[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 15. Investigations and Inquiries]
[D. Authority in Cases of Contempt]
[§ 20. Particular Conduct as Contumacious]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 2428-2449]
CHAPTER 15
Investigations and Inquiries
D. AUTHORITY IN CASES OF CONTEMPT
Sec. 20. Particular Conduct as Contumacious
The contempt statute, 2 USC Sec. 192, penalizes any person summoned
as a witness by a committee who ``willfully (12) makes
default'' or who, having appeared, ``refuses to answer any question. .
. .'' The word ``default'' means failure to appear in response to a
summons (13) as well as failure to produce
papers.(14) With respect to a witness summoned to give
testimony, ``default'' includes not only failure to appear, but refusal
to be sworn.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. See Sec. 7, supra, for a discussion of willfulness in relation to
intent of witness.
13. United States v Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 327 (1950). See
Sec. Sec. 20.1, 20.2, infra.
14. United States v Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 327 (1950). See
Sec. Sec. 20.9, 20.10, infra.
15. Eisler v United States, 170 F2d 273 (D.C. Cir. 1948), cert.
dismissed, 338 U.S. 883 (1949); United States v Josephson, 165
F2d 82 (2d Cir. 1947), cert. denied, 333 U.S. 838 (1948). See
Sec. Sec. 20.3, 20.4, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A district court (16) held that the contempt statute
proscribes every willful failure to comply with a summons, not merely
the failure to appear pursuant to a summons, and interpreted the word
``default'' to mean failure to give testimony or produce papers as well
as refusal to testify or appear. ``Default'' also applies to a witness'
withdrawal from a hearing without consent of the
committee.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. United States v Hintz, 193 F Supp 325 (N.D. Ill. 1961).
17. United States v Costello, 198 F2d 200 (2d Cir. 1952), cert. denied,
344 U.S. 874 (1952); Townsend v United States, 95 F2d 352 (D.C.
Cir. 1938), cert. denied, 303 U.S. 664 (1938). See
Sec. Sec. 20.7, 20.8, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2429]]
The portion of the statute regarding refusal to answer any question
is closely related to willfulness, an element which has been read into
the statute notwithstanding the fact that ``willful'' or ``willfully''
does not expressly modify refusal to answer. A court of appeals
(18) explained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Deutch v United States, 235 F2d 858 (D.C. Cir. 1956).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute uses the word ``willfully'' as a word of art to
define the offense of failing to appear; ``willfully'' is not used
with respect to a person ``who having appeared, refuses to answer.
. . . '' The act of refusing (as distinguished from failing) to
answer is a positive, affirmative act; the result is conscious and
intended. Congress recognized that a failure to appear in response
to a summons could well be due to other causes than willfulness or
deliberate purpose to disobey the summons or the statute. . . . To
decline or refuse to answer a question, however, is by its own
nature a deliberate and willful act.
A committee's failure to give a witness a clear direction to answer
a question has constituted a ground on which to reverse contempt
convictions.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Emspak v United States, 349 U.S. 190, 202 (1955); Quinn v United
States, 349 U.S. 155, 165 (1955); Bart v United States, 349
U.S. 219, 221 (1955).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The precedents in this section illustrate particular conduct that
has been regarded as
contumacious. -------------------
Refusal to Appear
Sec. 20.1 A committee filed a privileged report which included a
contempt citation and facts relating to the refusal of a witness to
appear before it.
On Apr. 22, 1947,(20) the Committee on Un-American
Activities offered a privileged report, House Report No. 289, relating
to a witness' refusal to appear in response to a subpena ad
testificandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 93 Cong. Rec. 3813, 3814, 80th Cong. 1st Sess. On the same day, the
House adopted a resolution (H. Res. 193) certifying the
contemptuous conduct to the appropriate U.S. attorney. See also
United States v Dennis, 171 F2d 986 (D.C. Cir. 1948), aff'd.
339 U.S. 162 (1950), wherein defendant's subsequent conviction
was affirmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings Against Eugene Dennis, Also Known as Francis Waldron
Mr. [J. Parnell] Thomas of New Jersey: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Un-American Activities, I present
a privileged report, which I send to the Clerk's desk and ask
to have read.
The Speaker: (1) The Clerk will read the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page 2430]]
Report Citing Eugene Dennis, Also Known as Francis Waldron
The Committee on Un-American Activities as created and
authorized by the House of Representatives through the
enactment of Public Law No. 601, section 121, subsection Q (2),
caused to be issued a subpena to Eugene Dennis, also known as
Francis Waldron, who is general secretary of the Communist
Party of the United States. The said subpena directed Eugene
Dennis, also known as Francis Waldron, to be and appear before
the said Committee on Un-American Activities on April 9, 1947,
and then and there to testify touching matters of inquiry
committed to the said committee; the subpena being set forth in
words and figures as follows:
``By authority of the House of Representatives of the
Congress of the United States of America, to Robert E.
Stripling: You are hereby commanded to summon Eugene Dennis,
also known as Francis Waldron, general secretary, Communist
Party of the United States, to be and appear before the Un-
American Activities Committee of the House of Representatives
of the United States, of which the Honorable J. Parnell Thomas
is chairman, in their chamber in the city of Washington, on the
9th day of April 1947, at the hour of 10 a.m., then and there
to testify touching matters of inquiry committed to said
committee; and he is not to depart without leave of said
committee. Herein fail not, and make return of this summons.
``Witness my hand and the seal of the House of
Representatives of the United States, at the city of
Washington, this 26th day of March 1947.
``J. Parnell Thomas, Chairman. ``Attest:
``John Andrews, Clerk.''
The said subpena was duly served, as appears by the return
made thereon by Robert E. Stripling, chief investigator of the
Committee on Un-American Activities, who was duly authorized to
serve the said subpena and who served the said subpena upon
instructions received from the chairman of the Committee on Un-
American Activities. The return of the service by the said
Robert E. Stripling being endorsed thereon, which is set forth
in words and figures as follows:
``Subpena for Eugene Dennis also known as Francis Waldron
before the Committee on Un-American Activities, United States
House of Representatives, served at 11:35 a.m., March 26, 1947,
in the committee's chambers in Washington, D.C.
``Robert E. Stripling,
``Chief Investigator,
Committee on Un-American
Activities.''
On April 7, 1947, a telegram was sent to Mr. Eugene Dennis,
general secretary of the Communist party of the United States,
which is set forth herein in words and figures as follows:
``April 7, 1947.
