Marshall v. United States, 9864.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 9864.,9864. |
| Citation | 176 F.2d 473 |
| Parties | MARSHALL v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Osmond K. Fraenkel, New York City, with whom Mr. Abraham J. Isserman, Los Angeles, Cal., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Mr. Sidney S. Sachs, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before CLARK, WILBUR K. MILLER, JJ., and GEORGE C. SWEENEY, District Judge, sitting by designation.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia convicting the appellant, George Marshall, of violating § 192 of Title 2, United States Code, Annotated, and the question involved is similar to that in Lawson v. United States of America (Trumbo v. United States), ___ U.S. App.D.C. ___, 176 F.2d 49; and Morford v. United States of America, ___ U.S. App.D.C. ___, 176 F.2d 54.
In January, 1946, a subpoena was issued by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States summoning appellant, then the Chairman of an organization known as the "National Federation for Constitutional Liberties", to appear before the Un-American Activities Committee of the House of Representatives and to "bring with you all books, records, documents and correspondence pertaining to the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties relating to the solicitation and disbursement of funds with a list of all contributors * * *" Appellant appeared before the Committee, first in New York City and later in Washington, D. C., but in both instances refused to produce the documents demanded by the subpoena, although he was the proper officer of the Federation to have produced them.
Appellant attacks the constitutionality of the Resolution creating the Committee, claiming that it is unconstitutional both on its face and in its application to the facts of this case. The question whether the Resolution is unconstitutional on its face is disposed of in Barsky v. United States, 83 U.S. App.D.C. 127, 167 F.2d 241. The claim that the Resolution is unconstitutional in its application to the facts of this case because it abridges freedoms of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution is without merit. The rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are not absolute, and are subordinate to the greater rights of the general public interest, and to the right of the government to maintain and protect itself. Barsky v. United States, supra.
It must be remembered that the matters open to inspection by the Committee are not limited to an appraisal of the pamphlets, books, magazine articles, briefs, lectures, and other propaganda activities intended by an organization for general public attention and consumption. The Resolution itself authorizes investigations not only of un-American propaganda activities, but also "the extent, character, and objects" of such activities, which by implication we think should also apply to the provision for investigating the "diffusion" of subversive and un-American...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. McSurely, 24812
...27 92 U.S.App.D.C. 79, 202 F.2d 447 (1953). 28 United States v. Orman, 207 F.2d 148, 153 (3rd Cir. 1953); Marshall v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 184, 176 F.2d 473, 474 (1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 933, 70 S.Ct. 663, 94 L.Ed. 1352, rehearing denied, 339 U.S. 959, 70 S.Ct. 976, 94 L.Ed.......
-
Stop this Insanity, Inc. Emp. Leadership Fund v. Fed. Election Comm'n
...U.S. 43, 47, 81 S.Ct. 391, 5 L.Ed.2d 403 (1961) (“It has never been held that liberty of speech is absolute.”); Marshall v. United States, 176 F.2d 473, 474 (D.C.Cir.1949) (“The rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are not absolute, and are subordinate to the greater rights of the gener......
-
Marcello v. United States
...273 U.S. 135, 174, 47 S.Ct. 219, 71 L.Ed. 580; Trumbo v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 167, 176 F.2d 49; Marshall v. United States, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 184, 176 F.2d 473; United States v. Emspak, D.C., 95 F.Supp. At the same time, we call attention that a most important part of the background ......
-
Rumely v. United States
...87 U.S.App.D.C. 256, 184 F.2d 864, certiorari denied, 1950, 340 U.S. 878, 71 S.Ct. 120, 95 L.Ed. 638; and Marshall v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S.App. D.C. 184, 176 F.2d 473, certiorari denied, 1950, 339 U.S. 933, 70 S.Ct. 663, 94 L.Ed. 1352, rested upon the same necessities of national sec......
-
Congressional investigations: politics and process.
...1178, 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (Wilkey, J., concurring); United States v. Orman, 207 F.2d 148, 153 (3d Cir. 1953); Marshall v. United States, 176 F.2d 473,474 (D.C. Cir. (175.) Deutch v. United States, 367 U.S. 456, 468 (1961). (176.) Watkins, 354 U.S. at 208. (177.) Id. (178.) Id. at 208-09. ......