United States v. Sacher, Crim. No. 1216-55.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 1216-55. |
| Citation | 139 F. Supp. 855 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. Harry SACHER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
William Hitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the District of Columbia, Washington, D. C., for the United States.
Hubert Delany, New York City, and David Rein, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
This is a trial by the Court without a jury of an indictment charging the defendant Harry Sacher with the offense generally known as contempt of Congress, namely, that he willfully refused to answer certain questions addressed to him as a witness by a Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, the function of the Subcommittee being to investigate the administration of the Internal Security Act, and other Internal Security laws, as well as subversive activities.
The indictment charges that the defendant refused to answer questions addressed to him as a witness at a hearing of this Subcommittee on April 19, 1955. The questions are as follows:
The Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate is one of its permanent standing committees, and is established by statute as well as by the standing rules of the Senate. By a Resolution of the Senate adopted on December 21, 1950, known as Senate Resolution 366, the Committee on the Judiciary or any duly authorized Subcommittee thereof was authorized and directed to make a complete and continuing study and investigation of (1) the administration, operation, and enforcement of the Internal Security Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C.A. § 781 et seq.; (2) the administration, operation, and enforcement of other laws relating to espionage, sabotage, and the protection of the internal security of the United States; and (3) the extent, nature, and effects of subversive activities in the United States, its territories and possessions, including, but not limited to, espionage, sabotage, and infiltration by persons who are or may be under the domination of the foreign government or organizations controlling the world Communist movement or any other movement seeking to overthrow the Government of the United States by force and violence. By a Resolution adopted on March 18, 1955, known as Senate Resolution 58, the creation of this authority of the Committee on the Judiciary was reaffirmed and implemented by powers conferred on the Committee to make certain expenditures and employ certain assistants and consultants.
On January 20, 1955, by a Resolution of the Committee on the Judiciary a special subcommittee to make investigations under Senate Resolution 366 was continued during the 84th Congress, which is the Congress referred to in this indictment. On February 7, 1955, at a meeting of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary a certain number of members of the committee were appointed to this special subcommittee. Among them were Senators McClellan and Jenner. On the same day at a meeting of the Subcommittee a Resolution was adopted providing that a quorum of the Subcommittee for the purpose of taking sworn testimony should consist of not less than two Senators of said Subcommittee. Authority to fix the quorum had been previously granted by Resolution of the full Committee.
The proof shows that on April 19, 1955 at a hearing conducted by the Subcommittee at which a quorum was present throughout, consisting of Senator McClellan and Senator Jenner, the defendant was called and sworn as a witness. He was asked a number of questions, among them the three questions involved in this case.
As to these questions the transcript of the hearing shows that the following proceedings took place.
He was questioned by Mr. Sourwine, the general counsel of the Committee:
"Are you, Mr. Sacher, a member of the Communist Party, U. S. A.?"
The defendant declined to answer, giving a rather long explanation for his action, the pertinent parts of the explanation being as follows:
Senator McClellan, who was presiding, then repeated the question:
"Are you now a member of the Communist Party of the United States?"
The defendant responded:
"And I decline to answer that question, Mr. Chairman."
Senator McClellan, "The Chair orders you to answer the question."
The defendant again said:
"I decline to answer that question on the ground I have already stated."
Then the Chairman asked the defendant the second question involved in this case:
"Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?"
The defendant's reply was:
"I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that my conscience dictates to me that I shall not, under your compulsion or anybody else's compulsion, make any disclosure of any of my beliefs, political, religious, economical, or social, past or present, and I decline to answer your question."
Senator McClellan. "The Chair orders you to answer the question."
Mr. Sacher. "I respectfully decline to answer it."
Then the general counsel of the committee asked the third of the questions involved in this case:
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Lawyers' Section of the Communist Party, U. S. A.?"
The defendant's reply was:
"Mr. Chairman, I have declined before and I decline again."
Senator McClellan. "You are ordered to answer the question."
The defendant stated:
In each instance the question was asked, the witness declined to answer, and then he was directed to answer. Hence it is clear that the Committee did not acquiesce in the refusal. Consequently the procedure prescribed in Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 75 S.Ct. 668, 99 L.Ed. 964, has been followed and its requirements complied with.
The only question that is being contested in this case is whether the Subcommittee had the right to ask these questions of the witness. That general subject must be subdivided into several parts. First: Was the subject of investigation of Communism within the legislative function of the Congress? Obviously the answer is in the affirmative. The Congress has legislated on the subject of Communist activities and other activities tending to overthrow the Government by force and violence, as for example, in the Smith Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385. This aspect of the matter does not require prolonged discussion. The legality of the creation of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives has been often contested, but the contest has always been resolved in favor of the Committee. The same principles are applicable to the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
The next aspect that must be considered is whether this particular matter was within the jurisdiction of the Committee, which is a different question than whether the general subject was within the legislative power of the Congress. Here again the question must be answered in the affirmative, because by Senate Resolution, investigation of the enforcement of the Internal Security Act, laws relating to espionage, sabotage, and the protection of internal security, and of subversive activities generally was reposed in the Committee on the Judiciary, which was clothed with the necessary power. The Committee on the Judiciary in turn delegated that authority, as it had a right to do under the Resolution, to its Subcommittee on Internal Security.
This brings us to the question whether the specific questions were pertinent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyman v. Uphaus
...form to establish the relevancy of his inquiry. Wyman v. Sweezy, supra, 100 N.H. 111, 121 A.2d 790. As was observed in United States v. Sacher, D.C., 139 F.Supp. 855, 860, in considering a similar objection: 'Obviously hearsay, testimony * * * may sufficiently establish * * * pertinency of ......
-
United States v. Deutch, Cr. No. 1152-54.
...of investigation of Communism is obviously within the legislative function of the Congress, as this Court held in United States v. Sacher, D.C., 139 F. Supp. 855, 858. In that case this Court called attention to the fact that the Congress has legislated on the subject of Communistic activit......