Mr. Eugene Dennis,
``General Secretary,
``Headquarters, Communist Party,
``50 East Thirteenth Street,
``New York, N.Y.
``This is to notify you that in response to the subpena
which was served upon you March 26, you are to appear before
the Committee on Un-American Activities, at the committee's
chambers, 225 Old House Office Building, at 10 a.m., April 9,
1947, to then and there give testimony under oath concerning
matters pertinent to the committee's inquiry.
``Robert E. Stripling,
``Chief Investigator,
Committee on Un-American
Activities.''
The said Eugene Dennis, also known as Francis Waldron,
failed to appear before the said Committee on
[[Page 2431]]
Un-American Activities on April 9, 1947, as directed by the
subpena served upon him on March 26, 1947, and the willful and
deliberate refusal of the witness to appear before the
Committee on Un-American Activities is a violation of the
subpena served upon him by the Committee on Un-American
Activities and places the said Eugene Dennis, also known as
Francis Waldron, in contempt of the House of Representatives of
the United States.
Sec. 20.2 The House agreed to a privileged resolution directing the
Speaker to certify to the appropriate U.S. Attorney a report citing
a witness in contempt for refusing to appear at an investigative
hearing to which he had been subpenaed.
On Feb. 5, 1952,(2) the House on a roll call vote of 316
yeas to 0 nays approved a resolution directing the Speaker to certify a
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 98 Cong. Rec. 829, 832, 82d Cong. 2d Sess. See also, as a further
example, 93 Cong. Rec. 3806, 3811, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr.
22, 1947, for the approval, on a vote of 357 yeas to 2 nays, of
H. Res. 190, directing the Speaker to certify to the U.S.
Attorney for the District of Columbia, H. Rept. No. 281, citing
Leon Josephson in contempt for refusing to appear before the
Committee on Un-American Activities; and 93 Cong. Rec. 3814,
3820, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 22, 1947, for the approval, on
a vote of 196 yeas to 1 nay, of H. Res. 193, directing the
Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia H. Rept. No. 289, citing Eugene Dennis, also known as
Francis Waldron, in contempt for refusing to appear before the
Committee on Un-American Activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John S.] Wood of Georgia: Mr. Speaker, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 517) 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 Committee on Un-American Activities
of the House of Representatives as to the willful default of
Sidney Buchman in failing to appear before the Committee on Un-
American Activities in response to a subpena duly served upon
him, 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
Sidney Buchman may be proceeded against in the manner and form
provided by law.. . .
The Speaker: (3) The question is on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wood of Georgia: On that, Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 316, nays 0, not
voting 115, as follows: . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
Refusal to Be Sworn
Sec. 20.3 A committee files a privileged report which includes
[[Page 2432]]
a contempt citation and facts relating to the refusal of a witness
to be sworn.
On Sept. 10, 1973,(4) the Committee on Armed Services
filed a privileged report relating to the refusal of G. Gordon Liddy to
be sworn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 119 Cong. Rec. 28951, 28952, 93d Cong. 1st Sess. On the same date,
the House considered the report and adopted a resolution
certifying the matter to the appropriate U.S. attorney. See
also U.S. v Liddy, Crim. No. 74-117 (D.D.C. 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings Against George Gordon Liddy
Mr. [Lucien N.] Nedzi [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privilege of the House, and, by direction of the
Committee on Armed Services, I submit a privileged report (H. Rept.
No. 93-453).
The Clerk read as follows:
Report Citing George Gordon Liddy
introduction
On Friday, July 20, 1973, during an executive session of
the Special Subcommittee on Intelligence of the House Committee
on Armed Services, Mr. George Gordon Liddy, who was called as a
witness, pursuant to a Writ of Habeas Corpus, refused to be
sworn prior to offering any testimony or claiming his privilege
under the Fifth Amendment. A quorum being present, the
subcommittee voted to report the matter to the full House
Committee on Armed Services with a recommendation for reference
to the House of Representatives under procedures which could
ultimately result in Mr. Liddy being cited for contempt of
Congress. [See Appendix 1.] On July 26, 1973 the House
Committee on Armed Services met to receive the report of the
Special Subcommittee on Intelligence with regard to the refusal
of Mr. Liddy to be sworn. On July 31, 1973, the full committee,
a quorum being present, on a record vote of 33-0, recommended
the adoption of a resolution as follows:
``resolution
``Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, certify the report of the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives as to the refusal of
George Gordon Liddy to be sworn or to take affirmation to
testify before a duly authorized subcommittee of the said
Committee on Armed Services on July 20, 1973, 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 the said George Gordon
Liddy may be proceeded against in the manner and form provided
by law.''
[See Appendix 2.]
background
At the time of the subcommittee hearings, Mr. Liddy was in
confinement in the District of Columbia Jail as the result of
his conviction on the Watergate breakin. Accordingly, the
subcommittee petitioned Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum as the only means of
obtaining Mr. Liddy's presence before the subcommittee. In his
discretion Judge Sirica signed that petition and an order was
delivered to the United States Marshal for Mr. Liddy's
appearance before the sub
[[Page 2433]]
committee on July 20, 1973. [See Appendix 1, pp. 16-17.] Mr.
Liddy appeared as ordered.
In his appearance Mr. Liddy was asked to rise and take the
oath. He refused to take the oath as a witness. Subsequently,
his counsel presented an extensive brief after which Mr. Liddy
again refused to take the oath. The witness claimed he had the
absolute right under the Fifth Amendment to remain completely
silent with regard to any offering before the subcommittee. He
sought to establish that contention based upon his current
conviction on the Watergate breakin which is under appeal, and
the possibility of future indictments being brought against
him. He further argued a Sixth Amendment right to avoid what he
claims to be prejudicial publicity in the media should he claim
his Fifth Amendment rights. Mr. Liddy agreed that his refusal
to be sworn was not based on any religious grounds.
authority
The Special Subcommittee on Intelligence is a duly
constituted subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed
Services pursuant to House Resolution 185, 93d Congress, and
the appointment made during the organization meeting of the
Committee on Armed Services on February 27, 1973. [See Appendix
1, pp. 11-16.] In addition, the chairman of the subcommittee
was given an order directing an inquiry into any CIA
involvement in Watergate-Ellsberg matters. The subcommittee
recommended those hearings on May 11, 1973, and in sixteen
sessions since that date has had before it some twenty-four
witnesses bearing on the subject of the inquiry. Prior to his
appearance on July 20, 1973, Mr. Liddy, through his attorney,
was advised by telephone of the purpose of the investigation
and was asked to acknowledge that information by letter. That
was done by Mr. Liddy's attorney on June 20, 1973. [See
Appendix 1, pp. 17-18]. As indicated above, Mr. Liddy was
properly before the subcommittee on a valid, duly executed Writ
of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum [See Appendix 1, p. 16.]
