Hammond v. Frankfeld

• Decision Date: 09 February 1950
• Docket Number: 136.
• Parties: HAMMOND, Atty. Gen., et al. v. FRANKFELD et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

71 A.2d 482

194 Md. 487

HAMMOND, Atty. Gen., et al. v. FRANKFELD et al.

No. 136.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

February 9, 1950

Rehearing Denied March 14, 1950.

Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen. and J. Edgar Harvey, Deputy Atty. Gen (Thomas N. Biddison, City Solicitor, Leroy W. Preston, Asst City Solicitor and Hugo A. Ricciuti, Asst. City Solicitor, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

Maurice Braverman, Baltimore, and Bernard Jaffe, New York City, for appellees.

HENDERSON, Judge.

This case was instituted on May 18, 1949, but was heard and decided below at the same time and in the same manner as Hammond v Lancaster, Md., 71 A.2d 474, 483. In both cases the bills sought to enjoin the enforcement of Chapter 86 of the Acts of 1949, but the present bill contained no reference to the referendum petition. The record in this case did not reach us until after the Lancaster case had been argued. We advanced the case on our own motion, in order that the cases might be considered together.

The complainants here sue as taxpayers in a class suit, but their chief claim is based upon the allegations that Frankfeld is Chairman of the Communist Party of Maryland and Meyers is the Labor Secretary of that party. They allege that the party is a legal political party, directly affiliated with the Communist Party of the United States and that it has adopted the constitution of the latter, a copy of which is filed as an exhibit. They contend that Chapter 86 is a bill of attainder directed against them and the Communist Party of Maryland, that certain clauses in the Act constitute a malicious misrepresentation of the aims, purposes and nature of Communism and of the political organizations espousing the philosophy of Communism, and that these clauses represent a legislative finding of guilt in contravention of the State and Federal Constitutions.

Insofar as the complainants assert their claim as taxpayers, the case is governed by our decision in the Lancaster case. The complainants do not admit that they advocate the overthrow of any government by force or violence, but expressly disavow such an aim, on behalf of themselves and the organization of which they are members. They show no present threat or danger of prosecution or conviction as 'subversive persons' under the criminal provisions of Chapter 86.

The appellees contend, however, that they have a special interest, as members of the Communist Party of Maryland, to attack the Act as a bill of attainder. A bill of attainder may be defined as a condemnation or punishment by legislative action without trial or judicial determination. Cummings v. State of Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 18 L.Ed. 356; United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 66 S.Ct. 1073, 90 L.Ed. 1252; Anderson v. Baker, 23 Md. 531. The argument is based upon the recitals of Chapter 86 that 'there is a World Communist movement under the domination of a foreign power', which looks toward 'the liquidation of all political parties other than the Communist Party', that the 'World Communist movement is not a political movement, but is a world-wide conspiracy', and that the 'Communist movement plainly presents a clear and present danger to the United States Government and to the State of Maryland'. The text of the Act, however contains no mention of Communism, or the Communist Party, by name, except in Section 9, which directs the Judges to charge the Grand Jury to 'inquire generally into the purposes, processes and...