ANALYSIS
OF
B i l l s Pending i n t h e United S t a t e s Congress
—1-
—
-
—
.
I.I•• I
• -
. ‫• י ו‬
‫ו‬
D e a l i n g With
CIVIL LIBERTIES AND INTERNAL SECURITY
Prepared by
COMMISSION ON LAW AND SOCIAL ACTION
OF THE AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS
15 East 84th Street
New York 28, N. Y.
iqz 8
I
Prepared by
Commission on Law and S o c i a l A c t i o n
Shad P o l l e r ,
Chairman
Leo P f e f f e r , D i r e c t o r
W i l l Maslow, G e n e r a l C o u n s e l
American J e w i s h C o n g r e s s
15 E a s t 84 S t r e e t , New York 2 8 , N.Y,
Israel Goldstein,
President
J u s t i n e Wise P o l i e r , Chairman
E x e c u t i v e Committee
I s a a c Toubin, Executive D i r e c t o r
Max A . K o p s t e i n , Chairman
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Committee
TABLE OF CONTESTS
Page
~T
INTRODUCTION
I. GENERAL SUMMARY AND CURRENT STATUS OF BILLS
2
A. JENNER BILL
2
B. BUTLER BILL
3
C. WRIGHT COMMISSION BILLS
4
D. FEDERAL EMPLOYEE LOYALTY PROGRAM BILL (S. 1411)
5
E. WALTER OMNIBUS BILLS
6
F. OTHER BILLS
6
II. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
7
A. INTERNAL SECURITY
1. Federal Employee Loyalty Program
7
7
2. Federal Criminal Statutes Against Subversion
12
3• Congressional Investigations
15
Action ‫־‬by States Against Subversion
5. Wiretapping
B. FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
18
21
23
1. Production of Federal Records
23
2. Habeas Corpus Proceedings
25
3. Admissibility of Confessions
27
C. PASSPORTS
28
D. OBSCENITY
30
E. JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT AND TENURE OF ITS JUSTICES
32
APPENDIX - LIST AND STATUS OF BILLS
35
INTRODUCTION
u
T h i s Memorandum summarizes t h e h i l l s a f f e c t i n g c i v i l l i b e r t i e s
and
i n t e r n a l s e c u r i t y t h a t a r e now p e n d i n g i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n g r e s s .
An
e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e s e b i l l s r e v e a l s a c o n c e r t e d a t t e m p t b y members of
C o n g r e s s t o undo t h e e f f e c t of l i b e r t a r i a n d e c i s i o n s h a n d e d down b y t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t , p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g i t s l a s t t h r e e
terms.
The C o u r t , i n a s e r i e s o f b o l d d e c i s i o n s , s t r u c k down l e g i s l a t i o n ,
both
F e d e r a l a n d s t a t e , t h a t i m p i n g e d upon t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l i b e r t i e s
of
citizens.
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e n a t i o n ' s h i g h e s t t r i b u n a l gave
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t o a number of F e d e r a l s t a t u t e s l i m i t i n g
restricted
individual
freedom.
The r e a c t i o n t o t h e s e d e c i s i o n s was i n t e n s e .
W h i l e many i n d i v i d u a l s
a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n s l a u d e d t h e Supreme C o u r t f o r i t s d e f e n s e o f t h e B i l l of
R i g h t s , o t h e r s denounced t h e o p i n i o n s a s u n d u l y r e s t r i c t i n g t h e power o f
law e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s t o d e a l w i t h s u b v e r s i v e a n d e t h e r c r i m i n a l b e havior.
I t was a l s o c l a i m e d t h a t t h e C o u r t h a d a r r o g a t e d t o
e x c e s s i v e power by s u b s t i t u t i n g i t s judgment f o r t h a t nf t h e
itself
elected
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e p e o p l e .
C r i t i c s of t h e C o u r t t h e r e f o r e a t t e m p t e d t o u t i l i z e t h e
p r o c e s s t o o v e r r u l e t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e Supreme C o u r t .
legislative
B i l l s were
i n t r o d u c e d t h a t would amend F e d e r a l law t o r e v e r s e t h e e f f e c t of
p a r t i c u l a r Court
decisions.
So g r e a t h a s b e e n t h e h o s t i l i t y t o t h e C o u r t t h a t e v e n more r a d i c a l
p r o p o s a l s have been advanced.
|7
Opponents o f t h e C o u r t f e l t t h a t
undoing
By c i v i l l i b e r t i e s , we mean p o l i t i c a l f r e e d o m s , s u c h a s f r e e d o m of s p e e c h ,
p r e s s a n d a s s e m b l y , g u a r a n t e e d u n d e r t h e F i r s t Amendment a n d t h e r i g h t t o
a f a i r criminal t r i a l .
T h i s Msmorandum w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r b i l l s d e a l i n g
w i t h c i v i l r i g h t s , t h a t i s , t h e r i g h t s of m i n o r i t i e s t o b e f r e e fzrsn
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , o r t h e s e p a r a t i o n of c h u r c h a n d s t a t e a n d r e l i g i o u s f r e e dom.
the effect of particular Court decisions would be of little value as long
as the Court continued to have the power to hand down libertarian
decisions. Consequently, the attempt was made to deprive the Supreme
Court of a considerable portion of its jurisdiction. This effort to
reduce the Court to impotence was led by Senator William E. Jenner,
(R.,Ind.) whose bill would have withdrawn from the Court the power to
decide several vital categories of cases. While it now appears that the
Jenner bill has little chance of passage, several other bills, reversing
specific Court decisions, are actively being considered by Congress.
The main portion of this Memorandum describes in some detail the
content of the more important of these bills.
It is divided according to
subject matter. Those bills that deal with more than one area are
considered first as a unit, and thereafter their specific provisions are
dealt with under the appropriate subject categories. A brief statement
as to the status of the major bills is given in the first section and a
complete list of the pending civil liberties bills and their status is
given in the Appendix.
I. GENERAL SUMMARY AND CURRENT STATUS OF BILLS
A. JENNER BILL
The Jenner bill (S. 2646) would divest the Supreme Court of its
2/
appellate jurisdiction in the following five types of cases:
(1) cases
involving acts of Congressional committees; (2) cases involving the
Federal employee loyalty program; (3) cases involving state antisubversion statutes; (4) cases involving action by state school boards
|7 A number "of" other bills have been introduced that would curb the Supreme
Court in various ways. Since there is little likelihood that any action
will be taken on these bills, only a brief summary of these bills is ineluded (Section II (E), below).
-
2
-
r e l a t i n g t o s u b v e r s i v e a c t i v i t i e s ; and (5) cases i n v o l v i n g a c t i o n by a
s t a t e denying a person admission t o the b a r .
H e a r i n g s w e r e h e l d on t h e J e n n e r b i l l d u r i n g 1957•
A subcommittee
of t h e J u d i c i a r y Committee h e a d e d b y S e n a t o r J e n n e r h i m s e l f r e p o r t e d t h e
b i l l f a v o r a b l y a f t e r o n l y one d a y o f h e a r i n g s i n which t h e o n l y w i t n e s s e s
were S e n a t o r J e n n e r a n d Benjamin t f e n d e l , a s t a f f member of t h e
Committee.