conclusion
The position of the committee is that all substantive and
procedural legal prerequisites have been satisfied to date and
that the House of Representatives should adopt the resolution
to refer the matter to the appropriate U.S. Attorney. Title 2,
United States Code, Sections 192 and 194 provide the necessary
vehicles for taking this action. Section 192 provides the basis
for indictment should a witness before either House of Congress
refuse to answer any question pertinent to the inquiry. Section
194 provides the vehicle for certifying such a result to the
appropriate U.S. Attorney. The central question is whether
failure to take the oath constitutes a refusal to give
testimony. We believe it does.
Accordingly, it is the position of the committee that the
proceedings to date are in order and we recommend that the
House adopt the resolution to report the fact of the refusal of
George Gordon Liddy to be sworn to testify at a meeting of the
Special Subcommittee on Intelligence on July 20, 1973 together
with all the facts in connection therewith to the end that he
may be proceeded against as provided by law.
A memorandum of law is contained in Appendix
3.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Appendices 1, 2, and 3, the hearings of the subcommittee, meetings
of the committee, and a legal memorandum, respectively, on pp.
28952-59, are omitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.4 The House agreed to a privileged resolution direct
[[Page 2434]]
ing the Speaker to certify to the appropriate U.S. Attorney a
report citing a witness in contempt for refusing to be sworn or
make affirmation to testify at an investigative hearing.
On Sept. 23, 1970,(6) the House by a vote of 337 yeas to
14 nays approved House Resolution 1220, authorizing the Speaker to
certify a report on a witness' refusal to testify to a U.S. Attorney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 116 Cong. Rec. 33269, 33278, 91st Cong. 2d Sess. See also, as
examples, 119 Cong. Rec. 28960, 28962, 28963, 93d Cong. 1st
Sess., Sept. 10, 1973, for the approval, by a vote of 334 yeas
to 11 nays, of H. Res. 536, directing the Speaker to certify to
the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, H. Rept. No.
93-453, from the Committee on Armed Services, citing G. Gordon
Liddy for contempt for his refusal to be sworn or take
affirmation to testify before the Special Subcommittee on
Intelligence; and 93 Cong. Rec. 1128, 1129, 1137, 80th Cong.
1st Sess., Feb. 18, 1947, for the approval by 370 yeas to 1 nay
of H. Res. 104, directing the Speaker to certify to the U.S.
Attorney for the District of Columbia the report [H. Rept. No.
43] citing Gerhart Eisler for contempt for his refusal to be
sworn and testify before the Committee on Un-American
Activities. Counsel for Mr. Liddy filed a memorandum outlining
the English common law background of the fifth amendment. See
119 Cong. Rec. 28952, 28953, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Sept. 10,
1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard H.] Ichord [of Missouri]: Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the House Committee on Internal Security, I offer a
privileged resolution (H. Res. 1220) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 1220
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives
certify the report of the Committee on Internal Security of the
House of Representatives as to the refusal of Arnold S. Johnson
to be sworn or to make affirmation to testify before a duly
authorized subcommittee of the said Committee on Internal
Security, 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
the said Arnold S. Johnson may be proceeded against in the
manner and form provided by law. . . .
Mr. Ichord: Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker Pro Tempore:(7) The question is on the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Neal Smith (Iowa).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. [John M.] Ashbrook [of Ohio]: 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 Pro Tempore: 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.
[[Page 2435]]
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 337, nays 14, not
voting 78, as follows: . . .
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Refusal to Answer Questions
Sec. 20.5 A committee filed a privileged report which included a
contempt citation and facts relating to the refusal of a witness to
answer questions.
On May 11, 1954,(8) the Committee on Un-American
Activities offered a privileged report relating to the refusal of
Francis X. T. Crowley to testify.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 100 Cong. Rec. 6400, 6401, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
9. This citation was rescinded after Mr. Crowley answered questions
before the committee. See Sec. 21.1, infra, for the report of
his purgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings Against Francis X. T. Crowley
Mr. [Harold H.] Velde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Un-American Activities, I present a privileged
report (H. Rept. No. 1586).
The Clerk read the report, as follows:
The Committee on Un-American Activities, as created and
authorized by the House of Representatives, through the
enactment of Public Law 601, section 121, subsection (q)(2) of
the 79th Congress, and under House Resolution 5 of the 83d
Congress, caused to be issued a subpena to Francis X. T.
Crowley, 226 Second Avenue, Apartment 15, New York, N.Y. The
said subpena directed Francis X. T. Crowley to be and appear
before said Committee on Un-American Activities on May 4, 1953,
at the hour of 10:30 a.m., then and there to testify touching
matters of inquiry committed to said committee, and not to
depart without leave of said committee. The subpena served upon
said Francis X. T. Crowley is set forth in words and figures,
as follows:
``By authority of the House of Representatives of the
Congress of the United States of America, to George C.
Williams: You are hereby commanded to summon Francis X. T.
Crowley to be and appear before the Committee on Un-American
Activities, or a duly authorized subcommittee thereof, of the
House of Representatives of the United States, of which the
Honorable Harold H. Velde is chairman, in their chamber in the
city of New York, room 110, Federal Building, on Monday, Mav 4,
1953, at the hour of 10:30 a.m., then and there to testify
touching matters of inquiry committed to said committee; and he
is not to depart without leave of said committee.
``Herein fail not, and make return of this summons.
``Witness my hand and the seal of the House of
Representatives of the United States, at the city of
Washington, this 9th day of April, 1953.
``Harold H. Velde,
``Chairman.
``Attest: Lyle O. Snader,
``Clerk.''
The said subpena was duly served as appears by the return
made thereon by George C. Williams, in
[[Page 2436]]
vestigator, who was duly authorized to serve the said subpena.
The return of the service by the said George C. Williams, being
endorsed thereon, is set forth in words and figures, as
follows:
``Subpena for Francis X. T. Crowley, before the Committee
on Un-American [Activities]. Served at home, 226 2d Avenue,
Apt. 15, N.Y.C. on 4-24-53 at 6:32 p.m.
