[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 15. Investigations and Inquiries]
[D. Authority in Cases of Contempt]
[§ 17. In General]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 2409-2416]
CHAPTER 15
Investigations and Inquiries
D. AUTHORITY IN CASES OF CONTEMPT
Sec. 17. In General
The House may try a contumacious witness at its bar (7)
or pur
[[Page 2410]]
sue procedures authorized by 2 USC Sec. Sec. 192-194, criminal contempt
statutes passed in 1857. These statutes reflected the need for more
effective sanctions and a more appropriate forum to compel disclosure
from a recalcitrant witness than merely ordering him held in custody
until he agreed to testify. A major shortcoming of trial before the
bar, in addition to the inappropriateness of the House's procedures
when functioning as a judicial tribunal, and the lack of precedent on
due process requirements, was that the witness could be imprisoned only
as long as the House remained in session.(8) The statute
designates as a misdemeanor willful (9) default or refusal
to answer any question (10) pertinent (11) to the
question under inquiry (12) by any person who has been
summoned as a witness (13) by authority of either House of
Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under
inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a
joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any
committee of either House of Congress. Punishment for violation of the
statute is a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100, and
imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than 12 months. This
statute has withstood constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court
(14) rejected the contention that reference to ``any''
matter under inquiry was fatally defective because it was unlimited in
its extent. In reaching this conclusion the court stated that, ``. . .
statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will
effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible . . . avoid an
unjust or absurd conclusion'' and interpreted the word ``any'' to apply
to ``. . . matters within the jurisdiction of the two Houses of
Congress, before them for consideration and proper for their action, to
questions perti
[[Page 2411]]
nent thereto, and to facts or papers appearing therein.'' In the same
case the court found that the adoption of a statute designed to aid
each House of Congress in the discharge of its constitutional functions
did not constitute an improper delegation of power to punish contempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Parliamentarian's Note: No contumacious witness has been tried at
the bar of the House or Senate between 1936 and 1973. In Groppi
v Leslie, 404 U.S. 496 (1972), a decision which reviewed an
action of the Wisconsin legislature but nonetheless rested on
congressional precedents, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a
witness may not be punished for contempt unless he has been
accorded due process of law in a proceeding that leads to a
finding of guilt. Although a legislative body does not have to
accord all the procedural rights that a court must accord, it
must grant notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
8. This description of the statute is taken from Watkins v United
States, 354 U.S. 178, 207 n. 45 (1957).
9. See Sec. 7, supra, for a discussion of willfulness as it relates to
intent of the witness.
10. See Sec. 20, infra, for a discussion of particular conduct as
contumacious.
11. See Sec. 6, supra, for a discussion of pertinence.
12. See Sec. 1, supra, for a discussion of the permissible scope of
legislative inquiry.
13. See Sec. 16, supra, for a discussion of summoning witnesses.
14. In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 667 (1897). 2 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 1614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A court of appeals (15) rejected the argument that 2 USC
Sec. 192 violated the ``necessary and proper'' clause of article 1,
section 8, because the inherent power of Congress to compel attendance
by civil contempt was a better means to achieve the legitimate
congressional end of obtaining information than was criminal contempt.
The court found that the decision to add criminal contempt powers to
its inherent powers to insure the cooperation of witnesses provided a
rational basis on which to enact 2 USC Sec. 192. It was unwilling to
strike down a means reasonably calculated to accomplish a valid
congressional end simply because someone could conceive of an arguably
better means to accomplish that end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. United States v Fort, 443 F2d 670, 676 (D.C. Cir. 1970), cert.
denied, 403 U.S. 932 (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 USC Sec. 193 provides that no witness is privileged to refuse to
testify to any fact, or to produce any paper on the ground that his
testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to
disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous. 2 USC Sec. 194
establishes a procedure for certification of a contempt citation to the
appropriate U.S. Attorney.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. See Sec. 22, infra, for a discussion of this statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following steps precede judicial proceedings under 2 USC
Sec. Sec. 192-194: (1) approval by the committee, (2) calling up and
reading the committee report on the floor,(17) (3) either
(if Congress is in session) House approval of a resolution authorizing
the Speaker to certify the report to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution,
or (18) (if Congress is not in session) an independent
determination by the Speaker to certify the report,(19) (4)
certification by the Speaker to the appropriate U.S. Attorney for
prosecution.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. Sec. 20.1, 20.3, 20.5, 20.7, 20.9, infra, for examples.
18. See Sec. Sec. 20.2, 20.4, 20.6, 20.8, 20.10, and 22.1, infra, for
examples.
19. See summary and analysis in Sec. 22, infra, for a discussion of
Wilson, et al. v United States, which held that the Speaker,
acting in the place of the House, must exercise independent
judgment.
20. See all precedents in Sec. 22, infra, for examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining sections in this chapter deal with proceedings
[[Page 2412]]
after a committee has voted to cite a witness for contempt and prior to
grand jury action.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For earlier precedents, see 2 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1597-
1640, 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1666-1724, and 6 Cannon's
Precedents Sec. Sec. 332-353. For other materials, see
Goldfarb, Ronald L., The Contempt Power, Columbia University
Press, N.Y., 1963 (this work also discusses contempt of
judicial proceedings); Sky, T., Judicial Reviews of
Congressional Investigations--Is There an Alternative to
Contempt? 31 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 399 (1962); Beck, Carl,
Contempt of Congress, A Study of the Prosecutions Initiated by
the Committee on UnAmerican Activities, 1945-1957, The Hauser
Press, New Orleans, 1959; and Willis, Power of Legislative
Bodies to Punish for Contempt, 2 Ind. L. J. 61
(1957). -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommittal
Sec. 17.1 The House may recommit a resolution certifying the contempt
of a committee witness to the committee which reported the
contumacious conduct.
On July 13, 1971,(2) the House on a roll call vote
recommitted a resolution certifying contempt of a witness before the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 117 Cong. Rec. 24723, 24752, 24753, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
3. The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce recommended the
contempt citation by a vote of 25 to 23, in an executive
session on July 1, 1971. See 117 Cong. Rec. 24723, 92d Cong.
1st Sess., July 13, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Harley O.] Staggers [of West Virginia]: Mr. Speaker, I
offer a privileged resolution, by direction of the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 534
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives
certify the report of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce of the House of Representatives as to the contumacious
conduct of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Incorporated, and
of Dr. Frank Stanton, its President, in failing and refusing to
produce certain pertinent materials in compliance with a
subpena duces lecum of a duly constituted subcommittee of said
committee served upon Dr. Stanton and the Columbia Broadcasting
System, Incorporated, and as ordered by the subcommittee,
together with all the facts in connection therewith, under the
seal of the House of Representatives, to the United States
Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that Dr.
Frank Stanton and the Columbia Broadcasting System,
Incorporated, may be proceeded against in the manner and form
provided by law.
The Speaker: (4) The gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Staggers) is recognized for one hour. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Carl Albert (Okla.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
[[Page 2413]]
The previous question was ordered.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Keith
Mr. [Hastings] Keith [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
Mr. Keith: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Keith moves to recommit House Resolution 534 to the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The Speaker: The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Keith), there were--ayes 151, noes 147.
Mr. Staggers: Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered. . . .
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 226, nays 181,
answered ``present'' 2, not voting 24, as follows: . . .
So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
Sec. 17.2 The House rejected a motion to recommit to a select committee
a privileged resolution from the Committee on Un-American
Activities which authorized the Speaker to certify a contempt
citation to the U.S. Attorney.
On Oct. 18, 1966,(5) the House by a roll call vote of 90
yeas, 181 nays, and 161 not voting, rejected a motion to recommit to a
select committee a privileged resolution authorizing the Speaker to
certify a committee report to the U.S. Attorney. The report cited
Milton Mitchell Cohen in contempt for refusal to answer questions
before the Committee on Un-American Activities. The select committee
would have been instructed to examine the sufficiency of the
citation.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 112 Cong. Rec. 27448, 27484, 27485, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. See also, for example, 112 Cong. Rec. 27511, 27512, 89th Cong. 2d
Sess., Oct. 18, 1966, for rejection on a roll call vote of 54
yeas to 182 nays of a motion by Mr. Sidney R. Yates (Ill.), to
recommit to a select committee privileged H. Res. 1062,
authorizing the Speaker to certify to a U.S. Attorney H. Rept.
No. 2306, relating to the refusal of Dr. Jeremiah Stamler to
testify before the Committee on Un-American Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings Against Milton Mitchell Cohen
Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 1060) from the Committee on Un-
American Activities and ask for its immediate consideration.
[[Page 2414]]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1060
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives
certify the report of the Committee on Un-American Activities
of the House of Representatives as to the refusals of Milton
Mitchell Cohen to answer questions pertinent to the subject
under inquiry before a duly authorized subcommittee of the said
Committee on Un-American Activities, and his departure without
leave, together with all the facts in connection therewith,
under the seal of the House of Representatives, to the United
States attorney for the northern district of Illinois, to the
end that the said Milton Mitchell Cohen may be proceeded
against in the manner and form provided by law. . . .
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: (7) The question is on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts rise?
Mr. [Silvio O.] Conte [of Massachusetts]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to recommit.
The Speaker: Is the gentleman opposed to the resolution?
Mr. Conte: I am, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Conte moves to recommit the resolution of the Committee
on Un-American Activities to a select committee of seven
Members to be appointed by the Speaker with instructions to
examine the sufficiency of the contempt citations under
existing rules of law and relevant judicial decisions and
thereafter to report it back to the House, while Congress is in
session, or, when Congress is not in session, to the Speaker of
the House, with a statement to its findings.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. See 112 Cong. Rec. 27461, 27462, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 18,
1966, for a statement in which Mr. Conte indicated that a
reason for the motion to recommit was the lawsuit filed by the
witness, Milton Mitchell Cohen, and others challenging the
constitutionality of the authority and procedures of the
Committee on Un-American Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Speaker: Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken.
Mr. Conte: Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The Speaker: Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors; the Sergeant at Arms will
notify absent Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 90, nays 181, not
voting 161, as follows: . . .
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
The Speaker: The question is on the adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. [James C.] Cleveland [of New Hampshire]: Mr. Speaker, on
that I demand the yeas and nays.
[[Page 2415]]
The yeas and nays were refused.
So the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Divisibility
Sec. 17.3 The Speaker stated that a resolution directing the Speaker to
certify a report citing certain witnesses for contempt for refusing
to testify and submit subpenaed materials was not divisible.
On May 28, 1936,(9) Speaker Joseph W. Byrns, of
Tennessee, responded to a parliamentary inquiry regarding divisibility
of a resolution authorizing the Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney
House Report No. 2857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 80 Cong Rec. 8222, 74th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [C. Jasper] Bell [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the select committee, I now present a privileged resolution and
send it to the Clerks desk and ask that it be read.
The Clerk read as follows:
House Resolution 532
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives
certify the report of the Select Committee to Investigate Old
Age Pension Plans as to the willful and deliberate refusal of
Francis E. Townsend, Clinton Wunder, and John B. Kiefer to
testify before said committee, together with all the facts in
connection therewith, under seal of the House of
Representatives, to the United States attorney for the District
of Columbia, to the end that the said Francis E. Townsend,
Clinton Wunder, and John B. Kiefer may be proceeded against in
the manner and form provided by law. . . .
The Speaker: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. [Everett M.] Dirksen [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Dirksen: Is the resolution divisible as to the three
gentlemen named?
The Speaker: It is not.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. See Sec. 17.4, infra, in which all but one of the names of persons
listed in such a resolution were deleted by amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deletion of Names of Persons Not Subpenaed
Sec. 17.4 The House amended a resolution citing persons for contempt by
deleting the names of all who had not been subpenaed, leaving only
the name of Dr. Edward K. Barsky.
On Mar. 28, 1946,(11) the House by voice vote agreed to
an amendment deleting the names of all persons who had not been
subpenaed from House Resolution 573, authorizing the Speaker to certify
to the U.S. Attorney the report of the Committee on Un-American
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 92 Cong. Rec. 2745, 2749, 79th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2416]]
Activities regarding refusal to produce requested records, books, and
papers.
Mr. [John S.] Wood [of Georgia]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 573) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives
certify the report of the House Committee on Un-American
Activities as to the willful and deliberate refusal of the
following persons to produce before the said committee for its
inspection the books, papers, and records of an unincorporated
organization known as the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee,
with offices at 192 Lexington Avenue, New York, N.Y., together
with all the facts relating thereto, under seal of the House of
Representatives, to the United States attorney for the District
of Columbia to the end that the said persons named below may be
proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law:
Dr. Edward K. Barsky, 54 East Sixty-first Street, New York
City.
Dr. Jacob Auslander, 286 West Eighty-sixth Street, New York
City.
Prof. Lyman R. Bradley, New York University, New York City.
Mrs. Marjorie Chodorov, 815 Park Avenue, New York City. . .
.
Mr. Wood: Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Wood: Strike from the resolution
the names of all individuals except that of Edward K. Barsky.
The amendment was agreed to.
Parliamentarian's Note: Dr. Barsky was the only person who had been
subpenaed. All the others, members of the executive board of the
organization, were cited in the report and resolution because the board
refused to permit Dr. Barsky to produce the subpenaed materials. Mr.
Wood was Chairman of the Committee on Un-American
Activities.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See 92 Cong. Rec. 2744, 2745, 79th Cong. 2d Sess., for the text of
the report and Sec. 19.4, infra, for a discussion of this
incident as it relates to a point of order challenging citation
of persons who had not been subpenaed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------