[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 4, Chapters 15 - 17]
[Chapter 15. Investigations and Inquiries]
[D. Authority in Cases of Contempt]
[Â§ 21. Purging Contempt]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 2449-2458]
 
                               CHAPTER 15
 
                      Investigations and Inquiries
 
                   D. AUTHORITY IN CASES OF CONTEMPT
 
Sec. 21. Purging Contempt

    As the following precedents reveal, a witness may be purged of, or 
freed from, contempt under procedures parallel to those used in citing 
for contempt: submission of a report of the committee and approval of a 
resolution authorizing the Speaker to notify the U.S. Attorney to drop 
the prosecution. (8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. See 3 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 1670, 1682, 1684, 1686, 1687, 
        1689, 1692, 1694, 1701, 1702, for earlier precedents relating 
        to purgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Courts have not been sympathetic to witnesses' contentions that 
they have purged themselves. For example, an argument that an unexcused 
withdrawal from a hearing did not obstruct a committee's inquiry 
because the witness returned later and answered all questions put to 
him was held irrelevant, because a witness does not have a legal right 
to dictate the conditions under which he will testify.(9) In 
fact, a witness' offer of proof that he had purged himself by 
testifying freely before another Senate committee and by opening union 
files to its scrutiny was rejected on the ground that the defense of 
purging in criminal contempt has been abolished in the federal 
courts.(10) A court may, however, suspend the sentence of a 
witness convicted of violating 2 USC Sec. 192 and give him an 
opportunity to avoid punishment by giving testimony before a committee 
whose questions he had refused to answer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 9. United States v Costello, 198 F2d 200 (2d Cir. 1952), cert. denied, 
        344 U.S. 874 (1952).
10. United States v Brewster, 154 F Supp 126, 135 (D.D.C. 1957), 
        reversed on other grounds, 255 F2d 899 (D.C. Cir. 1958), cert. 
        denied, 358 U.S. 842 
        (1958).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report

Sec. 21.1 The Committee on UnAmerican Activities reported

[[Page 2450]]

    to the House testimony purging a witness who had been cited for his 
    previous refusal to testify and recommended that legal proceedings 
    against the witness be terminated.

    On July 23, 1954,(11) a report purging a witness of 
contempt was presented and read.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 100 Cong. Rec. 11650, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
12. See  Sec. 21.2, infra, for the resolution purging Mr. Crowley, and 
        100 Cong. Rec. 6400, 6401, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1954, 
        for the texts of H. Rept. No. 1586, relating to the refusal of 
        Mr. Crowley to testify, and H. Res. 541, authorizing the 
        Speaker to certify that report to the U.S. Attorney for legal 
        action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   In The Matter of Francis X. T. Crowley

        Mr. [Harold H.] Velde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, by direction 
    of the Committee on Un-American Activities, I submit a privileged 
    report (Rept. No. 2472).
        The Clerk read as follows:

                     In the Matter of Francis X. T. Crowley

            Mr. Velde, from the Committee on Un-American Activities, 
        submitted the following report:
            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, of which the 
        Honorable Harold H. Velde is chairman, 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 said Francis X. T. Crowley did appear before said 
        committee and did refuse to answer questions pertinent to the 
        subject under inquiry, and his refusal to answer said pertinent 
        questions deprived your committee of necessary and pertinent 
        testimony and placed the said witness in contempt of the House 
        of Representatives of the United States.
            In Report No. 1586, 83d Congress, 2d session, your 
        committee reported to the House of Representatives the said 
        actions of Francis X. T. Crowley. On May 11, 1954, the House of 
        Representatives adopted by vote of 346 to 0, House Resolution 
        541, which is set forth in words and figures 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 
        refusal of Francis X. T. Crowley to answer questions before the 
        said Committee on Un-American Activities, together with all the 
        facts in connection therewith, under seal of the House of 
        Representatives, to the United States attorney for the District 
        of Columbia, to the end that the said Francis X. T. Crowley may 
        be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.''
            On June 28, 1954, the said Francis X. T. Crowley did appear 
        voluntarily before your committee in public session in 
        Washington, D.C., and did

[[Page 2451]]

        answer all questions which he had previously refused to answer. 
        In addition, the said Francis X. T. Crowley voluntarily did 
        give your committee extensive information concerning the 
        operation of the Communist conspiracy in the United States of 
        America.
            At the conclusion of the testimony of the said Francis X. 
        T. Crowley before your committee on June 28, 1954, the 
        chairman, Hon. Harold H. Velde, made a statement which is set 
        forth in words as follows: . . .
            ``Mr. Velde. May I say that we certainly do appreciate the 
        information you have given here voluntarily to the committee.
            ``As I mentioned before the committee would not be 
        authorized as a body to ask for immunity from prosecution for 
        you. However, I do feel that many of the members of the 
        committee, probably a big majority, feel that you have 
        performed a service to your country by giving us the 
        information that you have, and that would possibly be a good 
        reason why the Attorney General should drop prosecution in your 
        particular case for contempt.
                     *      *      *      *      *

            ``Mr. Velde. The witness is excused with the committee's 
        thanks.''
            Because of the foregoing, on July 16, 1954, your committee 
        voted that it was the sense of the committee that the said 
        Francis X. T. Crowley, because of his voluntary answers to 
        pertinent questions before the committee and the extensive 
        voluntary information he offered concerning the operation of 
        the Communist conspiracy in the United States of America, did 
        purge himself of contempt of the House of Representatives of 
        the United States.

Resolution

Sec. 21.2 The House debated and approved a resolution purging the 
    contempt of a witness who had previously refused to testify before 
    the Committee on Un-American Activities.

    On July 23, 1954,(13) the House debated and approved a 
resolution authorizing the Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney a 
report purging a witness of contempt.(14)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 100 Cong. Rec. 11650-52, 83d Cong. 2d Sess. See also Sec. 21.3, 
        infra, for the Speaker's announcement that he had certified the 
        purgation and Sec. 21.4, infra, for the U.S. Attorney's 
        statement that the prosecution would be dropped.
14. See Sec. 21.1, supra, for the report on this matter and 100 Cong. 
        Rec. 6400, 6401, for the texts of H. Rept. No. 1586, relating 
        to the refusal of Mr. Crowley to testify, and H. Res. 541, 
        authorizing the Speaker to certify the report to the U.S. 
        Attorney for legal action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Harold H.] Velde [of Illinois]: Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
    resolution (H. Res. 681) 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 concerning the action of 
        Francis X. T. Crowley in

[[Page 2452]]

        purging himself of contempt of the House of Representatives of 
        the United States, 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 legal proceedings based upon the matter certified by the 
        Speaker pursuant to H. Res. 541, 83d Congress, second session, 
        against the said Francis X. T. Crowley may be withdrawn and 
        dropped in the manner and form provided by law.

        Mr. Velde: Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may desire to 
    the gentleman from California [Mr. Jackson].
        Mr. [Donald L.] Jackson [of California]: Mr. Speaker, on May 
    11, 1954, the House adopted by a vote of 346 to 0, House Resolution 
    541 citing Francis X. T. Crowley for contempt of Congress. On June 
    28, 1954, Mr. Crowley again appeared before the House Committee on 
    Un-American Activities at his own request and answered all 
    questions, giving the Congress and the committee extensive 
    information relative to his activities and those of others in the 
    Communist Party.
        The action here proposed, while not without precedent, is most 
    unusual, in that the House Committee on Un-American Activities is 
    today asking the House to concur in a committee recommendation that 
    a witness who was previously cited by the House for contempt, and 
    in the light of subsequent cooperation with the committee, be 
    purged of that contempt.
        It is the sense of the committee that Mr. Crowley should be 
    purged of contempt. However, Mr. Speaker, I should like to 
    emphasize one important point relative to Francis X. T. Crowley. 
    When the witness refused originally to testify before the committee 
    and later came back to testify, it is our clear understanding that 
    he was acting upon his own initiative. He came back to testify on 
    his own volition. He was not acting in furtherance of any 
    conspiracy. He was not attempting to impede legitimate 
    congressional investigations, in the opinion of the committee.
        The committee wants it clearly understood that its unusual 
    action today in recommending that Francis X. T. Crowley be 
    considered as having purged himself of contempt must not be 
    considered as a precedent for any witness to commit contempt on one 
    day and attempt to purge himself of the charge on the next. In such 
    case, a witness would thereby be able to select the time and place 
    of giving his testimony. A congressional committee is entitled to 
    testimony when and where it deems it necessary and proper to have 
    that testimony. The power to decide when and where one shall 
    testify is not properly, under the law, in the hands of a witness. 
    The Crowley case is no precedent for any such interpretation.
        It must further be remembered that Mr. Crowley came back 
    voluntarily before the committee, and was promised nothing in the 
    way of any remuneration, reward, or forgiveness. He understood that 
    he was promised nothing and that he testified freely of his own 
    will because he desired strongly so to testify.
        It is the hope of the committee that the House will accept the 
    recommendation that Mr. Crowley be purged of contempt in this 
    instance.
        Mr. [James G.] Fulton [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, will the 
    gentleman yield?

[[Page 2453]]

        Mr. Jackson: I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Fulton: If the House adopts this recommendation as a 
    practice, and leaving this particular case out of it, will it not 
    weaken the Committee on Un-American Activities? Will not witnesses 
    who become the defendants in these citations for contempt 
    proceedings feel that they have up until the time they are brought 
    into court to change their minds? If the committee adheres to a 
    rule that the witnesses are required to come before the Un-American 
    Activities Committee in the beginning and testify, will it not 
    expedite the committee's hearings, instead of waiting for the 
    defendant to turn milk toast later on?

        Mr. Jackson: It would simplify matters a great deal if we could 
    adopt a rule that would require them to testify in their first 
    appearance. If that could be achieved, there would be no need for 
    contempt proceedings in the House. However, there are instances 
    where it is believed that a witness in good faith, through 
    misunderstanding of the circumstances, or upon poor advice, refuses 
    to testify. Mr. Crowley, following his appearance here, went to a 
    priest, who recommended that he return to the committee and tell 
    the full truth. He did so. I have tried to point out in my remarks, 
    I will say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that the committee 
    is not establishing, and wants it clearly understood that this is 
    not to be considered as establishing, any precedent relative to 
    purge of contempt.
        Mr. Fulton: Would the gentleman permit me to ask another 
    question?
        Mr. Jackson: Surely.
        Mr. Fulton: When a person is cited and becomes a defendant in a 
    case before the United States district court, is it within our 
    power, our discretion, or our jurisdiction in the House then to 
    withdraw the citation? Why does not the gentleman who has been 
    cited by the Un-American Activities Committee for contempt, and who 
    refused to answer questions on his subversive activities for the 
    overthrow of the United States Government, go to the proper 
    authorities on the judicial side and say that he has now changed, 
    although he committed the offense, and ask that this later 
    repentance and change of mind be taken in mitigation of what the 
    penalty might be? The point is this: Are we in the House 
    responsible for relieving such a cited individual of all penalty, 
    or should he go to the Attorney General, to whom this citation has 
    been referred, and the judiciary, to get the penalty mitigated, now 
    that he has changed his mind?
        Mr. [Francis E.] Walter [of Pennsylvania]: Mr. Speaker, will 
    the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Jackson: I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Walter: I think it is important to understand that in this 
    particular case we are just where we were after the vote to cite 
    this man was taken. No further steps have been taken. The matter 
    has not been presented to the grand jury. There has been no 
    indictment, so that we are still in control of this entire 
    situation.
        Mr. Fulton: Then will the committee at this juncture limit this 
    type of case to the jurisdiction where it has still the actual 
    control of the citation as in this situation? Once the citation

[[Page 2454]]

    is handed over into the hands of a United States attorney, I 
    believe it should be the United States attorney that goes before 
    the court and asks for the mitigation or the dismissal.
        Mr. Walter: I am quite certain that the United States attorney 
    does not know anything about this case. It has been referred to the 
    Department of Justice, but I do not believe the matter has gone to 
    the United States attorney. Further, this is an unusual case in 
    this, that this man realized after he searched his soul and 
    conscience that he had done something injurious to his country, and 
    he convinced us that he was willing and anxious to cooperate with 
    the work the Congress of the United States has imposed upon this 
    committee. It is entirely a bona fide, genuine action on the part 
    of this man. I do not believe in the light of these circumstances 
    he should be put to the trouble and expense of defending an action 
    even though ultimately the United States attorney would recommend 
    leniency.
        Mr. Jackson: May I say to the gentleman it is my understanding 
    that the Attorney General's office and the United States attorney's 
    office are in accord with the action that is here proposed.
        Mr. Velde: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Jackson: I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
        Mr. Velde: Let me point out, too, that this witness was not a 
    vicious and physically contemptuous witness. He felt within his 
    conscience, at least we members of the committee felt that he had 
    it within his conscience, that he should refuse to answer certain 
    questions. I certainly would not indiscriminately recommend that 
    all these witnesses who come forward after being cited be purged by 
    the House of Representatives. I think you can depend upon the 
    members of our Committee on Un-American Activities, who voted 
    unanimously to submit this resolution, to take those cases where it 
    seems it is proper to make the purge or to ask for a purging 
    resolution.
        Mr. Jackson: I thank the gentleman. I might say that we are 
    frequently belabored in some quarters for being unduly harsh. I 
    believe the adoption of this resolution will indicate that the 
    committee is trying its best to be fair and just
        Mr. [Kit] Clardy [of Michigan]: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
    yield?
        Mr. Jackson: I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Clardy: Is it not true that this witness when he came 
    before us was a more or less confused young man who did not raise 
    the fifth amendment, did not raise any of the amendments, but 
    merely had a mistaken belief that by cooperating with the committee 
    he would be violating something that was within his conscience, 
    unlike most of those who come before the committee, and that we 
    thought the spirit of Christian charity ought to prevail in this 
    case because it was perhaps the first and maybe the last and only 
    instance in which we would find a man of that character coming 
    before us?
        Mr. Jackson: Yes. I sensed that to be the feeling of the 
    committee in this connection.
        Mr. Clardy: After he had appeared the first time he became 
    married, he consulted with his wife, he consulted

[[Page 2455]]

    with his priest, he consulted with his friends, and finally he came 
    back before us, because he was in his conscience convinced he could 
    do his country a service. I would hate to see the House turn down 
    this one case.
        Mr. Jackson: I am inclined to think, if we give the House a 
    chance, it will vote this resolution.
        Mr. Fulton: If the gentleman will yield, I want to ask the 
    chairman of the Un-American Activities Committee a question. I may 
    be pressing the point, but this is establishing a precedent which 
    will be followed hereafter. I cannot accept the ground that maybe a 
    member of the committee thought this was being done in charity. I 
    would therefore ask the chairman of the Committee on Un-American 
    Activities to state expressly the rule that will be followed by the 
    Un-American Activities Committee in cases where there is a change 
    of mind and the witness decides he will purge himself of this 
    contempt after he has been cited by the House in accordance with 
    the Un-American Activities Committee's own recommendations. I would 
    like that stated right here for a precedent on the first one that 
    comes up, so that there is a precedent and a rule for future cases.
        Mr. Velde: The gentleman knows it is impossible for me to say 
    what the committee will do under any of these circumstances. I am 
    sure they will be reasonable. On top of that the House of 
    Representatives is not establishing a precedent in the sense that 
    it is a legal precedent established by the Supreme Court. The House 
    of Representatives can vote on any of these resolutions as they see 
    fit.
        Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
        The previous question was ordered.
        The Speaker: (15) The question is on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (Mass.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The resolution was agreed to.
        A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Certification of Purgation

Sec. 21.3 The Speaker informed the House when he had, pursuant to 
    authority granted him by resolution, certified purgation of 
    contempt to the U.S. Attorney.