``George. C. Williams,
``Investigator, House of Representatives.''
On May 4, 1953, a telegram was sent to Francis X. T.
Crowley by Harold H. Velde, chairman of the House Committee on
Un-American Activities, which is set forth in words and
figures, as follows:
``New York, N.Y., May 4, 1953.
``Francis X. Crowley, 226 Second Ave., New York City:
``Your appearance before Committee on Un-American
Activities is hereby postponed to Monday, June 8, 1953, 10:30
a.m., 226 House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
``Harold H. Velde,
``Chairman.''
The said Francis X. T. Crowley, pursuant to said subpena
and in compliance therewith, appeared before the said committee
on June 8, 1953, to give such testimony as required under and
by virtue of Public Law 601, section 121, subsection (q)(2) of
the 79th Congress, and under House Resolution 5 of the 83d
Congress. The said Francis X. T. Crowley, having appeared as a
witness and having been asked questions, namely:
``When you were in Boston, Mass. . . . were you a member of
the West End Club of the Communist Party?
``Have you ever been associated with any members of the
West End Club of Boston?
``Have you ever at any time been a member of the Communist
Party?'' which questions were pertinent to the subject under
inquiry, refused to answer such questions; and as a result of
Francis X. T. Crowley's refusal to answer the aforesaid
questions, your committee was prevented from receiving
testimony and information concerning a matter committed to said
committee in accordance with the terms of the subpena served
upon the said Francis X. T. Crowley.
The record of the proceedings before the committee on June
8, 1953, during which Francis X. T. Crowley refused to answer
the aforesaid questions pertinent to the subject under inquiry
is set forth in fact as follows:
``United States House
of Representatives,
``Subcommittee of
the Committee
on Un-American Activities,
``Washington, D.C.,
Monday, June 8,1965.
``executive session
The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities
met, pursuant to call, at 10:43 a.m. in room 226 of the Old
House Office Building, Hon. Bernard W. Kearney, presiding.
Committee member present: Representative Bernard W. Kearney
(presiding).
* * * * *
``Mr. Kearney. The committee will be in order.
``Let the record show that, for the purpose of the hearing
this morning, a subcommittee has been set up composed of Mr.
Kearney from New York. The hearing will be conducted under the
authority granted for subcommittee by the chairman of the
committee, Mr. Velde.
* * * * *
[[Page 2437]]
``Will you stand and be sworn?
``Do you solemnly swear the testimony you shall give before
this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
``Mr. Crowley. I do.
``testimony of francis xavier thomas crowley
``Mr. Kunzig. Mr. Crowley, are you accompanied by counsel
here this morning?
``Mr. Crowley. No; I am by myself.
``Mr. Kunzig. You understand, of course, your right to be
accompanied by counsel if you so desire?
``Mr. Crowley. I do.
``Mr. Kunzig. And it is your wish to be here present at
this hearing today without counsel?
``Mr. Crowley. Yes.
``Mr. Kunzig. Would you give your full name, please?
``Mr. Crowley. Francis Xavier Thomas Crowley. The Thomas
was a confirmation.
``Mr. Kunzig. And your present address, Mr. Crowley?
``Mr. Crowley. 226 Second Avenue, New York.
``Mr. Kunzig. And what is your age at the present time?
``Mr. Crowley. Twenty-seven.
* * * * *
``Mr. Kunzig. Mr. Crowley, when you were in Boston, Mass.,
that period of time prior to going to the University of
Michigan that you have just told us about, were you a member of
the West End Club of the Communist Party?
``Mr. Crowley. Well, I can't answer that.
``Mr. Kearney. What do you mean--you can't answer it?
``Mr. Crowley. I won't answer it.
``Mr. Kearney. On what grounds?
``Mr. Crowley. It goes against my conscience to speak about
it. I don't believe I should be in a position where I have to
speak about anyone except my priest, and I have spoken to him
about it. . . .
``Mr. Kearney. . . . Have you ever been associated with any
members of the West End Club of Boston?
``Mr. Crowley. That comes to the same thing. I won't answer
that either.
``Mr. Kearney. You won't answer it?
* * * * *
``Mr. Crowley. No.
``Mr. Kearney. As I understand your testimony, you just
refuse to answer any questions concerning your activities with
communism?
``Mr. Crowley. Yes, sir.
``Mr. Kearney. Are you now a member of the Communist Party?
``Mr. Crowley. No.
``Mr. Kearney. Do you have any other questions?
``Mr. Kunzig. I think we better follow it up by asking:
Have you ever at any time been a member of the Communist Party?
``Mr. Crowley. I refuse to answer that.''
* * * * *
Because of the foregoing, the said Committee on Un-American
Activities was deprived of answers to pertinent questions
propounded to said Francis X. T. Crowley relative to the
subject matter which, under Public Law 601, section 121,
subsection (q)(2) of the 79th Congress, and under House
Resolution 5 of the 83d Congress, the said committee was
instructed to investigate, and the refusal of the witness to
answer questions, namely:
``When you were in Boston, Mass. . . . were you a member of
[[Page 2438]]
the West End Club of the Communist Party?
``Have you ever been associated with any members of the
West End Club of Boston?
``Have you ever at any time been a member of the Communist
Party?'' which questions were pertinent to the subject under
inquiry, is a violation of the subpena under which the witness
had previously appeared, and his refusal to answer the
aforesaid questions deprived your committee of necessary and
pertinent testimony, and places the said witness in contempt of
the House of Representatives of the United States.
Sec. 20.6 The House agreed to a privileged resolution directing the
Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney a report citing a witness
in contempt for refusing to answer questions at an investigative
hearing.
On Sept. 3, 1959,(10) the House by voice vote approved a
resolution directing the Speaker to certify a report citing a witness
in contempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. 105 Cong. Rec. 17934, 17935, 86th Cong. 1st Sess. See also, for
example, 101 Cong. Rec. 11521, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 26,
1955, for the voice vote approval of H. Res. 315, directing the
Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia H. Rept. No. 1406, citing John T. Gojack, in contempt
for refusing to testify before the Committee on Un-American
Activities; and 100 Cong. Rec. 11613, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., July
23, 1954, for the voice vote approval of H. Res. 666, directing
the Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia H. Rept. No. 2457, citing Lloyd Barenblatt in contempt
for refusing to testify before the Committee on Un-American
Activities.
