Decision Date18 January 1946
Docket NumberNo. 3203.,3203.
Citation153 F.2d 280
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen. (Mainard Kennerly, Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief) for appellant.

Joseph M. Friedman, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen. (John F. Sonnett, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lawrence V. Meloy, Charles E. P. Crawley, attorneys, Civil Service Commission, and Robert Mandel, attorney, Department of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, BRATTON and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

BRATTON, Circuit Judge.

Section 12(a) of the Hatch Political Activity Act, as amended, 53 Stat. 1147, 54 Stat. 767, 18 U.S.C.A. § 61l(a), in presently material part, provides, "No officer or employee of any State or local agency whose principal employment is in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or by any Federal agency shall * * * take any active part in political management or in political campaigns." The applicable part of Section 12(b) provides, "If any Federal agency charged with the duty of making any loan or grant of funds of the United States for use in any activity by any officer or employee to whom the provisions of subsection (a) are applicable has reason to believe that any such officer or employee has violated the provisions of such subsection, it shall make a report with respect thereto to the United States Civil Service Commission * * * Upon the receipt of any such report, or upon the receipt of any other information which seems to the Commission to warrant an investigation, the Commission shall fix a time and place for a hearing * * *. At such hearing * * * either the officer or employee or the State or local agency, or both, may appear with counsel and be heard. After such hearing, the Commission shall determine whether any violation of such subsection has occurred and whether such violation, if any, warrants the removal of the officer or employee by whom it was committed from his office or employment, and shall by registered mail notify such officer or employee and the appropriate State or local agency of such determination. If in any case the Commission finds that such officer or employee has not been removed from his office or employment within thirty days after notice of a determination by the Commission that such violation warrants his removal, or that he has been so removed and has subsequently (within a period of eighteen months) been appointed to any office or employment in any State or local agency of such State, the Commission shall make and certify to the appropriate Federal agency an order requiring it to withhold from its loans or grants to the State or local agency to which such notification was given an amount equal to two years' compensation at the rate such officer or employee was receiving at the time of such violation * * *. Notice of any such order shall be sent by registered mail to the State or local agency from which such amount is ordered to be withheld. The Federal agency to which such order is certified shall, after such order becomes final, withhold such amount in accordance with the terms of such order." And the pertinent part of section 12(c) provides, "Any party aggrieved by any determination or order of the Commission under subsection (b) may * * * institute proceedings for the review thereof by filing a written petition in the district court of the United States for the district in which such officer or employee resides. * * * A copy of such petition shall forthwith be served upon the Commission, and thereupon the Commission shall certify and file in the court a transcript of the record upon which the determination or the order complained of was made. The review by the court shall be on the record entire, including all of the evidence taken on the hearing, and shall extend to questions of fact and questions of law. * * * The court shall affirm the Commission's determination or order * * * if the court determines that the same is in accordance with law. * * * The judgment and decree of the court shall be final, subject to review by the appropriate circuit court of appeals as in other cases, and the judgment and decree of such circuit court of appeals shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States on certiorari or certification as provided in section 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended. * * *"

The United States Civil Service Commission filed a letter of charges against France Paris and the State of Oklahoma in which it was charged that Paris, while chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee in Oklahoma, a political party office, held the office of a member of the Highway Commission of Oklahoma, an activity financed in part by loans and grants made by the United States and by a Federal agency thereof; that he was active in the political management of the Democratic Party; and that he assisted in the raising of funds on behalf of such party and in the giving of a banquet. Paris and the State filed separate answers, and a stipulation of facts was filed. It was stipulated that in February, 1942, Paris was elected chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee for his third term, and occupied such position until October, 1943, when he resigned; that he was appointed as a member of the State Highway Commission in January, 1943, and had held the position continuously since; that the activities of the highway department were financed in part by grants made by the Public Roads Administration of the United States; that a Victory Dinner was held in Oklahoma City in June, 1943, for the purpose of raising funds for the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic State Committee; that the dinner netted the Democratic Party approximately $30,000; that it was under the general supervision of the governor of the state; that the details were handled by a committee appointed by the governor; that Paris was an ex officio member of the committee and advised with the governor and the committee concerning the dinner but was not active in planning and arranging it; that at the dinner, he called the meeting to order and introduced the toastmaster; that employees of the highway department received mimeographed sheets soliciting them to purchase tickets for the dinner at suggested prices, ranging from $5.00 to $25.00; that an employee of the highway department acted as treasurer of the funds received from the sales of tickets for the dinner; that such employee also kept books for the Democratic Party in the state; that about ten days before being appointed as a member of the highway commission, Paris closed the state headquarters of the Democratic State Central Committee; that they were later opened under the direct charge of the vice-chairman of the committee; and that the principal activity of the committee during 1943 was in connection with the Victory Dinner. Upon the stipulated facts, the Commission found and concluded that the service of Paris as chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee while a member of the State Highway Commission,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State of Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 10, 1947
    ...Service Commission and this action was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. State of Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission, 153 F.2d 280. Certiorari was sought and allowed because of the importance of the issues involved in the administration of justi......
  • Newton v. F.A.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 8, 2006
    ...title is merely an aid to construction, which must yield to unambiguous statutory language, see State of Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission, 153 F.2d 280, 283 (10th Cir. 1946), we should not close our eyes to the likelihood that a Member of Congress reading the title of the ......
  • U.S. v. Gill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • October 15, 2007
    ...United States v. Dillenbeck, No. 4:07-cr213-RBH, 2007 WL 2684838, at *2 (D.S.C. Sept.7, 2007). 36. Id. 37. State of Okla. v. U.S. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 153 F.2d 280, 283 (10th Cir.1946). 38. 152 CONG, REC. S8012, 8013 (daily ed. July 20, 2006) (statement of Sen. 39. 40.......
  • In re Ramshaw
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Idaho
    • February 20, 1967
    ...and law as found by the Commission to determine whether the Commission has abused its discretion. State of Oklahoma v. United States Civil Service Commission, (10 Cir., 1946), 153 F.2d 280; affirmed, 330 U.S. 127, 67 S. Ct. 544, 91 L.Ed. 794; State of Utah v. United States, et al., (10 Cir.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • No lie about it, the perjury sentencing guidelines must change.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Law Review Vol. 59 No. 1, March - March 2014
    • March 22, 2014
    ...279-80. (99.) See supra Part II.B. (100.) Glover, 52 F.3d at 287. (101.) Id. at 286 (citing Oklahoma v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 153 F.2d 280, 283 (10th Cir. 1946), aff'd, 330 U.S. 127 (102.) Id. (103.) United States v. Bova, 350 F.3d 224, 230 (1st Cir. 2003). (104.) United States ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT