United States v. Deutch, Cr. No. 1152-54.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1956
• Docket Number: Cr. No. 1152-54.
• Citation: 147 F. Supp. 89
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Bernhard DEUTCH, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

147 F. Supp. 89

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Bernhard DEUTCH, Defendant.

Cr. No. 1152-54.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

December 12, 1956.

George H. Goodrich, Washington, D. C., and Henry W. Sawyer, III, Philadelphia, Pa., for the motion.

Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty. and William Hitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., opposed.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

This is a trial by the court of an indictment for contempt of Congress, a trial by jury having been waived by the defendant.

The defendant is charged with unlawfully refusing to answer questions which were propounded to him as a witness by the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. There are five questions involved in this indictment, which will be mentioned subsequently. The defendant took the position that he had moral scruples against answering the questions because they involved the activities of other persons and that he was practically being asked to inform on others as to their illegal or improper activities.

This case involves some of the fundamental principles as to the investigative power of the Congress. Under the Constitution of the United States the Federal Government is a government of limited powers. The Congress, being the legislative branch of the Federal Government, is also clothed with limited legislative powers. In order, however, to carry its legislative powers into effect successfully, it has always been held that Congress has the power to secure information concerning matters in respect to which it has the authority to legislate. In fact, it would seem that Congress must secure information in order to legislate intelligently. Beyond that, the Congress has the right to secure information in order to determine whether or not to legislate on a particular subject matter on which it is within its constitutional powers to act.

This Court had occasion to say in United States v. Bryan, D.C., 72 F. Supp. 58, 61, that: "It is elementary that for use in connection with the exercise of its power to legislate and to appropriate funds, the Congress has the authority to secure information. * * * The Congress * * * has the right to compel the disclosure of factual material. * * * For this purpose, the Congress may issue subpoenas to require the attendance of witnesses and to exact the production of records and documents." And again the Court stated in that case that, "The collection of facts may cover a wide field. Obviously in order to act in an enlightened manner, it may be necessary and desirable for the Congress to become acquainted not only with the precise topic involved in prospective legislation, but also with all matters that may have an indirect bearing on the subject." A number of examples are enumerated in that opinion.

To be sure there is a very definite limitation that must not be overlooked on the power of Congress to investigate. The power to carry on investigations and secure information may be used only in connection with the exercise of its legislative function, and with the appropriation of funds. The information sought to be secured by a congressional committee must be germane to the legislative or the appropriating function. For example, Congress may not compel the divulgence of information for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether a crime has been committed, as a basis for a criminal prosecution. That is a matter for the judiciary and for the prosecuting officers of the government. On the other hand, if some information is desired for use in connection with the exercise of the legislative or appropriating power, the mere fact that the information may be used for some other purpose as well does not deprive the Congress of the right to elicit it.

In determining whether any question was properly asked of a witness before a congressional committee, three matters must be considered. First, was the general subject matter within the legislative power of the Congress? Second, was the inquiry within the power delegated by the Congress to this specific...