When t h e b i l l came b e f o r e t h e f u l l J u d i c i a r y Committee i n F e b r u a r y ,
i t was s e n t b a c k t o t h e s u b c o m m i t t e e f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
1953,
Extensive
h e a r i n g s were h e l d b e t w e e n F e b r u a r y 19 and March 5 , 1958•
As t h e b i l l became more p u b l i c i z e d , wide c r i t i c i s m was v o i c e d a g a i n s t
it.
Many p e r s o n s a n d g r o u p s who d i d n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e
substantive
c o n t e n t o f t h e Supreme Court o p i n i o n s n o n e t h e l e s s s t a t e d t h a t t h e
would go f a r t o w a r d d e s t r o y i n g t h e Supreme C o u r t , one of t h e
b r a n c h e s of o u r g o v e r n m e n t .
bill
coordinate
A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l Rogers s t a t e d t h a t t h e
" t h r e a t e n s t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e of t h e j u d i c i a r y . "
bill
The American B a r
A s s o c i a t i o n v o t e d o v e r w h e l m i n g l y t o oppose t h e b i l l .
The American J e w i s h
Congress s u b m i t t e d a s t a t e m e n t i n which i t s a i d t h a t t h e b i l l would
" i m p a i r a v i t a l s a f e g u a r d a g a i n s t t h e e r o s i o n of t h e d e m o c r a t i c
structure
of o u r g o v e r n m e n t . "
I t soon became a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e J e n n e r b i l l would n o t be p a s s e d i n
Congress.
I n f a c t , t h e r e was even c o n s i d e r a b l e d o u b t t h a t i t would be
f a v o r a b l y r e p o r t e d by t h e S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee.
bill,
P r o p o n e n t s of t h e
including Senator Jenner h i m s e l f , thereupon threw t h e i r support b e -
h i n d t h e p r o p o s a l of S e n a t o r John M. B u t l e r ( R . ) of I‫״‬fe.ryland.
B.
BUTLER BILL
The B u t l e r b i l l i s n o t a s e p a r a t e b i l l h u t r a t h e r a p r o p o s e d amended
v e r s i o n of t h e J e n n e r b i l l .
C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e B u t l e r b i l l h a s t h e same
- 3 ‫־‬
number ( S . 2646) a s t h e J e n n e r b i l l , a n d i s s t i l l l i s t e d u n d e r S e n t a t o r
J e n n e r ' s name.
The B u t l e r b i l l i s l e s s r a d i c a l t h a n t h e J e n n e r b i l l i n t h a t ,
one e x c e p t i o n , i t does n o t a t t a c k t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s power of
with
review.
R a t h e r , i t would r e v e r s e t h e e f f e c t of f o u r of t h e C o u r t ' s most i m p o r t a n t
opinions.
are:
Cole v . Young ( t h e b i l l would b r o a d e n t h e F e d e r a l
employees l o y a l t y p r o g r a m t o n o n - s e n s i t i v e p o s i t i o n s ) ; Y a t e s v . U n i t e d
S t a t e s ( t h e b i l l would b r o a d e n t h e scope of t h e Smith A c t ) ; Watkins v .
U n i t e d S t a t e s ( t h e b i l l would e x t e n d t h e power of c o n g r e s s i o n a l
committees
t o p u n i s h f o r c o n t e m p t ) ; P e n n s y l v a n i a v . N e l s o n ( t h e b i l l would empower
the s t a t e s to enact anti-subversion l e g i s l a t i o n ) .
The B u t l e r b i l l would
l i m i t t h e C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n o n l y a s t o t h e a u t h o r i t y of a s t a t e
to
a d m i t p e r s o n s t o i t s b a r , t h e s i t u a t i o n p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Court i n t h e
c a s e s of K o n i g s b e r g v . S t a t e B a r of C a l i f o r n i a a n d Schware v . Board of
Bar E x a m i n e r s .
On A p r i l 30, t h e S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee v o t e d , 1 0 - 5 , t o
report
f a v o r a b l y t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e B u t l e r b i l l r e l a t i n g t o t h e Y a t e s ,
K o n i g s b e r g , Schware a n d Watkins d e c i s i o n s . E a r l i e r ,
on A p r i l 2 1 ,
Nelson,
the
Committee r e j e c t e d , by a 9 5 ‫ ־‬v o t e , t h e s e c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e F e d e r a l
employees l o y a l t y p r o g r a m .
There a r e a l r e a d y i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t ,
B u t l e r b i l l reaches t h e Senate f l o o r , i t w i l l provoke vigorous
C,
If
the
debate.
WRIGHT COMMISSION BILLS
I n 1955, Congress e s t a b l i s h e d t h e Commission on Government S e c u r i t y ,
h e a d e d b y Loyd W r i g h t , t o s t u d y t h e v a r i o u s p r o g r a m s f o r p r o t e c t i n g
s e c u r i t y of t h e F e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t .
the
The W r i g h t Commission p u b l i s h e d i t s
R e p o r t on J u n e 6 , 1957, which c o n t a i n e d d e t a i l e d summaries of t h e
existing
programs and t h e i r o p e r a t i o n and o u t l i n e d a number of recommended c h a n g e s .
Most of i t s p r o p o s a l s were embodied i n a number of d r a f t b i l l s
executive orders included in the Report.
and
A l l of t h e b i l l s p r o p o s e d b y
the Wright Commission have been introduced in Congress.
3/
The W r i g h t R e p o r t d e a l s w i t h a number o f s p e c i f i c t o p i c s ,
one of
t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t of w h i c h i s t h e F e d e r a l Eirrployees L o y a l t y P r o g r a m .
T h i s a s p e c t o f t h e W r i g h t Commission r e c o n a a e n d a t i o n s i s embodied i n s i x
i d e n t i c a l h i l l s , H.R. 8322 ( M u r r a y , D . , T e n n . ) , H.R. 8323 ( R e e s ,
Rep.‫׳‬Kans.),
II.R. 8334 ( H i e s t a n d , R e p . , C a l i f . ) , H.R. 9352 ( T i t l e IV) ( W a l t e r , D., P a . ) ,
S . 2399 ( J o h n s t o n , D . , S . C a r . ) , S . 2414 ( C o t t o n , R e p . , N . H . ) .
These a r e
omnibus b i l l s d e a l i n g i n a d e t a i l e d manner w i t h a l l a s p e c t s of t h e
program.
loyalty
The House P o s t O f f i c e a n d C i v i l S e r v i c e Committee c o m p l e t e d
h e a r i n g s on t h e s e b i l l s d u r i n g t h e 1957 s e s s i o n .
D.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES LOYALTY PROGRAM BILL ( S . 1 4 1 1 )
On A u g u s t 8 , 1957, t h e S e n a t e p a s s e d S . 1411, i n t r o d u c e d b y S e n a t o r
O l i n D. J o h n s t o n ( D . , S . C . ) , d e a l i n g w i t h one s m a l l a s p e c t o f t h e
program.
