[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 15. Investigations and Inquiries]
[D. Authority in Cases of Contempt]
[Â§ 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.