    On July 26, 1954,(16) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, informed the House that he had certified to the U.S. 
Attorney for the District of Columbia the report, House Report No. 
2472, purging Francis X. T. Crowley of contempt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 100 Cong. Rec. 12023, 12024, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Citations for Contempt

        The Speaker: The Chair desires to announce that pursuant to 
    sundry resolutions of the House he did, on Friday, July 23, 1954, 
    make certifications to the United States attorney, District of 
    Columbia, the United States attorney, southern district of 
    California, the United States attorney, eastern district of 
    Michigan, the United States attorney for the district of Oregon, 
    and the United States attorney, western district of Washington, as 
    follows:

[[Page 2456]]

           To the United States Attorney District of Columbia: . . .

            House Resolution 681, concerning the action of Francis X. 
        T. Crowley in purging himself of contempt of the House of 
        Representatives.(17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. See Sec. 21.2, supra, for the text of H. Res. 681, and Sec. 21.4, 
        infra, for the response of the U.S. Attorney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Attorney's Response

Sec. 21.4 The Speaker laid before the House the U.S. Attorney's 
    affirmative response to a resolution requesting withdrawal of 
    contempt proceedings against a person who had purged himself of 
    contempt by cooperating with a committee.

    On Aug. 9, 1954,(18) Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of 
Massachusetts, laid before the House a letter from the U.S. Attorney 
for the District of Columbia.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. 100 Cong. Rec. 13734, 83d Cong. 2d Sess.
19. See Sec. Sec. 21.1 and 21.2, supra, for the texts, respectively, of 
        H. Rept. No. 2472, purging Mr. Crowley of contempt, and H. Res. 
        681, authorizing the Speaker to certify the report. See also 
        100 Cong. Rec. 6400, 6401, for the texts of H. Rept. No. 1586, 
        relating to the original refusal to testify, and H. Res. 541, 
        authorizing the Speaker to certify that report to the U.S. 
        Attorney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Proceedings Against Francis X. T. Crowley

        The Speaker laid before the House the following communication:

                                                 August 5, 1954.
            Hon. Joseph W. Martin, Jr.,
            Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

            In re Francis X. T. Crowley, cited for contempt of the 
        House by House Resolution 541, 83d Congress.
            Dear Mr. Speaker: On May 12, 1954, pursuant to House 
        Resolution 541, 83d Congress, you certified to me the contempt 
        of the above individual for refusing to answer questions before 
        the Committee on Un-American Activities on June 8, 1953.
            On July 23, 1954, that committee by Report No. 2472, 
        reported that Crowley on June 28, 1954, appeared voluntarily 
        before it in public session and answered all questions which he 
        had previously refused to answer and, in addition, voluntarily 
        gave extensive information concerning the operation of the 
        Communist conspiracy in this country. That committee further 
        reported that it was the sense of the committee that Crowley 
        had thereby purged himself of his previous contempt of the 
        House of Representatives.
            House Resolution 681 of July 23, 1954, resolved that the 
        Speaker certify to the United States attorney House Report No. 
        2472, referred to above, ``to the end that legal proceedings 
        based upon the matter certified by the Speaker pursuant to 
        House Resolution 541, 83d Congress, 2d session, against the 
        said Francis X. T. Crowley may be withdrawn and dropped in the 
        manner and form provided by law.''
            In my opinion this action by the committee and by the House 
        has the effect of withdrawing the original citation of Crowley 
        to my office and of relieving me of the statutory duty to put 
        the matter before the grand jury, as provided by title 2, 
        United States Code, section 194.
            Inasmuch as Crowley has purged himself, and in view of the 
        wish of the House, expressed in House Reso

[[Page 2457]]

        lution 681, that contempt proceedings against Crowley be 
        dropped, I shall not present the matter to the grand jury and I 
        shall close the prosecution on my records.
              Sincerely,
                                                   Leo A. Rover,

                                           United States Attorney.

            (Copy to Hon. Harold H. Velde, chairman Committee on Un-
        American Activities, House of Representatives, Washington, 
        D.C.)

Sec. 21.5 The U.S. Attorney, in response to a letter received during an 
    adjournment informing him that a witness who had been cited by the 
    House for contempt had later purged himself, advised the Speaker by 
    letter that he would not present the contempt to the grand jury and 
    would close the prosecution on his records.

    On Mar. 10, 1955,(20) the following item appeared in the 
Congressional Record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. 101 Cong. Rec. 2659, 84th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Executive Communications, Etc.

        Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive communications were 
    taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

            527. A letter from the United States Attorney, District of 
        Columbia, Department of Justice, relative to a letter addressed 
        to Hon. Francis Walter, chairman, committee on Un-American 
        Activities of the House of Representatives, relating to the 
        case of Wilbur Lee Mahaney, Jr., cited for contempt of the 
        House of Representatives by House Resolution 535, 83d Congress; 
        to the Committee on Un-American Activities.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 100 Cong. Rec. 6386-89, 83d Cong. 2d Sess., May 11, 1954, for 
        the texts of H. Rept. No. 1580, citing Mr. Mahaney for contempt 
        for refusal to testify, and H. Res. No. 535, authorizing the 
        Speaker to certify to the U.S. Attorney the report, 
        respectively.
            Parliamentarian's Note: This letter was not laid before the 
        House; an adjournment prevented action on a resolution 
        certifying the purgation.
            See Sec. Sec. 21.1, 21.2, and 21.4, supra, for the texts of 
        a report purging a witness, a resolution authorizing the 
        Speaker to certify the purging report to the U.S. Attorney, and 
        the response of the U.S. Attorney in the case of Francis X. T. 
        Crowley, respectively, when the House was able to receive and 
        act on the committee report because it was in session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parliamentarian's Note: In a letter dated Mar. 3, 1955, the U.S. 
Attorney for the District of Columbia, Leo A. Rover, informed the 
Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the 84th 
Congress, Francis E. Walter, of Pennsylvania, that he would drop legal 
action against Wilbur Lee Mahaney, Jr., because the former chairman, 
Harold H. Velde, of Illinois, had by letter indicated that it was the 
sense of the committee that the witness had purged himself. The body of

[[Page 2458]]

the U.S. Attorney's letter to Chairman Walter follows:

        By letter dated December 30, 1954, the Honorable Harold H. 
    Velde, Chairman, Committee on Un-American Activities of the House 
    of Representatives, informed me that on November 28, 1954, the 
    Committee voted that it was the sense of the Committee that 
    Mahaney, on July 30, 1954, had purged himself of the contempt 
    theretofore committed by him in refusing to answer questions on 
    February 16, 1954, for which refusals Mahaney had been cited for 
    contempt by the House of Representatives on May 11, 1954.
        In the letter of December 30, 1954, Chairman Velde stated that 
    the report and statement of Mahaney's purge were being forwarded to 
    this office to the end that legal proceedings on the contempt 
    citation against Mahaney may be withdrawn and dropped.
        Mr. Velde further stated that the report and statement were 
    being forwarded directly by the Chairman of the Committee inasmuch 
    as the House of Representatives was adjourned. It is my 
    understanding that the Speaker of the House was out of the city and 
    unavailable to receive and transmit the report and statement to 
    this office as is provided by 2 U.S.C. 194 for citations of 
    contempt when Congress is not in session.
        It appears, under these circumstances, that this action by the 
    Committee may be regarded as having the effect of withdrawing the 
    original citation of Mahaney to my office and of relieving me of 
    the statutory duty to put the matter before the grand jury, as 
    provided by 2 U.S.C. 194.
        Inasmuch as Mahaney has been considered by the Committee as 
    having purged himself, and in view of the wish of the Committee 
    expressed by Committee in the aforementioned letter of its 
    Chairman, that contempt proceedings against Mahaney be dropped, I 
    shall not present the matter to the grand jury and I shall close 
    the prosecution on my records.
        For your information, I do not propose to give notification of 
    this action to Mahaney.