Wilkinson v. United States, 37

Decision Date27 February 1961
Docket NumberNo. 37,37
PartiesFrank WILKINSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

See 365 U.S. 890, 81 S.Ct. 1024.

Mr. Rowland Watts, Baltimore, Md., for petitioner.

Mr. Kevin T. Maroney, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner was convicted for having unlawfully refused to answer a question pertinent to a matter under inquiry before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities at a hearing in Atlanta Georgia, on July 30, 1958.1 His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which held that our decision in Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115, was 'controlling.' 272 F.2d 783. We granted certiorari, 362 U.S. 926, 80 S.Ct. 755, 4 L.Ed.2d 745 to consider the petitioner's claim that the Court of Appeals had misconceived the meaning of the Barenblatt decision. For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the Court of Appeals was correct, and that its judgment must be affirmed.

I.

The following circumstances were established by uncontroverted evidence at the petitioner's trial:

The Committee on Un-American Activities is a standing committee of the House of Representatives, elected at the commencement of each Congress.2 The Committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to investigate '(i) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.'3

In the spring of 1958 the Committee passed a resolution providing for a subcommittee hearing to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, 'relating to the following subjects and having the legislative purposes indicated:

'1. The extent, character and objects of Communist colonization and infiltration in the textile and other basic industries located in the South, and Communist Party propaganda activities in the South, the legislative purpose being:

'(a) To obtain additional information for use by the Committee in its consideration of Section 16 of H.R. 9352, relating to the proposed amendment of Section 4 of the Communist Control Act of 1954, prescribing a penalty for knowingly and wilfully becoming or remaining a member of the Communist Party with knowledge of the purposes or objectives thereof; and

'(b) To obtain additional information, adding to the Committee's overall knowledge on the subject so that Congress may be kept informed and thus prepared to enact remedial legislation in the National Defense, and for internal security, when and if the exigencies of the situation require it.

'2. Entry and dissemination within the United States of foreign Communist Party propaganda, the legislative purpose being to determine the necessity for, and advisability of, amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act designed more effectively to counteract the Communist schemes and devices now used in avoiding the prohibitions of the Act.

'3. Any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee which it, or any subcommittee thereof, appointed to conduct this hearing, may designate.'

The subcommittee which was appointed pursuant to this resolution convened in Atlanta on July 29, 1958. At the opening of the proceedings on that day, the Chairman of the Committee orally summarized the purposes of the hearings. The petitioner was present and heard the Chairman's statement.

The first witness to appear was Amendo Penha, who testified that he had been a member of the Communist Party from 1950 to 1958, having joined the Party at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He stated that he had served as a member of the National Textile Commission of the Party, which, he said, was set up to control and supervise the infiltration and colonization of the textile industry, particularly in the South. He described the 'colonizer' system, which, he said, involves sending hard-core Party members into plants in jobs where they have close contact with rank-and-file workers. Penha described in some detail his trips throughout the South in compliance with the instructions of the National Textile Commission, and identified a number of individuals as 'colonizers.' Another witness, a Deputy Collector of Customs, described the influx of Communist propaganda sent from abroad into the United States and particularly into the South. Several other witnesses were then interrogated, some as to their activities as alleged Communist colonizers, others as to their connection with certain allegedly Communist-controlled publications. A number of these witnesses declined to answer most of the questions put to them.

On the following day the first witness before the subcommittee was Carl Braden. Although interrogated at length he declined to answer questions relating to alleged Communist activity.4 The next witness was the petitioner. After being sworn and stating his name he declined to give his residence address, stating that, 'As a matter of conscience and personal responsibility, I refuse to answer any questions of this committee.' When asked his occupation, he made the same response. He was then asked the question which was to become the subject of the present indictment and conviction: 'Mr. Wilkinson, are you now a member of the Communist Party?' He declined to answer the question, giving the same response as before.

The Committee's Staff Director then addressed the petitioner at length, in explanation 'of the reasons, the pertinency, and the relevancy of that question and certain other questions which I propose to propound to you.'5 In response the petitioner stated 'I am refusing to answer any questions of this committee.' He was then directed by the Subcommittee Chairman to answer the question as to his Communist Party membership. This time he responded as follows:

'I challenge, in the most fundamental sense, the legality of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. It is my opinion that this committee stands in direct violation by its mandate and by its practices of the first amendment to the United States Constitution. It is my belief that Congress had no authority to establish this committee in the first instance, nor to instruct it with the mandate which it has.