For related court proceedings, see Gojack v United States,
280 F2d 678 (D.C. Cir. 1960), rev'd sub nom., United States v
Russell, 369 U.S. 749 (1962), wherein the court, in reversing
defendant's conviction, held that a grand jury indictment under
the contempt statute, 2 USC Sec. 192, must state the subject
matter under inquiry at the time of defendant's refusal to
answer the committee's questions, so as to enable courts to
determine the pertinency of the questions. See also Popper v
United States, 306 F2d 290 (D.C. Cir. 1962), wherein the
defendant's conviction was reversed because the indictment had
insufficiently set forth the question under inquiry. And see
Barenblatt v United States, 240 F2d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1957),
vacated and rem'd, 354 U.S. 930, 252 F2d 129 (1958), aff'd.,
360 U.S. 109 (defendant's conviction upheld).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings Against Martin Popper
Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, I offer
a privileged resolution (H. Res. 374) 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 Committee on Un-American Activities
of the House of
[[Page 2439]]
Representatives as to the refusal of Martin Popper to answer
questions before a duly constituted subcommittee of the
Committee on UnAmerican Activities, together with all of 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 the said Martin Popper may be
proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law. . . .
The Speaker: (11) The question is on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Refusal to Answer Questions and Departure Without Leave
Sec. 20.7 A committee filed a privileged report citing a witness in
contempt for his failure to answer questions and his departure
without leave.
On Oct. 18, 1966,(12) the Committee on Un-American
Activities offered a privileged report citing Dr. Jeremiah Stamler in
contempt for his refusal to answer questions and his departure without
leave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 112 Cong. Rec. 27500, 27501, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. The House adopted
a resolution (H. Res. 1062) certifying the contempt on the
following day. Id. at pp. 27641, 27642. See also Stamler v
Willis, 415 F2d 1365 (7th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S.
929 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Edwin E.] Willis [of Louisiana]: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of the privilege of the House and by direction of the
Committee on Un-American Activities I submit a privileged report
(Rept. No. 2306).
The Clerk read as follows:
Proceedings Against Jeremiah Stamler
[Pursuant to Title 2, United States Code, Sections 192 and 194]
The Committee on Un-American Activities, as created and
authorized by the House of Representatives, through the
enactment of Public Law 601 of the 79th Congress, section 121,
subsection (q)(2), and under House Resolution 8 of the 89th
Congress, duly authorized and issued a subpena to Jeremiah
Stamler. The subpena directed Jeremiah Stamler to be and appear
before the said Committee on Un-American Activities, of which
the Honorable Edwin E. Willis is chairman, or a duly appointed
subcommittee thereof. . . .
This subpena was duly served as appears by the return
thereon made by Neil E. Wetterman, who was duly authorized to
serve it. The return of service of said subpena is set forth in
words and figures as follows: . . .
The said Jeremiah Stamler, summoned as aforesaid, appeared
and was called as a witness on May 27, 1965, to give testimony,
as required by the said subpena, at a meeting of a duly
authorized subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American
Activities at the Old U.S. Court of Appeals Building in
Chicago, Ill. He was accompanied by his counsel, Albert E.
Jenner, Jr., and co-counsel, Thomas P. Sullivan, Esquires.
Having been sworn as a witness, he was asked to state his
full name and residence for the record, to which he responded,
giving same.
Thereafter, the witness was asked the question, namely:
``Would you state the place and date of your birth, Dr.
Stamler?'' which question
[[Page 2440]]
was pertinent to the subject under inquiry. He refused to
answer said question and, in addition, stated that he would not
answer any further questions that might be put to him touching
matters of inquiry committed to said subcommittee.
The witness then departed the hearing room without leave of
said subcommittee.
The foregoing refusals by Jeremiah Stamler to answer the
aforesaid question and to answer any further questions, and his
willful departure without leave, deprived the Committee on Un-
American Activities of pertinent testimony regarding matters
which the said committee was instructed by law and House
resolution to investigate, and place the said Jeremiah Stamler
in contempt of the House of Representatives of the United
States.
Pursuant to resolution of the Committee on Un-American
Activities duly adopted at a meeting held January 13, 1966, the
facts relating to the aforesaid failures of Jeremiah Stamler
are hereby reported to the House of Representatives, to the end
that the said Jeremiah Stamler may be proceeded against for
contempt of the House of Representatives in the manner and form
provided by law.
The record of the proceedings before the said subcommittee,
so far as it relates to the appearance of Jeremiah Stamler,
including the statement by the chairman of the subject and
matter under inquiry, is set forth in Appendix I, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Other pertinent committee proceedings are set forth in
Appendix II, and made a part hereof.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The appendices have been omitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.8 The House agreed to a privileged resolution directing the
Speaker to certify a report citing a witness in contempt for
refusal to testify and his departure without leave.
On Oct. 18, 1966,(14) the House by voice vote approved a
resolution directing the Speaker to certify a report citing a witness
in contempt.(15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 112 Cong. Rec. 27448, 27484, 27485, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. See also,
for example, 112 Cong. Rec. 27495, 27500, 89th Cong. 2d Sess.,
for the voice vote approval of H. Res. 1061, directing the
Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of Illinois H. Rept. No. 2305, citing Yolanda Hall in
contempt for her refusal to testify and her departure without
leave before the Committee on Un-American Activities.
15. Prior to approving the resolution, the House by a vote of 90 yeas
to 181 nays rejected the motion of Mr. Silvio O. Conte (Mass.),
to recommit this resolution to a select committee of seven
members to examine the sufficiency of the citations. See
Sec. 17.2, supra, for the text of this motion to recommit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1060
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives
certify the
[[Page 2441]]
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 bylaw. . . .
The Speaker: (16) The question is on the adoption of
the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. John W. McCormack (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Refusal to Produce Materials
Sec. 20.9 A committee filed a privileged report which included a
contempt citation and facts relating to the refusal of a witness to
produce subpenaed materials.
On Aug. 23, 1960,(17) the Committee on the Judiciary
filed a privileged report relating to the refusal of a witness to
produce subpenaed materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. 106 Cong. Rec. 17313-15, 86th Cong. 2d Sess. A resolution
certifying the contemptuous conduct was acted on immediately
after the report was filed and considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]: Mr. Speaker, I send to the
desk a privileged report (Reps. No. 2120) from the Committee on the
Judiciary in relation to the conduct of S. Sloan Colt.
