as announced in its resolution. Nor was the demand of the subpoena burdensome; as to time, only a few months...