'I have the utmost respect for the broad powers which the Congress of the United States must have to carry on its investigations for legislative purposes. However, the United States Supreme Court has held that, broad as these powers may be, the Congress cannot investigate into an area where it cannot legislate, and this committee tends, by its mandate and by its practices, to investigate into precisely those areas of free speech, religion, peaceful association and assembly, and the press, wherein it cannot legislate and therefore it cannot investigate.'

The hearing continued. The Staff Director read part of the record of an earlier hearing in California, where a witness had testified to knowing the petitioner as a Communist. The petitioner was then asked whether this testimony was true. He refused to answer this and several further questions addressed to him. There was introduced into the record a reproduction of the petitioner's registration at an Atlanta hotel a week earlier, in which he had indicated that his business firm association was the 'Emergency Civil Liberties Committee.'

The subsequent indictment and conviction of the petitioner were based upon his refusal, in the foregoing context, to answer the single question 'Are you now a member of the Communist Party?'

II.

The judgment affirming the petitioner's conviction is attacked here from several different directions. It is contended that the subcommittee was without authority to interrogate him, because its purpose in doing so was to investigate public opposition to the Committee itself and to harass and expose him. It is argued that the petitioner was wrongly convicted because the question which he refused to answer was not pertinent to a question under inquiry by the subcommittee, so that a basic element of the statutory offense was lacking. It is said that in any event the pertinency of the question was not made clear to the petitioner at the time he was directed to answer it, so that he was denied due process. Finally, it is urged that the action of the subcommittee in subpoenaing and questioning him violated his rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

In considering these contentions the starting point must be to determine the subject matter of the subcommittee's inquiry. House Rule XI, which confers investigative authority upon the Committee and its subcommittees, is quoted above. Because of the breadth and generality of its language, Rule XI cannot be said to state with adequate precision the subject under inquiry by a subcommittee at any given hearing. This the Court had occasion to point out in Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 77 S.Ct. 1173, 1 L.Ed.2d 1273. See also Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 116—117, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 1087—1088, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115. But, as the Watkins opinion recognized, Rule XI is only one of several possible points of reference. The Court in that case said that '(t)he authorizing resolution, the remarks of the chairman or members of the committee, or even the nature of the proceedings themselves' might reveal the subject under inquiry. 354 U.S. at page 209, 77 S.Ct. at page 1190. Here, as in Barenblatt, other sources do supply the requisite concreteness.

The resolution authorizing the subcommittee hearing in Atlanta was explicit. It clearly set forth three concrete areas of investigation:...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FTC, Civ. No. 75-1956.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 2 Febrero 1976
    ...power has been properly asserted in a particular case was articulated by the Supreme Court in Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399, 408-09, 81 S.Ct. 567, 5 L.Ed.2d 633 (1961): (1) the Committee's investigation of the broad subject matter area must be authorized by Congress; (2) the inve......
  • In re Schlesinger
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 18 Julio 1961
    ...... the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force. and violence', (b) '[b]y acting as a party. functionary ...297; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, . 149 U.S. 698, 13 S.Ct. 1016, 37 L.Ed. 905; Mr. Justice. Bradley, concurring in the Legal Tender Cases, 12 ...109, 128-129, 79 S.Ct. 1081,. 1093-1094, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115; cf. Wilkinson v. United. States, 365 U.S. 399, 81 S.Ct. 567, 5 L.Ed.2d 633;. Braden ......
  • Braden v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 27 Febrero 1961
    ...D.C., for respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is a companion to Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399, 81 S.Ct. 567, 5 L.Ed.2d 633. The petitioner was the witness immediately preceding Wilkinson at the hearing of a subcommittee of the House Un-Am......
  • Hutcheson v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 14 Mayo 1962
    ...thought that some of our recent decisions, e.g., Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 79 S.Ct. 1081, 3 L.Ed.2d 1115; Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399; Braden v. United States, 365 U.S. 431, weakened the vitality of our holding in Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187, 77......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Congressional investigations: politics and process.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 44 No. 3, June 2007
    • 22 Junio 2007
    ...Sherman Anti-trust Act and the Clayton Act--there should be a presumption that the Senate was investigating to aid in legislating). (28.) 365 U.S. 399 (29.) Id. at 407. (30.) Id. at 411-12 (quoting Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178,200 (1957)). (31.) See, e.g., Hutcheson v. United Stat......
  • THE NECESSARY AND PROPER INVESTIGATORY POWER.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 46 No. 2, March 2023
    • 22 Marzo 2023
    ...(129.) See id. at 134. (130.) See id. at 127-28. (131.) See id. at 130-32. (132.) See id. at 134. (133.) Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399, 403-05 (134.) See id. at 408. (135.) See id. at 409. (136.) Id. at 411. (137.) See id. (138.) See id. at 414-15. (139.) Eastland v. U. S. Servic......

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