The Speaker: (18) The Clerk will read the report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
Proceedings Against S. Sloan Colt
Subcommittee No. 5 of the Committee on the Judiciary, as
created and authorized by the House of Representatives through
the enactment of Public Law 601, section 121, of the 79th
Congress, and under House Resolution 27 and House Resolution
530, both of the 86th Congress, caused to be issued a subpena
duces tecum to S. Sloan Colt, chairman, board of commissioners
of the Port of New York Authority, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York,
N.Y. The subpena directed S. Sloan Colt to be and appear before
Subcommittee No. 5 of the Committee on the Judiciary, at 10
a.m. on June 29, 1960, in their chamber in the city of
Washington, and to bring with him from the files of the Port of
New York Authority certain specified documents, and to testify
touching matters of inquiry committed to the subcommittee.
The subpena was duly served as appears by the return made
thereon by counsel for the committee who was duly authorized to
serve the subpena.
S. Sloan Colt, pursuant to the subpena duly served upon
him, appeared before Subcommittee No. 5 of the Committee on the
Judiciary on June 29, 1960, to give testimony as required by
Public Law 601, section 121, of the 79th Congress, and by House
Resolutions 27 and 530 of the 86th Congress. However, S. Sloan
Colt, having appeared as a witness and having complied in part
with the
[[Page 2442]]
subpena duces tecum served upon him by bringing with him part
of the documents demanded therein, (1) failed and refused to
produce certain other documents in compliance with the subpena
duces tecum, which documents are pertinent to the subject
matter under inquiry, and (2) failed and refused to produce
certain documents as ordered by the subcommittee, which
documents are pertinent to the subject matter under inquiry.
At those proceedings the subcommittee chairman explained in
detail the authority for the subcommittee's inquiry, the
purpose of the inquiry, and its scope. The subcommittee also
gave to the witness a lengthy and detailed explanation of the
pertinence to its inquiry of each category of documents
demanded in the subpena served upon the witness.
Notwithstanding these explanations and notwithstanding a
direction by the subcommittee to produce the documents required
by the subpena, S. Sloan Colt contumaciously refused to produce
the following categories of documents under his control and
custody:
(1) Internal financial reports, including budgetary
analyses, postclosing trial balances, and internal audits; and
management and financial reports prepared by outside
consultants;
(2) All agenda of meetings of the board of commissioners
and of its committees; all reports to the commissioners by
members of the executive staff; and
(3) All communications in the files of the Port of New York
Authority and in the files of any of its officers and employees
including correspondence, interoffice and other memorandums,
and reports relating to:
(a) The negotiation, execution, and performance of
construction contracts; negotiation, execution, and performance
of insurance contracts, policies, and arrangements; and
negotiation, execution, and performance of the public relations
contracts, policies, and arrangements;
(b) The acquisition, transfer, and leasing of real estate;
(c) The negotiation and issuance of revenue bonds;
(d) The policies of the authority with respect to the
development of rail transportation.
The subcommittee was thereby deprived by S. Sloan Colt of
information and evidence pertinent to matters of inquiry
committed to it under House Resolutions 27 and 530, 86th
Congress. His persistent and illegal refusal to supply the
documents as ordered deprived the subcommittee of necessary and
pertinent evidence and places him in contempt of the House of
Representatives.
Incorporated herein as appendix I is the record of the
proceedings before Subcommittee No. 5 of the Committee on the
Judiciary on the return of the subpenas duces tecum served upon
S. Sloan Colt and others. The record of proceedings contains,
with respect to Mr. Colt:
(1) The full text of the subpena duces tecum (appendix, pp.
21-22);
(2) The return of service of the subpena by counsel for the
committee, set forth in words and figures (appendix, p. 26);
(3) The failure and refusal of the witness to produce
documents required by the subpena issued to and served upon him
(appendix, pp. 23-25);
(4) The explanation given to the witness as to the
authority for, purpose and scope of, the subcommittee's inquiry
(appendix, pp. 1-20);
(5) The explanation given the witness of the pertinence of
each category of requested documents (appendix, pp. 48-52);
(6) The subcommittee's direction to the witness to produce
the required documents (appendix, pp. 52-53);
[[Page 2443]]
(7) The failure and refusal of the witness to produce the
documents pursuant to direction (appendix, pp. 53-54);
(8) The ruling of the chairman that the witness is in
default (appendix, p. 55).
other pertinent committee proceedings
At the organizational meeting of the Committee on the
Judiciary for the 86th Congress, held on the 27th day of
January 1959, Subcommittee No. 5 was appointed and authorized
to act upon matters referred to it by the chairman. On June 8,
1960, at an executive session of Subcommittee No. 5 of the
Committee on the Judiciary, at which Chairman Emanuel Celler,
Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Byron G. Rogers, Lester Holtzman, Herman
Toll, William M. McCulloch, and George Meader were present,
Subcommittee No. 5 formally instituted an inquiry into the
activities and operations of the Port of New York Authority
under the interstate compacts approved by Congress in 1921 and
1922. At that meeting the subcommittee also unanimously
resolved to request the following specified items from the
files of the Port of New York Authority by letter and to
subpena the same documents from the appropriate officials in
the event this information was not voluntarily supplied:
(1) All bylaws, organization manuals, rules, and
regulations;
(2) Annual financial reports; internal financial reports,
including budgetary analyses, postclosing trial balances, and
internal audits; and management and financial reports prepared
by outside consultants;
(3) All agenda and minutes of meetings of the board of
commissioners and of its committees; all reports to the
commissioners by members of the executive staff;
(4) All communications in the files of the Port of New York
Authority and in the files of any of its officers or employees
including correspondence, interoffice and other memorandums,
and reports relating to-
(a) The negotiation, execution, and performance of
construction contracts; negotiation, execution, and performance
of insurance contracts, policies, and arrangements; and
negotiation, execution, and performance of public relations
contracts, policies, and arrangements;
(b) The acquisition, transfer, and leasing of real estate;
(c) The negotiation and issuance of revenue bonds;
(d) The policies of the authority with respect to the
development of rail transportation.
On June 29, 1960, following the appearance of the aforesaid
witness, Subcommittee No. 5 of the Committee on the Judiciary,
at an executive session at which all members of the
subcommittee were present, unanimously resolved to report the
contumacious conduct of S. Sloan Colt and others to the
Committee on the Judiciary with the recommendation that the
committee report this conduct to the House of Representatives
together with all particulars and recommend that the House cite
S. Sloan Colt for contempt of the House of Representatives.
At an executive session on June 30, 1960, the Committee on
the Judiciary approved the recommendations of Subcommittee No.
5 to report to the House all details concerning the
contumacious conduct of S. Sloan Colt and others, and resolved
to recommend that S. Sloan Colt be cited for contempt of the
House of Representatives.
Minority Views of Representative John V. Lindsay
I cannot agree with the majority recommendations in the
committee
[[Page 2444]]
report. The committee proceeding, calculated to form a basis
for contempt citations under title 2, United States Code,
section 192, in my opinion constitutes an unprecedented,
unlawful, and unconstitutional exercise of Federal authority
over a bistate agency, which can and should be avoided. The
Port of New York Authority was created by the States of New
York and New Jersey with the consent of Congress to exercise
delegations of State, not Federal, powers.
My objections are threefold: (1) The committee acted
without legal authority and exceeded its jurisdiction; (2) the
committee lacked a legislative purpose in inquiring into the
internal affairs of a bistate agency; and (3) the committee
inadvisably and without caution initiated an unprecedented
exercise of Federal control in the delicate area of State
sovereignty despite the pleas of the two interested Governors
to be accorded a hearing before the return fate of the
subpenas. As a result, and I emphasize this point, the
documentary material, which the witnesses did not produce, was
withheld pursuant to written instructions from Governors
Rockefeller and Meyner. The witnesses were damned if they
complied with the subpenas and damned if they didn't. . . .
Minority Views of Representative John H. Ray
The majority of the Judiciary Committee recommends that
contempt citations under title 2, United States Code, section
192, be issued against the chairman, the executive director,
and the secretary of the Port of New York Authority. In my
opinion the action so recommended by the majority would not
only be unprecedented and unwise as a matter of Federal and
State relations, it is not sanctioned by law and should and
would be held unconstitutional.
Sec. 20.10 The House agreed to a privileged resolution directing the
Speaker to certify to the appropriate U.S. Attorney a report citing
a witness in contempt for refusing to produce subpenaed materials.
On Aug. 2, 1946,(19) the House by voice vote approved a
resolu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 92 Cong. Rec. 10748, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. See also, for example, 112
Cong. Rec. 1754, 1763, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 2, 1966, for
the approval, on a vote of 344 yeas to 28 nays, of H. Res. 699,
directing the Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney for the
District of Columbia, H. Rept. No. 1241, citing Robert M.
Shelton, allegedly of the Ku Klux Klan, in contempt for refusal
to produce subpenaed materials to the Committee on Un-American
Activities (resolutions against other alleged Klan members
follow the Shelton resolution. In Shelton v United States, 404
F2d 1292 (D.C. Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1024 (1969),
the defendant's conviction was upheld by the appellate court.
The same defendant had earlier been convicted of contempt of
Congress following an appearance before the Senate Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on Internal Security. United States v
Shelton, 148 F Supp 926 (D.D.C. 1957), aff'd., 280 F2d 701,
rev'd and rem'd, 369 U.S. 749 (1962), 211 F Supp 829, aff'd.,
327 F2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1963).
See 106 Cong. Rec. 17313, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 23,
1960, for the approval, on a vote of 190 yeas to 60 nays, of H.
Res. 606, directing the Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney
for the District of Columbia H. Rept. No. 2117, citing Austin
J. Tobin, of the Port of New York Authority in contempt for
refusal to produce subpenaed materials to Subcommittee No. 5,
of the Committee on the Judiciary (resolutions against other
Port Authority officials follow the Tobin resolution).
In United States v Tobin, 195 F Supp 588 (D.D.C. 1961),
rev'd 306 F2d 270, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 902 (1962),
defendant's conviction was reversed on appeal, the court
holding that certain documents demanded by the committee were
not within the scope permitted by the pertinent congressional
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2445]]
tion citing a witness in contempt for refusal to produce subpenaed
materials.
Proceedings Against Richard Morford
The Speaker: (20) The Clerk will read the
resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Sam Rayburn (Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read as follows:
House Resolution 752
Resolved, That the Speaker of the House of Representatives
certify the foregoing report of the House Committee on Un-
American Activities as to the willful and deliberate refusal of
the following person to produce before the said committee for
its inspection certain books, papers, and records which had
been duly subpenaed, and to testify under oath concerning all
pertinent 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 person named below may be
proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law;
Richard Morford, 114 East Thirty-second Street, New York, N.Y.
. . .
The previous question was ordered.
The Speaker: The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
Marcantonio) there were--ayes 166, noes 17.
So the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(21)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. See also Morford v United States, 72 F Supp 58 (D.D.C. 1947),
aff'd., 176 F2d 54 (1949), rev'd 339 U.S. 258 (1950), rem'd,
184 F2d 864, cert. denied, 340 U.S. 878 (1950). The Supreme
Court initially reversed defendant's conviction because
defendant had not been permitted to question four government
employees on the jury panel as to the impact of Executive Order
No. 9835 (the ``Loyalty Order'') on their ability to render a
just and fair verdict. On retrial, defendant waived a jury and
was convicted again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Precedents
Sec. 20.11 The Senate agreed to a resolution directing its President to
certify to a U.S. Attorney a report citing a witness in contempt
for failing to appear before an investigative hearing.
On May 6, 1953,(22) the Senate approved a resolution
directing its
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. 99 Cong. Rec. 4603, 83d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2446]]
President to certify to a U.S. Attorney a contempt citation.
The Presiding Officer: (23) Is there objection to
the consideration of the resolution? There being no objection, the
resolution (S. Res. 103) was considered and agreed to, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Alvin R. Bush (Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved, That the President of the Senate certify the
report of the Committee on Government Operations of the United
States Senate as to the willful default of Russell W. Duke in
failing to appear to testify before the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government
Operations of the United States Senate in response to a
subpena, together with all the facts in connection therewith,
under the seal of the United States Senate, to the United
States attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that
the said Russell W. Duke may be proceeded against in the manner
and form provided by law.
Sec. 20.12 The Senate agreed to a resolution directing its President to
certify to a U.S. Attorney a report citing a witness in contempt
for refusing to answer questions at an investigative hearing.
On Feb. 4, 1955,(24) the Senate approved a resolution
directing its President to certify to a U.S. Attorney a contempt
citation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. 101 Cong. Rec. 1159, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. See also, for example,
101 Cong. Rec. 11678, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July 27, 1955, for
the voice vote approval of S. Res. 129, citing Joseph Starobin
in contempt for refusing to answer questions before the Senate
Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal
Security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Committee
on the Judiciary; and 98 Cong. Rec. 1311, 82d Cong. 2d Sess.,
Feb. 25, 1952, for the voice vote approval of S. Res. 281 and
282, citing Roger Simkins and Emmitt Warring, respectively, in
contempt for refusing to answer questions before the Committee
on the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation of Diantha D. Hoag for Contempt of the Senate
Mr. [Earle C.] Clements [of Kentucky]: Mr. President, I move
that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 3,
Senate Resolution 31.
The Presiding Officer: (1) The resolution will be
stated by title for the in-formation of the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. William S. Hill (Colo.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Legislative Clerk: A resolution (S. Res. 31) citing Diantha
D. Hoag for contempt of the Senate.
The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the
motion of the Senator from Kentucky.
The motion was agreed to, and the Senate proceeded to consider
the resolution which was read as follows:
Resolved, That the President of the Senate certify the
report of the Committee on Government Operations of the United
States Senate as to the refusal of Diantha D. Hoag to answer
questions before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, said refusal to answer being pertinent to the
subject matter under inquiry, together with all the facts in
connection therewith, under
[[Page 2447]]
the seal of the United States Senate to the United States
attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that the said
Diantha D. Hoag may be proceeded against in the manner and form
provided by law.
Mr. [George H.] Bender [of Ohio]: Mr. President, the Senator
from Wisconsin [Mr. McCarthy], who reported the resolution to the
Senate, is absent, and he asked me to pursue it for him. However, I
am sure there is no need for any speech on the subject.
The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the
resolution.
The resolution (S. Res. 31) was agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See also United States v Hoag, 142 F Supp 667 (D.D.C. 1956). The
defendant was found not guilty, the court ruling that by
answering a limited number of the committee's questions, she
did not waive her privilege against self-incrimination under
the fifth amendment. Thus, defendant's subsequent refusal to
answer questions regarding possible activities on behalf of the
Communist Party did not constitute violation of the statute
making it an offense for a person to refuse to testify (2 USC
Sec. 192).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 20.13 The Senate agreed to a resolution directing its President to
certify to the appropriate U.S. Attorney a report citing a witness
in contempt for his refusal to answer questions and his departure
without leave at an investigative hearing.
On July 19, 1968,(3) the Senate approved a resolution
directing its President to certify to a U.S. Attorney a report citing a
witness in contempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 114 Cong. Rec. 22351, 22361, 22362, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. See also
United States v Fort, 443 F2d 670, cert. denied, 403 U.S. 932
(1971), wherein the defendant's conviction was upheld. The
right to confront witnesses was not applicable, in the court's
view, because a legislative inquiry is not the same as a
criminal proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation for Contempt of the Senate
Mr. [Robert C.] Byrd of West Virginia: Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of
Senate Resolution 379.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Parliamentarian's Note: A resolution citing a person for contempt
for refusing to answer questions is privileged under Senate
rules. This particular resolution was called up by unanimous
consent because it was not controversial and was considered out
of the regular order of business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Presiding Officer: (5) The resolution will be
stated by title.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Joseph D. Tydings (Md.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Assistant Legislative Clerk: A resolution (S. Res. 379)
citing Jeff Fort for contempt of the Senate.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection to the present
consideration of the resolution?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution, as follows:
S. Res. 379
Resolved, That the President of the Senate certify the
report of the Com
[[Page 2448]]
mittee on Government Operations of the United States Senate on
the appearance of Jeff Fort before the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government
Operations on July 9, 1968, in Washington, District of
Columbia, at which he--
(1) refused to answer one question,
(2) refused to answer any and all questions that were to be
put to him by the subcommittee,
(3) departed the hearing without leave, such conduct and
refusals to answer questions being pertinent to the subject
matter under inquiry, together with all the facts in connection
therewith, under the seal of the United States Senate, to the
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end
that the said Jeff Fort may be proceeded against in the manner
and form provided by law. . . .(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The excerpts from the report are omitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Presiding Officer: All time has been yielded back. The
question is on agreeing to Senate Resolution 379. On this question,
the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll. . . .
The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 0, as follows: . . .
So the resolution (S. Res. 379) was agreed to.
Sec. 20.14 The Senate agreed to a resolution directing its President to
certify to a U.S. Attorney a report citing witnesses in contempt
for refusing to produce subpenaed materials.
On May 5, 1969,(7) the Senate agreed to a resolution
directing its President to certify to a U.S. Attorney a contempt
citation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 115 Cong. Rec. 11278, 91st Cong. 1st Sess. See United States v
McSurely, 473 F2d 1178 (D.C. Cir. 1972), wherein defendant's
conviction was reversed, the trial court having erred in
receiving in evidence subpenas which were based ultimately on
the fruits of an illegal search and seizure.
See also 101 Cong. Rec. 10916, 84th Cong. 1st Sess., July
19, 1955, for the voice vote approval of S. Res. 135, citing
Eugene C. James in contempt for refusing to produce subpenaed
materials and answer questions; and 99 Cong. Rec. 8883, 8884,
83d Cong. 1st Sess., July 15, 1953, for the voice vote approval
of S. Res. 139, citing Timothy J. O'Mara in contempt for
refusing to produce subpenaed materials and answer questions.
In United States v O'Mara, 122 F Supp 399 (1954), the
defendant was convicted, the court having found, in part, that
information sought was pertinent to the inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation of Alan and Margaret McSurely for Contempt of Congress
The resolution (S. Res. 191) citing Alan and Margaret McSurely
for contempt of Congress was considered and agreed to, as follows:
S. Res. 191
Resolved, That the President of the Senate certify the
report of the Com
[[Page 2449]]
mittee on Government Operations of the United States Senate on
the appearance of Alan McSurely and Margaret McSurely before
the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the
Committee on Government Operations on March 4, 1969, in
Washington, District of Columbia, at which they--
(1) refused to produce books and records lawfully subpenaed
to be produced before the said subcommittee, and
(2) failed to appear or to produce the said books and
records pursuant to the order and direction of the chairman
with the approval of the subcommittee before noon on March 7,
1969, together with all the facts in connection therewith,
under the seal of the United States Senate, to the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that
the said Alan McSurely and Margaret McSurely may be proceeded
against in the manner and form provided by law.