United States v. Tobin

• Decision Date: 15 June 1961
• Docket Number: Cr. No. 986-60.
• Citation: 195 F. Supp. 588
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. Austin J. TOBIN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

195 F. Supp. 588

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. Austin J. TOBIN, Defendant.

Cr. No. 986-60.

United States District Court District of Columbia, Criminal Division.

June 15, 1961.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

William Hitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., and John C. Keeney, Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., at the time of argument, was on the brief, for plaintiff.

Roger Robb, Washington, D. C., and Sidney Goldstein, General Counsel, The Port of New York Authority, New York City, pro hac vice by special leave of court, with whom Daniel B. Goldberg, Rosaleen C. Skehan, Joseph Lesser, Isobel E. Muirhead, and Michael Zarin, New York City, were on the brief, for defendant.

David D. Furman, Atty. Gen., State of New Jersey, Burrell Ives Humphreys, Dept. Atty. Gen. State of New Jersey, Daniel M. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of New York, each pro hac vice by special leave of court, with whom Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., State of New York, was on the brief, amici curiæ by special leave of court for States of New Jersey and New York.

Woodson D. Scott, Attorney for the New York Chamber of Commerce, pro hac vice by special leave of court (Harry A. Inman, Washington, D. C., of counsel) amicus curiæ.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., State of Florida, filed a brief on behalf of that State and other States, as amici curiæ by special leave of court.^*

YOUNGDAHL, District Judge.

This is a contempt of Congress prosecution against Austin J. Tobin, Executive Director of the Port of New York Authority.¹ The Authority is an agency established by the States of New Jersey and New York pursuant to Congressionally-approved interstate compacts.

The charge is brought by the Government under 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, which provides that one

"who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress * * * to produce papers * * * willfully * * refuses to produce papers pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor * * *."

Prosecution followed defendant's citation for contempt by the House of Representatives and subsequent certification of the citation by the Speaker of the House to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.²

The alleged contempt was Mr. Tobin's refusal to produce certain Authority documents and memoranda subpoenaed by Subcommittee number 5³ of the House Judiciary Committee⁴ in connection with its investigation of the Authority during the second session of the 86th Congress. Mr. Tobin is, in his own words, "in complete charge of all files of the port authority, both * * * the official records and the internal records."⁵

Pursuant to the subpoena Mr. Tobin did produce Authority by-laws, organization manuals, rules and regulations, annual financial reports, and minutes of meetings of its Board of Commissioners.⁶

However, he did not produce certain internal documents, including financial and management reports, agenda of meetings, staff reports, and other communications relevant to dealings and policies of the Authority in the fields of construction, insurance, public relations, real estate, revenue bonds, and rail transportation.⁷ It is his refusal to produce these documents that resulted in this prosecution.

Introduction

A. Historical Background.⁸ Early in this century numerous groups and individuals urged that rapid and efficient handling of commerce flowing through the bi-state area surrounding New York City could be accomplished only by treating the region as a single entity and by creating a bi-state agency to promote this end. Thus prompted, the New York and New Jersey legislatures, in 1921 and 1922, ratified compacts creating the Authority and specifying its initial functions.⁹ Congressional approval was given pursuant to Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution.¹⁰

The Authority is headed by Commissioners appointed in equal number from each compacting State, and its day-to-day operations are conducted by a staff selected by the Commissioners. Mr. Tobin, as Executive Director, is the highest ranking staff member.

The Authority has the right to own and operate terminal and transportation facilities and related property within a delineated port district, and the responsibility of making recommendations to the two States' legislatures for improving or adding to existing projects. These recommendations can become effective only through identical legislation in the two States; by a similar process the two States can expand the port district's boundaries.¹¹ Further, the Authority has power to raise funds through sale of bonds to the public,¹² to appear before various Federal and State bodies on behalf of port commercial operation, and to "intervene in any proceeding affecting the commerce of the port."¹³

The compact also allows each State to grant its Governor the right to veto any action taken by its Commissioners. While both Governors have been granted this power,¹⁴ vetoes are rare; discussions between the Authority staff and Commissioners on the one hand and the Governors and their Authority liaison representatives on the other, produce agreement on the kinds of projects the Governors will approve.¹⁵

Though originally established to aid solution of the port area's freight transportation difficulties,¹⁶ the Authority subsequently has been granted additional powers to construct and maintain facilities for the conduct of passenger movement by car, rail, boat, bus, and plane. Thus at the time of its 1959 Annual Report it was operating

"twenty-one terminal and transportation facilities; six inter-state bridges and tunnels; four air terminals and a heliport; six marine terminal areas; two union motor truck terminals; a motor truck terminal for rail freight; and a union bus terminal."¹⁷

The Authority's investment in these facilities is nearing one billion dollars and its gross operating revenue exceeds $100,000,000 annually. Legislation is presently pending in New York and New Jersey which would empower the Authority to construct and operate a $355,000,000 World Trade Center.

In addition, representatives of the Authority appear before Congress and other Federal bodies on behalf of the Port of New York, and promote the Port through five domestic and four foreign offices and other projects and activities.

Although power to control the Authority's day-to-day operations is thus placed in the Commissioners, the staff and the compacting States, Congress, in approving the compacts, included three principal reservations. First, no "right or jurisdiction of the United States in and over" the area within the port district is impaired.

Second,

"No bridges, tunnnels, or other structures shall be built across, under, or in any of the waters of the United States, and no change shall be made in the navigable capacity or condition of any such waters, until the plans therefor have been approved by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War."

Third, Congress retained "the right to alter, amend, or repeal" the resolutions of approval to the compacts. In addition, the 1921 compact, as passed by the States, provides that Authority rules and regulations are to be

"not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States * * * and subject to the exercise of the power of Congress, for the improvement of the conduct of navigation and commerce."¹⁸

Until this investigation, manifestations of Federal interest in the Authority had been sporadic and principally directed to specific operations. The Army Corps of Engineers had examined bridge and tunnel construction proposals and investigated, several times, the reasonableness of Authority toll charges; the Federal Aviation Agency had exercised continuing control over flights in and out of Authority-operated airports; and Congress had granted Federal funds for construction at these airports and had investigated at least one series of plane crashes involving Newark Airport. In addition, in 1952 another subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee conducted two days of hearings on a resolution¹⁹ which would have withdrawn Congressional consent from the compacts until amendments could be attached to them. These hearings ended in an adverse Committee report on the resolution after members had attacked it as "not completely followed through"²⁰ and unwise.

The present investigation, and the subpoena here at issue, are thus not part of continuing Congressional supervision over the Authority. Rather, this is the first time Congress has attempted to gain an over-all picture of Authority operations, and the first time the subpoena power has been employed in connection with any Congressional inquiry regarding the Authority.

B. Chronology of the Present Investigation. The spark which set off the inquiry was an announcement by the Authority in December, 1959, that it favored construction of a jet airport in Morris County, New Jersey. Because this location is apparently outside the present boundaries of the port district, and for other reasons not here relevant, this announcement caused considerable concern among New Jersey's Congressional representation about the Authority and its operations. As a result, sometime in February, 1960, a delegation purporting to represent the unanimous sentiment of the full New Jersey group requested the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to initiate a study of the Port Authority.²¹

Following this request, the Chairman proposed a joint resolution²² which would have amended the Port Authority compact resolutions to (a) require advance Congressional approval of any legislation by the two States "amending or supplementing" the compacts; (b) require submission to Congress of all periodic reports made by the Authority to the two States; and (c) permit Congressional committees to (1) demand disclosure of any information deemed relevant, (2) inspect any books, records, and papers requested, and (3) view any Authority facility.

At...