E x i s t i n g law h a d b e e n c o n s t r u e d a s r e q u i r i n g a g e n c i e s
loyalty
to
s u s p e n d employees s u s p e c t e d a s s e c u r i t y r i s k s b e f o r e g r a n t i n g t h e m a
hearing.
S e n a t o r J o h n s t o n ' s b i l l p r o v i d e d o n l y t h a t s u c h s u s p e n s i o n was
not necessary.
L a s t y e a r , i n s t e a d of a c t i n g on t h e l e n g t h y W r i g h t Commission b i l l s ,
t h e House Committee d e c i d e d t o r e p o r t o u t a n e x t e n s i v e l y amended v e r s i o n
of S . 1411.
The House v e r s i o n of t h e b i l l would make s e v e r a l
important
changes i n t h e employees l o y a l t y p r o g r a m , t h e most i m p o r t a n t o f which
would b e t o e x t e n d t h e p r o g r a m t o n o n - s e n s i t i v e p o s i t i o n s .
It is
expected
t h a t t h e House w i l l v o t e on S. 1 4 1 1 s h o r t l y .
3 / T h e s e t o p i c s a r e : F e d e r a l C i v i l i a n L o y a l t y Program; M i l i t a r y P e r s o n n e l
Program; Document C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Program; Atomic E n e r g y P r o g r a m ;
I n d u s t r i a l S e c u r i t y Programj P o r t S e c u r i t y Program; I n t e r n a t i o n a l
O r g a n i z a t i o n s P r o g r a m j P a s s p o r t S e c u r i t y Program; C i v i l A i r T r a n s p o r t
S e c u r i t y Programj Immigration and N a t i o n a l i t y programj Criminal S t a t u t e s .
‫ ־‬5-
E. WALTER OMNIBUS BILLS
W h i l e t h e two omnibus s e c u r i t y b i l l s i n t r o d u c e d b y R e p r e s e n t a t i v e
F r a n c i s E. W a l t e r (D., P a . ) , II.R. 9352 a n d 9937, h a v e n o t a s y e t b e e n
c o n s i d e r e d by any C o n g r e s s i o n a l c o m m i t t e e s , t h e y a r e i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e of
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e W a l t e r ' s wide i n f l u e n c e i n C o n g r e s s .
The W a l t e r b i l l s
d e a l w i t h a l a r g e number of a s p e c t s of t h e F e d e r a l s e c u r i t y p r o g r a m ,
eluding p a s s p o r t s , and t h e e a r l i e r b i l l c o n t a i n s , i n a d d i t i o n ,
in-
provisions
i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e W r i g h t Commission b i l l on t h e F e d e r a l employees
loyalty
program.
I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e most i m p o r t a n t p r o v i s i o n s of t h e W a l t e r
b i l l are included in the Butler b i l l .
It is likely therefore
that
p r o p o n e n t s of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e W a l t e r ' s m e a s u r e s w i l l t h r o w t h e i r s u p p o r t
b e h i n d t h e B u t l e r b i l l , which u n d o u b t e d l y h a s a b e t t e r chance of b e i n g
a c t e d upon b y C o n g r e s s i n i t s c u r r e n t
session.
F . OTHER BILLS
A c t i o n h a s b e e n t a k e n i n C o n g r e s s on s e v e r a l o t h e r b i l l s a f f e c t i n g
civil liberties.
A b i l l (II.R. 8361) l i m i t i n g t h e power of t h e F e d e r a l
D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t o i s s u e w r i t s of h a b e a s c o r p u s t o r e v i e w t h e
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of s t a t e c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n s was p a s s e d b y t h e House
on I ^ r c h 1 8 , 1958•
No a c t i o n h a s a s y e t b e e n t a k e n i n t h e
Senate.
I n J a n u a r y , 1958, a s u b c o m m i t t e e of t h e House J u d i c i a r y Committee
h e l d h e a r i n g s on s e v e n b i l l s t h a t would s t r e n g t h e n t h e F e d e r a l a n t i obscenity s t a t u t e .
On A p r i l 1 7 , 1958, t h e Committee r e p o r t e d one o f
t h e s e b i l l s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e venue of o b s c e n i t y p r o s e c u t i o n s .
I t s h o u l d a l s o b e n o t e d t h a t , w h i l e no a c t i o n h a s b e e n t a k e n on t h e
passport b i l l s ,
i t i s e x p e c t e d t h a t h e a r i n g s on t h e b i l l s w i l l be h e l d
s o o n a f t e r t h e Supreme C o u r t h a n d s down d e c i s i o n s i n t h e t h r e e p a s s p o r t
- 6-
c a s e s now p e n d i n g b e f o r e
it.
II.
A.
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
INTERNAL SECURITY
1.
F e d e r a l Employees L o y a l t y Program
Background.
I n 1956, t h e Supreme C o u r t h a n d e d down a d e c i s i o n
l i m i t i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e F e d e r a l employees l o y a l t y p r o g r a m t o
sensitive positions.
P u b l i c Law 7 3 3 ( 8 1 s t Cong., 2d S e s s . ) , w h i c h
g o v e r n s t h e p r o g r a m , empowers t h e h e a d s of government d e p a r t m e n t s
to
summarily s u s p e n d w i t h o u t p a y government employees " i n t h e i n t e r e s t
national security."
of
I n Cole v . Young ( 3 5 1 U.S. 5 3 6 ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t
h e l d t h a t C o n g r e s s h a d i n t e n d e d t h e summary p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s law t o
a p p l y o n l y t o employees who h e l d p o s i t i o n s t h a t a r e " a f f e c t e d w i t h t h e
national security."
I n h o l d i n g t h a t n o t a l l government p o s i t i o n s a r e s o
a f f e c t e d , t h e C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e d i s m i s s a l of a p u r e f o o d a n d d r u g
i n s p e c t o r , on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e r e h a d b e e n no f i n d i n g t h a t
retention
i n employment c o u l d i n a n y way a f f e c t t h e
his
'national
The i m p a c t of t h e Cole d e c i s i o n i s r e v e a l e d i n t h e
security."
statistics
s u p p l i e d b y t h e F e d e r a l C i v i l S e r v i c e Commission t o t h e House P o s t O f f i c e
a n d C i v i l S e r v i c e Committee.
The Commission i n d i c a t e d t h a t
approximately
80f 0 of t h e 2 1 , 0 0 0 p e r s o n s e n t e r i n g F e d e r a l s e r v i c e e a c h month a r e i n n o n s e n s i t i v e p o s i t i o n s (House R e p o r t No. 1201, p . 3 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) •
I t s h o u l d be
n o t e d t h a t t h e l o y a l t y check of employees a l r e a d y i n government
service
h a s b e e n c o m p l e t e d s o t h a t , e x c e p t where a r e v i e w o f t h e l o y a l t y
clear-
a n c e s of p r e s e n t employees t a k e s p l a c e , t h e Cole d e c i s i o n a n d t h e
bills
t o r e v e r s e t h a t d e c i s i o n would have no a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e m .
C r i t i c s of t h e Cole d e c i s i o n h a v e i n s i s t e d t h a t i t h a s l e d t o a
-
7‫־‬
"grave s i t u a t i o n " i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e government's
program.
loyalty
On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e A s s o c i a t i o n of t h e B a r of t h e C i t y of
New York h a s p o i n t e d o u t t h a t by n a r r o w i n g t h e s c o p e o f t h e p r o g r a m t h e
government would i n c r e a s e i t s e f f i c i e n c y a n d a t t h e same t i m e "remove
a n u n n e c e s s a r y b u r d e n on p o s i t i v e s e c u r i t y a n d on e m p l o y e e s " ( R e p o r t of
S p e c i a l Committee of t h e A s s o c i a t i o n of t h e B a r , p , 1 4 1 ( 1 9 5 6 ) ) .
Jenner B i l l .
The J e n n e r b i l l would d e p r i v e t h e Supreme C o u r t o f
i t s power t o d e c i d e c a s e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e F e d e r a l
s e c u r i t y program.
The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of P . L . 733 a n d r e g u l a t i o n s
i m p l e m e n t i n g t h a t s t a t u t e would t h u s b e l e f t t o t h e v a r i o u s
Federal
C o u r t s of A p p e a l s .
Butler Bill.
While t h e J e n n e r b i l l would n o t d i r e c t l y a l t e r t h e
e f f e c t of t h e Cole d e c i s i o n , t h e B u t l e r b i l l would s p e c i f i c a l l y amend
P . L . 733 t o make i t a p p l y t o n o n - s e n s i t i v e
positions.
as well as
sensitive
As a l r e a d y n o t e d , t h i s a s p e c t o f t h e B u t l e r b i l l was v o t e d
down by t h e Seriate J u d i c i a r y Committee b u t e f f o r t s t o r e v i v e i t may b e
made on t h e S e n a t e f l o o r .
I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o p o i n t o u t t h a t t h i s p a r t of t h e B u t l e r
would n o t a c h i e v e what i t a p p a r e n t l y s e e k s t o d o .
(As w i H be
i n d i c a t e d below, i n s e v e r a l o t h e r r e s p e c t s t h e B u t l e r b i l l
rather careless drafting.)
bill
The p r e s e n t s t a t u t e makes t h e
evidences
loyalty
program a p p l i c a b l e t o e l e v e n d e p a r t m e n t s a n d g i v e s t h e P r e s i d e n t
a u t h o r i t y t o extend t h e program t o a l l o t h e r d e p a r t m e n t s .
President
E i s e n h o w e r d i d s o i n 1953 by means of E x e c u t i v e O r d e r 10450.
The
B u t l e r b i l l a t t e m p t s t o o v e r r u l e t h e e f f e c t of t h e Cole d e c i s i o n b y
making P . L . 733 i t s e l f a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l F e d e r a l d e p a r t m e n t s .
p o s e d amendment i n d i c a t e s a m i s r e a d i n g of t h e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n ,
- 8-
This p r o however.
The C o u r t t h e r e assumed, f o r p u r p o s e s of d e c i s i o n , t h a t P . L . 733 b a d b e e n
v a l i d l y extended by t h e P r e s i d e n t t o a l l departments.
I t held,
however,
t h a t a n employee, r e g a r d l e s s of t h e d e p a r t m e n t i n which he w o r k e d , may
n o t be d i s m i s s e d u n l e s s h i s p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n i s a f f e c t e d by t h e
"national interest."
The B u t l e r b i l l , by e x t e n d i n g t h e s t a t u t e t o
all
d e p a r t m e n t s , t h e r e f o r e , would n o t m o d i f y t h e r u l e i n t h e Cole d e c i s i o n .
S . 1411.
The House Committee b i l l , a s p o i n t e d o u t a b o v e , would
a l s o make t h e l o y a l t y p r o g r a m a p p l y t o n o n - s e n s i t i v e a s w e l l a s t o
sensitive positions.
T h i s b i l l i s more c a r e f u l l y drawn a n d would c l e a r l y
o v e r r u l e t h e e f f e c t of t h e Cole d e c i s i o n •
';all
I t provides t h a t
employees of a n y d e p a r t m e n t o r a g e n c y of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
Government
a r e deemed t o b e employed i n a n a c t i v i t y o f t h e Government
involving
national
security."
Both t h e S e n a t e a n d t h e House Committee v e r s i o n s of S. 1 4 1 1
p r o v i d e t h a t a government d e p a r t m e n t h e a d n e e d n o t s u s p e n d a n employee
a s a s e c u r i t y r i s k b e f o r e t h e employee i s e n t i t l e d t o a h e a r i n g .
P.L.
733f a s i t i s p r e s e n t l y w o r d e d , h a s b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d t o r e q u i r e s u c h
suspension.
Under t h e b i l l , a s u s p e c t e d employee c o u l d c o n t i n u e i n h i s
j o b u n t i l t h e d e p a r t m e n t h e a d made a d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s t o h i s
loyalty.
Two o t h e r i m p o r t a n t changes would b e made b y t h e House v e r s i o n of
S. 1 4 1 1 .
Employees d i s m i s s e d u n d e r t h e l o y a l t y p r o g r a m would b e g i v e n
t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l t h e i r d i s m i s s a l s t o t h e C i v i l S e r v i c e Commission,
whose d e c i s i o n would b e f i n a l .
At p r e s e n t , each department head has
f i n a l a u t h o r i t y o v e r t h e d i s c h a r g e of employees i n h i s
department.
The r e v i s e d v e r s i o n of S . 1 4 1 1 c o n t a i n s a l s o a somewhat ambiguous
provision regarding "suitablity" dismissals.
At p r e s e n t ,
dismissals
f o r r e a s o n s of s u i t a b i l i t y ( e . g . d r u n k e n n e s s , s e x u a l a b e r r a t i o n )
-
9‫־‬
are
handled under t h e l o y a l t y program.
This has l e d t o serious
criticism,
since persons l o y a l t o the United S t a t e s , dismissed under the
loyalty
program f o r s u i t a b i l i t y r e a s o n s , a r e l a b e l e d a s d i s l o y a l .
To meet
this criticism,
suitability
S. 1 4 1 1 p r o v i d e s t h a t , w h e n e v e r p o s s i b l e ,
d i s m i s s a l s s h a l l be p r o c e s s e d under o r d i n a r y c i v i l s e r v i c e p r o c e d u r e s .
The House Committee r e p o r t on t h i s measure s t a t e s t h a t
p r o v i s i o n means t h a t , i n s e n s i t i v e p o s i t i o n s , s u i t a b i l i t y
this
dismissals
would b e h a n d l e d u n d e r t h e l o y a l t y p r o g r a m w h i l e , I n n o n - s e n s i t i v e
positions,
s u i t a b i l i t y d i s m i s s a l s would b e d e a l t w i t h u n d e r t h e C i v i l
S e r v i c e Law.
The Committee e x p l a i n e d t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b y c i t i n g , a s a n
example, a " c o u r i e r who g e t s d r u n k a n d l o s e s s e c r e t o r c l a s s i f i e d
Government m a t e r i a l . "
This case presents a s u f f i c i e n t t h r e a t t o the
n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y , i n t h e o p i n i o n of t h e Committee, t o r e q u i r e t h e u s e
of t h e summary p r o c e d u r e s of t h e l o y a l t y p r o g r a m a l t h o u g h , i n f a c t ,
the
d i s c h a r g e i s f o r r e a s o n s of s u i t a b i l i t y (House R e p o r t No. 1201, p . 7
(1957)).
W r i g h t Commission B i l l s .
The W r i g h t Commission b i l l s ,
in addition
t o e x t e n d i n g t h e l o y a l t y program t o n o n - s e n s i t i v e p o s i t i o n s , provide a
d e t a i l e d s t a t u t o r y b a s i s f o r the c i v i l i a n l o y a l t y program.
While
it
would b e i m p r a c t i c a b l e t o p r e s e n t a l l t h e changes i n t h e p r o g r a m
p r o p o s e d i n t h e W r i g h t Commission b i l l s , t h e i r most i m p o r t a n t
provisions
may b e s e t f o r t h b r i e f l y .
(1)
A l l s u i t a b i l i t y d i s c h a r g e s would b e h a n d l e d s o l e l y
under ordinary c i v i l s e r v i c e procedures.
This
provision i s broader than the similar section in
t h e House v e r s i o n of S. 1411, u n d e r w h i c h o n l y
i n n o n - s e n s i t i v e p o s i t i o n s would s u i t a b i l i t y
- 10 ‫־‬
d i s c h a r g e s be d e a l t w i t h under t h e C i v i l S e r v i c e
Law.
(2)
The s t a n d a r d f o r d i s m i s s a l would b e c h a n g e d .
Under
p r e s e n t l a w , a p e r s o n may n o t be r e t a i n e d i n
government s e r v i c e u n l e s s h i s employment i s
" c l e a r l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i n t e r e s t s of
security."
national
This standard has been c r i t i c i z e d as
d e a l i n g w i t h a p e r s o n ' s "competence a n d s u i t a b i l i t y "
rather than with his l o y a l t y .
Under t h e s e b i l l s ,
p e r s o n would b e d i s c h a r g e d o n l y i f
"on a l l
a
the
i n f o r m a t i o n t h e r e i s r e a s o n a b l e doubt as t o t h e
l o y a l t y of t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o t h e Government of t h e
United S t a t e s . "
(3)
B e f o r e c h a r g e s a r e f i l e d a g a i n s t a n employee he
would be e n t i t l e d t o a p r e l i m i n a r y i n t e r v i e w a t
which h e c o u l d a t t e m p t t o e x p l a i n t h e d e r o g a t o r y
i n f o r m a t i o n a g a i n s t him.
Under p r e s e n t l a w ,
preliminary interview i s not
(4)
this
required.
When t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t d e r o g a t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n
a g a i n s t a n employee t o n e c e s s i t a t e h i s
removal,
t h e d e p a r t m e n t h e a d would be r e q u i r e d f i r s t
to
t r a n s f e r t h e employee t o a p o s i t i o n i n w h i c h lie h a s
no o p p o r t u n i t y t o " a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t t h e
y
national security."
Only i f no s u c h p o s i t i o n
was a v a i l a b l e would t h e employee be s u s p e n d e d ,
5/
A l t h o u g h t h e W r i g h t Commission recommended a l o y a l t y check f o r a l l
government p o s i t i o n s , i t a p p a r e n t l y t h o u g h t t h a t i n some p o s i t i o n s ,
e v e n d i s l o y a l p e r s o n s c o u l d do no h a r m .
‫ ־‬11 ‫־‬
and even t h e n h e would c o n t i n u e t o r e c e i v e p a y .
(5)
A C e n t r a l S e c u r i t y O f f i c e would be e s t a b l i s h e d
coordinate t h e l o y a l t y program.
to
The O f f i c e would
‫ ־‬a l s o be empowered t o g i v e a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n s
to
d e p a r t m e n t h e a d s r e g a r d i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l of
particular
(6)
employees.
L o y a l t y h e a r i n g s would b e c o n d u c t e d b y s p e c i a l l y
t r a i n e d e x a m i n e r s whose q u a l i f i c a t i o n s would b e
s e t by t h e C i v i l S e r v i c e Commission.
At p r e s e n t ,
h e a r i n g s a r e c o n d u c t e d by b o a r d s composed of
three
u n t r a i n e d government e m p l o y e e s .
(7)
The A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s l i s t would b e r e t a i n e d a n d
i t would be g i v e n a s t a t u t o r y b a s i s .
The A t t o r n e y
G e n e r a l would b e r e q u i r e d , however, t o f o l l o w
certain procedural steps before
o r g a n i z a t i o n s on t h e
(8)
including
list.
The u s e of c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d f r o m
r e g u l a r government i n f o r m a n t s would b e a u t h o r i z e d
in loyalty hearings.
The u s e of c o n f i d e n t i a l
f o r m a t i o n f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s would be
2.
Federal Criminal S t a t u t e s Against
Background.
in-
restricted.
Subversion
I n t h e c a s e of Y a t e s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ,
(35^• U . S .
298 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t u p s e t t h e c o n v i c t i o n s of f o u r t e e n
C a l i f o r n i a Communists i n a n o p i n i o n t h a t c o n s t r u e d t h e Smith Act n a r r o w l y i n two r e s p e c t s .
First,
i t h e l d t h a t t h e charge t h a t t h e defendants
h a d " o r g a n i z e d " t h e Communist P a r t y was b a r r e d b y t h e t h r e e - y e a r
statute
of l i m i t a t i o n s b e c a u s e t h e P a r t y h a d b e e n f o r m e d more t h a n t h r e e
years
- 12 -
b e f o r e t h e d e f e n d a n t s were i n d i c t e d .
The Court t h e r e b y r e j e c t e d t h e
G o v e r n m e n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e " o r g a n i z a t i o n " of a g r o u p i s a
c o n t i n u i n g p r o c e s s t h a t goes on t h r o u g h o u t i t s
life.
Second, t h e C o u r t gave a r e s t r i c t i v e r e a d i n g t o t h e s e c t i o n of
the
Smith A c t t h a t makes i t a c r i m e t o " a d v o c a t e " t h e o v e r t h r o w of t h e
government by f o r c e o r v i o l e n c e .
I t h e l d t h a t t h e s t a t u t e does not
p r o h i b i t a d v o c a c y of "an a b s t r a c t p r i n c i p l e " which does n o t h a v e t h e
" q u a l i t y of i n c i t e m e n t t o c o n c r e t e a c t i o n " b u t i s aimed o n l y " a t t h e
a d v o c a c y a n d t e a c h i n g of c o n c r e t e a c t i o n f o r t h e f o r c i b l e o v e r t h r o w o f
the government."
Jenner B i l l .
The J e n n e r b i l l c o n t a i n s no p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t i n g
to
t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Supreme Court i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g F e d e r a l a n t i subversive
legislation.
Butler B i l l .
The B u t l e r b i l l would amend t h e Smith A c t t o
explicitly
o v e r r u l e t h e two h o l d i n g s of t h e Supreme C o u r t i n t h e Y a t e s c a s e .
In
t h e f i r s t p l a c e , t h e B u t l e r b i l l would amend t h e Smith A c t t o d e f i n e
" o r g a n i z e " a s i n c l u d i n g a l l t y p e s of c o n t i n u i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
activity.
S i n c e t h e Communist P a r t y i s a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y a l w a y s i n t h e p r o c e s s of
some f o r m of r e g r o u p i n g a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n , i n d i c t m e n t s c h a r g i n g a p e r s o n
w i t h h a v i n g o r g a n i z e d t h e Communist P a r t y would t h e r e f o r e n o t b e
a u t o m a t i c a l l y b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e of
limitations.
S e c o n d l y , t h e b i l l p r o v i d e s t h a t a d v o c a c y of f o r c i b l e o v e r t h r o w of
t h e government i s u n l a w f u l " w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e immediate p r o b a b l e
e f f e c t of s u c h a c t i o n " a n d i t would make i t a crime t o a d v o c a t e t h e
over-
t h r o w of t h e government by f o r c e o r v i o l e n c e " i n a n y way o r by a n y m e a n s . "
T h i s s e c t i o n of t h e B u t l e r b i l l may b e open t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
‫ ־‬13 ‫־‬
objection.
While t h e Y a t e s d e c i s i o n was e x p r e s s e d i n t e r m s of s t a t u t o r y
interpreta-
t i o n r a t h e r than c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law, t h e C o u r t ' s opinion i n d i c a t e d q u i t e
c l e a r l y t h a t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was n e c e s s i t a t e d h y
considerations.
constitutional
I n h o l d i n g t h a t Congress d i d n o t o u t l a w a d v o c a c y a s a n
a b s t r a c t d o c t r i n e , t h e Court r e f e r r e d t o t h e " c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d a n g e r z o n e "
t h a t would be i n v o l v e d were a c o n t r a r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r e a c h e d . " I t
is
t h e r e f o r e p o s s i b l e t h a t a more b r o a d l y worded s t a t u t e , making a d v o c a c y
of i d e a s b u t n o t o f a c t i o n u n l a w f u l , would b e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .
W a l t e r Omnibus B i l l s .
The two W a l t e r omnibus s e c u r i t y b i l l s
contain
provisions identical with those in the Butler b i l l r e l a t i n g to the
d e f i n i t i o n of " o r g a n i z e " i n t h e Smith A c t .
Neither Walter b i l l
contains
a p r o v i s i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e meaning of t h e word " a d v o c a c y . "
Both W a l t e r b i l l s c o n t a i n a number of a d d i t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s
strengthening Federal criminal statutes against subversion.
s t a t e m e n t of e a c h of t h e s e s e c t i o n s i s
(1)
A brief
given:
The d i s s o l u t i o n o r r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of a n o r g a n i z a t i o n
would n o t a b a t e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e
Subversive
A c t i v i t i e s C o n t r o l Board t o l i s t i t a s Communist
p u r s u a n t t o t h e I n t e r n a l S e c u r i t y A c t of 1950.
(2)
I t would be u n l a w f u l f o r a n y p e r s o n t o
defense information without
disclose
authorization.
Under t h e p r e s e n t s t a t u t e (18 U . S . C . S e c . 1905),
o n l y employees of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s government
may b e p u n i s h e d f o r r e v e a l i n g i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h o u t
authorization.
(3)
I t would b e a c r i m e f o r a p e r s o n t o u s e a f a l s e
name i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n employment i n d e f e n s e
facilities.
-
Ik -
(4)
The s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s on p r o s e c u t i o n s
volving treason, espionage, sabotage,
in-
sedition
a n d o t h e r s u b v e r s i v e a c t i v i t y would be e x t e n d e d
from f i v e t o f i f t e e n y e a r s .
The s t a t u t e o f
l i m i t a t i o n s under t h e Subversive A c t i v i t i e s
C o n t r o l A c t would b e e x t e n d e d f r o m t e n t o
f i f t e e n years.
(5)
The laws r e g u l a t i n g t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n of f o r e i g n
a g e n t s and t h e d i s s e m i n a t i o n of f o r e i g n
p r o p a g a n d a would b e made s t r i c t e r .
An O f f i c e
of C o m p t r o l l e r of F o r e i g n P r o p a g a n d a would b e
created.
3•
Congressional
Background.
Investigations
One of t h e most c o n t r o v e r s i a l of t h e d e c i s i o n s h a n d e d
down by t h e Supreme C o u r t i n 1957 was Watkins v . U n i t e d S p a t e s , 354 U.S.
178 ( 1 9 5 7 ) •
W a t k i n s h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d u n d e r a s t a t u t e t h a t made i t
f u l f o r a p e r s o n c a l l e d b e f o r e a C o n g r e s s i o n a l committee t o r e f u s e
answer any q u e s t i o n p e r t i n e n t t o the q u e s t i o n under i n q u i r y . "
unlaw"to
The C o u r t
h e l d t h a t n e i t h e r t h e House r e s o l u t i o n c r e a t i n g t h e Un-American A c t i v i t i e s
Committee, n o r t h e remarks of t h e c h a i r m a n , n o r t h e n a t u r e of t h e
p r o c e e d i n g s c o u l d h a v e made i t c l e a r t o W a t k i n s what t h e " q u e s t i o n u n d e r
inquiry was."
W a t k i n s , t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e d , was u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r h e was w i t h i n h i s r i g h t s i n r e f u s i n g t o a n s w e r a n d h i s
contempt
c o n v i c t i o n was t h e r e f o r e a n i n f r i n g e m e n t of. due p r o c e s s .
Jenner B i l l .
Under t h e J e n n e r b i l l , t h e Supreme C o u r t w o u l d h a v e n o
j u r i s d i c t i o n over cases involving the "function or p r a c t i c e o f , or t h e
j u r i s d i c t i o n o f , " c o n g r e s s i o n a l committees o r any a c t i o n a g a i n s t
- 15 -
witnesses
c h a r g e d , with contempt of C o n g r e s s . I t s h o u l d h e n o t e d t h a t t h e Supreme
Court r e c e n t l y has a g r e e d t o review a case r a i s i n g important
issues
r e g a r d i n g t h e power o f t h e House Un-American A c t i v i t i e s Committee t o
p u n i s h f o r contempt i n a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f Communism i n t h e f i e l d of
e d u c a t i o n ( B a r e n b l a t t v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 26 U . S . Law Week 3 2 9 7 ) .
5/
the Jenner h i l l ,
t h e Court could n o t d e c i d e t h i s c a s e , and t h e
Under
Circuit
C o u r t 1 s 5 - 4 d e c i s i o n u p h o l d i n g t h e contempt c o n v i c t i o n of B a r e n b l a t t
would s t a n d .
Butler Bill.
While i t would b e i m p o s s i b l e f o r C o n g r e s s
completely
t o r e v e r s e t h e e f f e c t of t h e Watkins d e c i s i o n w h i c h was b a s e d i n p a r t o n
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g r o u n d s , t h e ‫ ׳‬B u t l e r b i l l would s e v e r e l y l i m i t i t s
scope
b y making t h e committee i t s e l f f i n a l j u d g e a s t o t h e p e r t i n e n c y o f
q u e s t i o n s a s k e d of w i t n e s s e s .
