In re Joint Legislative Comm. To Investigate Educ. Sys. of New York

• Decision Date: 23 January 1941
• Citation: 32 N.E.2d 769,285 N.Y. 1
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM OF STATE OF NEW YORK. Appeal of TEACHERS UNION OR CITY OF NEW YORK. Appeal of HENDLEY.

285 N.Y. 1

32 N.E.2d 769

In re JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM OF STATE OF NEW YORK.

Appeal of TEACHERS UNION OR CITY OF NEW YORK.

Appeal of HENDLEY.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 23, 1941.

Separate proceedings in the matter of the Joint Legislative Committee to Investigate the Educational System of the State of New York against Teachers Union of the City of New York and Charles J. Hendley. From an order of the Appellate Division, 260 App.Div. 1007, 25 N.Y.S.2d 399,appeal denied in 25 N.Y.S.2d 399, 260 App.Div. 1007, affirming order of Special Term refusing to vacate a subpoena duces tecum on application of Teachers Union of the City of New York, and from an order of the Appellate Division, 260 App.Div. 923, 25 N.Y.S.2d 398,appeal denied260 App.Div. 1007, 25 N.Y.S.2d 399, affirming order of Special Term finding Charles J. Hendley in contempt for failure to produce documents called for by subpoena duces tecum, the Teachers Union of the City of New York and Charles J. Hendley appeal by permission of the Court of Appeals.

Orders affirmed.

LEHMAN, C. J., and RIPPEY, J., dissenting in part. William G. Mulligan, Jr., and John D. Hill, both of New York City, for appellant.

Paul Windels and Phillip W. Haberman, Jr., both of New York City, for respondents.

Benedict Wolf, Elias Gartman, and S. S. Goldsmith, all of New York City, for New York City Chapter of National Lawyers Guild, amicus curiae.

W. H. Liebman, Jr., and Daniel Wm. Leider, both of New York City, for Greater New York Industrial Union Council and others, amici curiae.

Louis B. Boudin, Hyman N. Glickstein, and Leonard B. Boudin, all of New York City, for Cafeteria Employees Union and others, amici curiae.

Osmond K. Fraenkel and Herbert D. David, both of New York City, for New York City Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae.

LEWIS, Judge.

A legislative inquiry has given rise to two proceedings: An application by the present appellant which was denied by Special Term for an order vacating a subpoena duces tecum, wherein is challenged the power of a committee of the Legislature to require the production of the appellant's membership list; and an application by such legislative committee which was granted by Special Term for a contempt order, wherein is challenged the power of that committee to require compliance with its subpoena before a sub-committee consisting of one member.

The present appeals are by our permission from orders of the Appellate Division unanimously affirming the orders at Special Term. These orders have as their bases certain facts, not in controversy, which are common to each, proceeding and to which consideration will first be given.

The respondent is a Joint Legislative Committee to Investigate the Educational System of the State of New York, appointed pursuant to a joint resolution of the Senate and Assembly adopted March 29, 1940. After defining in detail the field of inquiry, including the numerous branches of the educational system of the State, its various activities and the methods by which are allocated the funds of the State to meet the cost of public education, the joint resolution extends the investigation to include ‘every other matter or thing not specifically set forth herein which may be deemed by such committee to be relevant to the general subject of its study * * * as though the same had been expressly set forth herein.’ To accomplish this broad inquiry the Joint Resolution further provides:

‘2. That such committee shall consist of six members appointed by the temporary president of the Senate, four of whom shall be Senators and the other two may but need not be Senators, and seven members appointed by the speaker of the Assembly, five of whom shall be members of the Assembly and the other two may but need not be members of the Assembly.

‘3. That such committee is authorized to choose a chairman and vice-chairman from its members to adopt rules for the conduct of its proceedings, to employ a secretary, counsel, investigators and such other assistants and employees as it may deem necessary.

‘4. * * *

‘5. * * *

‘6. That such committee is authorized to sit in one or more parts at any place within the state and hold either public or private hearings.

‘7. That such committee and each member thereof shall have power to administer oaths, take testimony, subpoena and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of all books, papers, records or documents deemed material or pertinent to its work, and shall generally have, possess and exercise all of the powers of a legislative committee as provided by the legislative law.’ (Emphasis supplied.)

Upon the organization of the Joint Legislative Committee and in accord with the Joint Resolution, Senator Frederic R. Coudert, Jr., was chosen vice-chairman and thereafter a resolution was adopted by the committee which provided in part: ‘Resolved that this Committee and each member thereof be authorized to sit at said offices or elsewhere and hold either public or private hearings, and that each member of this Committee shall have power to administer oaths, take testimony, subpoena and compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of all books, papers, records or documents which he may deem material or pertinent to the work of the Committee and that hearings, either public or private, may be held before any member of this Committee sitting as a sub-committee of one.’

In the course of the legislative inquiry conducted by the respondent committee as thus organized, a subpoena duces tecum, addressed to ‘The Teachers Union of the City of New York, by Charles J. Hendley, President,114 East 16th Street, New York City,’ was served upon Mr. Hendley calling upon him as such officer to appear before the respondent Joint Legislative Committee at a stated time and place, and then and there to produce certain papers and documents, including the membership lists, past and present, of the appellant union. Before the return of the process the appellant applied at Special Term for an order to vacate the subpoena.

We are thus brought to a consideration of the order in the first of the two proceedings before us, in which the Appellate Division has affirmed the order of Special Term denying the appellant's application to vacate a subpoena duces tecum.

(1) We have examined with care the statements of alleged facts found in affidavits submitted by both parties which relate to the appellant's contentions that the subpoena duces tecum issued by the committee lacks authority in law. In no instance do we find facts stated in support of the appellant's position sufficient to overcome the presumption, in which we are required to indulge, ‘* * * that the action of the legislative body was with a legitimate object * * *. The same principle which renders it the duty of the courts to hold legislative action illegal when it unduly encroaches upon the...