Under t h e b i l l , t h e r e would b e no a p p e a l
t o t h e c o u r t s i f a " q u e s t i o n i s r u l e d p e r t i n e n t b y t h e body c o n d u c t i n g
the hearing."
The b i l l a l s o p r o v i d e s t h a t a q u e s t i o n p r o p o u n d e d b y a
committee " s h a l l be deemed p e r t i n e n t u n l e s s t i m e l y o b j e c t i o n i s made
t h e r e t o " a n d t h a t t h e r u l i n g of t h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r s t a n d s a s t h e
ruling
of t h e committee " u n l e s s r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l , " p r e s u m a b l y t o t h e b o d y
holding the hearing.
I n c e r t a i n a s p e c t s , t h i s s e c t i o n of t h e B u t l e r b i l l i s a m b i g u o u s .
S e n a t o r Thomas Ilennings of M i s s o u r i , a member of t h e S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y
Committee, i n a s t a t e m e n t on t h e B u t l e r b i l l ,
remarked t h a t t h e r e
"are
t o o many q u e s t i o n s l e f t u n a n s w e r e d " b y t h i s s e c t i o n t o a l l o w a n y a c t i o n
upon i t .
17
I n Ex p a r t e McCardle, 7h U.S. 506 ( 1 8 6 8 ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t
a n a c t of C o n g r e s s w i t h d r a w i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n f r o m t h e C o u r t i n a
c e r t a i n c a t e g o r y of c a s e s would p r e c l u d e t h e C o u r t f r o m d e c i d i n g c a s e s
i n t h a t c a t e g o r y , even i f t h e y had a l r e a d y been argued b e f o r e t h e
Court.
- 16 -
With r e g a r d t o t h e requirement t h a t a w i t n e s s o b j e c t t h a t a q u e s t i o n
i s not p e r t i n e n t , i t i s not c l e a r whether the b i l l intends t o modify the
p r e s e n t law on t h a t s u b j e c t .
In t h e Watkins case, t h e Court s t a t e d t h a t
" i t i s t h e d u t y of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i v e b o d y , upon o b j e c t i o n of t h e w i t n e s s
on g r o u n d s of p e r t i n e n c y , t o s t a t e f o r t h e r e c o r d t h e s u b j e c t u n d e r i n q u i r y
a t t h a t t i m e a n d t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e p r o p o u n d e d q u e s t i o n s a r e p e r t i n e n t
t h e r e t o " (emphasis added).
I t would seem t h a t t h e f i r s t p a r t of
this
s e c t i o n of t h e B u t l e r b i l l m e r e l y r e s t a t e s t h e h o l d i n g of t h e C o u r t on
this
point.
The p r o c e d u r e t o be f o l l o w e d by a w i t n e s s i n " a p p e a l i n g " a d e c i s i o n
of t h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r i s n o t made c l e a r .
Moreover, t h e meaning of t h e
word " b o d y , " i n t h e s e c t i o n i s a l s o u n c e r t a i n .
I s a one-man committee a
"body" s o t h a t i t s d e c i s i o n i s f i n a l , o r does t h e w i t n e s s h a v e t h e
t o a p p e a l t o t h e f u l l committee?
I s a s u b c o m m i t t e e a "body?"
right
These •
q u e s t i o n s a r e l e f t , unanswered by t h e B u t l e r b i l l .
T h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e B u t l e r b i l l i n t e n d s t o t a k e
f r o m t h e c o u r t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e l o w e r F e d e r a l c o u r t s , a l l power t o r e v i e w
contempt c o n v i c t i o n s on g r o u n d s of l a c k of p e r t i n e n c e .
Under t h e B u t l e r
b i l l , f o r example,, even t h e F e d e r a l C o u r t s of A p p e a l s c o u l d n o t r e v i e w
t h e contempts i n t h e Watkins and B a r e n b l a t t c a s e s .
In e f f e c t ,
therefore,
t h e B u t l e r b i l l may r e s t r i c t t h e r i g h t of t h e c o u r t s t o r e v i e w a c t i o n s o f
c o m m i t t e e s e v e n more s e r i o u s l y t h a n would t h e J e n n e r b i l l .
W a l t e r Omnibus B i l l s .
The p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e B u t l e r b i l l r e l a t i n g
to
C o n g r e s s i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a r e a l s o c o n t a i n e d i n t h e two W a l t e r omnibus
bills.
The W a l t e r b i l l s ,
i n a d d i t i o n , would make i t a n o f f e n s e f o r a
p e r s o n t o "misbehave" b e f o r e a c o n g r e s s i o n a l c o m m i t t e e .
The p r e s e n t
s t a t u t e makes u n l a w f u l o n l y t h e r e f u s a l of a w i t n e s s t o t e s t i f y o r t o
‫־‬
17 ‫־‬
p r o d u c e documents ( 2 U . S . C . S e c .
192).
The W a l t e r h i l l s would a l s o p r o h i b i t p e r s o n s who w i t h i n f i v e y e a r s
have b e e n members of c e r t a i n s u b v e r s i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s f r o m a p p e a r i n g a s
c o u n s e l b e f o r e a C o n g r e s s i o n a l committee o r F e d e r a l a g e n c y .
In a d d i t i o n ,
a p e r s o n having been " i d e n t i f i e d under o a t h i n p u b l i c t e s t i m o n y " as
h a v i n g b e e n a member of any s u c h s u b v e r s i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n m y n o t a p p e a r
a s c o u n s e l u n l e s s he t a k e s a n o a t h t h a t he d i d n o t b e l o n g t o a p r o h i b i t e d
organization within the previous f i v e years.
A c t i o n by S t a t e s A g a i n s t
Background.
Subversion
I n a number of s i g n i f i c a n t d e c i s i o n s d u r i n g t h e
last
s e v e r a l y e a r s , t h e Supreme C o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h e s t a t e s h a d e x c e e d e d t h e i r
power i n a t t e m p t i n g t o d e a l w i t h s u b v e r s i o n .
In t h e f i r s t and p r o b a b l y
t h e most f a r - r e a c h i n g of t h e s e d e c i s i o n s , t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t
F e d e r a l government h a d " o c c u p i e d " t h e f i e l d of a n t i - s u b v e r s i o n
a n d t h a t , a s a c o n s e q u e n c e , t h e l a w s of t h e v a r i o u s s t a t e s
the
legislation
against
s u b v e r s i o n were u n e n f o r c e a b l e (Commonwealth of P e n n s y l v a n i a v . N e l s o n ,
350 U.S. 497 ( 1 9 5 6 ) ) .
The C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e a r e a of s u b v e r s i o n was
one i n which t h e f e d e r a l government h a d a "dominant i n t e r e s t " ' a n d t h a t
the
1
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of s t a t e A c t s would c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e o p e r a t i o n of
the Federal plan."
T h i s d e c i s i o n was n o t b a s e d on a n y
constitutional
p r o v i s i o n s b u t r a t h e r on t h e C o u r t ' s view of t h e i n t e n t of C o n g r e s s
in
enacting Federal a n t i - s u b v e r s i o n laws.
I n s u b s e q u e n t d e c i s i o n s , t h e Court h e l d t h a t New York C i t y c o u l d n o t
d i s m i s s a p r o f e s s o r i n a c i t y c o l l e g e s o l e l y on t h e g r o u n d t h a t h e
i n v o k e d t h e F i f t h Amendment b e f o r e a C o n g r e s s i o n a l committee ( S l o c h o w e r
v . Board of H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n , 350 U.S. 551 ( 1 9 5 6 ) ) ; r e v e r s e d t h e r e f u s a l
of C a l i f o r n i a t o a d m i t a p e r s o n t o i t s b a r t o p r a c t i c e law b a s e d on h i s
‫־‬
18 ‫־‬
r e f u s a l t o answer q u e s t i o n s t o t h e b a r committee r e g a r d i n g h i s b e l i e f s
and h i s a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h t h e Communist P a r t y ( K o n i g s b e r g v . S t a t e E a r
of C a l i f o r n i a , 353 U.S. 252 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) ; r e v e r s e d t h e r e f u s a l of New Mexico
t o admit a p e r s o n t o i t s b a r b e c a u s e of h i s p a s t membership i n t h e
Communist P a r t y (Schware v . Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico, 353 U.S.
232 ( 1 9 5 ? ) ) ; and u p s e t t h e c o n v i c t i o n of a p e r s o n f o r h a v i n g r e f u s e d t o
answer q u e s t i o n s p u t t o him by t h e New Hampshire A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l i n a n
i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g s u b v e r s i v e a c t i v i t i e s (Sweezy v . New Hampshire,
354 U.S. 234 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) .
I n a l l t h e s e d e c i s i o n s , t h e Court h e l d t h a t t h e
S t a t e had d s n i a d c i t i z e n s due p r o c e s s of l a w .
Jenner B i l l .
Three of t h e f i v e s e c t i o n s of t h e J e n n e r b i l l
to s t a t e action against subversion.
relate
S e c t i o n t h r e e would d e p r i v e t h e
Supreme Court of power t o r e v i e w c a s e s i n v o l v i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of
laws o r r e g u l a t i o n s t h e " g e n e r a l p u r p o s e " of which i s t o
v e r s i v e a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n such S t a t e . "
state
"control sub-
The f o u r t h s e c t i o n would w i t h -
draw f r o m t h e Court power t o r e v i e w any a c t i o n b y a S t a t e s c h o o l b o a r d
concerning
'subversive a c t i v i t i e s in i t s teaching body."
Finally,
the
Court would no l o n g e r h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w s t a t e a c t i o n p e r t a i n i n g
t o t h e " a d m i s s i o n of p e r s o n s t o t h e p r a c t i c e s of l a w . "
I t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s a r e b a s e d on t h e c a s e s
t o s t a t e s u b v e r s i o n d e c i d e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t .
relating
S e c t i o n t h r e e would
have made t h e d e c i s i o n s i n t h e N e l s o n and Sweezy c a s e s i m p o s s i b l e ;
under
s e c t i o n f o u r , t h e Slochower c a s e c o u l d n o t have b e e n d e c i d e d , and t h e
f i f t h s e c t i o n would have d e p r i v e d t h e Court of j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e
K o n i g s b e r g a n d Schware c a s e s .
I t s h o u l d a l s o be n o t e d t h a t t h e J e n n e r b i l l would d e p r i v e t h e Court
of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e c i d e a number of s i g n i f i c a n t c a s e s t h a t have a l r e a d y
‫־‬
19 ‫־‬
been argued b e f o r e the Court.
Under s e c t i o n t h r e e of t h e b i l l , t h e C o u r t
would l a c k power t o d e c i d e t h e c a s e i n v o l v i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f
t h e New York S t a t e S e c u r i t y R i s k l a w ( L e r n e r v . Casey, a r g u e d March b,
1958, 26 U.S. Law Week 3271) o r t h e c a s e i n which t h e
constitutionality
of a C a l i f o r n i a s t a t u t e r e q u i r i n g a n o n - s u b v e r s i v e o a t h b y p e r s o n s o r
organizations seeking a tax-exemption i s being t e s t e d (Speiser v.
Randall
(
a n d t h r e e o t h e r c a s e s , a r g u e d A p r i l 8 a n d 9, 1958, 26 U . S . Law Week 3296)."
In a d d i t i o n , t h e Court could n o t , u n d e r s e c t i o n f o u r , d e c i d e t h e
case
r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e d i s c h a r g e of a
P h i l a d e l p h i a p u b l i c school t e a c h e r f o r r e f u s i n g t o answer a question
r e g a r d i n g p a s t Communist membership ( B e i l a n v . Board o f E d u c a t i o n ,
March
argued
1958, 26 U . S . Law Week 3 2 7 0 ) .
Butler Bill.
The B u t l e r b i l l would n o t a f f e c t t h e d e c i s i o n s
Slochower a n d Sweezy.
in
I t would, however, n u l l i f y t h e Konigsberg and
Schware d e c i s i o n s s i n c e i t r e t a i n s unchanged t h a t p r o v i s i o n of t h e J e n n e r
b i l l t h a t would d e p r i v e t h e Supreme C o u r t of j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r c a s e s
volving admission t o s t a t e
in-
bars.
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e b i l l would undo t h e e f f e c t of t h e N e l s o n d e c i s i o n
by p e r m i t t i n g t h e s t a t e s t o l e g i s l a t e a g a i n s t s u b v e r s i o n .
v e r s i o n of t h e B u t l e r b i l l was much b r o a d e r on t h i s p o i n t .
The f i r s t
I t was n o t
c o n f i n e d t o t h e power of s t a t e s t o l e g i s l a t e a s t o s u b v e r s i o n b u t p r o v i d e d
b r o a d l y t h a t no a c t of Congress on a n y s u b j e c t m a t t e r s h a l l e x c l u d e
s t a t e l a w s on t h a t s u b j e c t u n l e s s t h e F e d e r a l l a w c o n t a i n s a n e x p r e s s
provision to that effect.
S / U n d e r s e c t i o n t h r e e , i t i s a l s o d o u b t f u l whether t h e Court could h e a r
argument or decide the case involving an investigation of subversion
b y t h e New Hampshire L e g i s l a t u r e .
25 U . S . Law.Week 3281.
- 20 -
Uphaus v . Wyman, c e r t ,
granted,
The A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s v i g o r o u s l y o p p o s e d t h i s
broad wording as endangering uniform F e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n i n f i e l d s
other
t h a n s u b v e r s i o n , s u c h a s i n t e r s t a t e commerce a n d l a b o r r e l a t i o n s .
When
t h i s s e c t i o n was b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d by t h e S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee,
Senator Butler himself suggested a narrower provision r e l a t i n g only t o
s u b v e r s i o n a n d t h e Committee a p p r o v e d h i s
5«
proposal.
Wiretapping
Background.
S e c t i o n 605 of t h e F e d e r a l Communications A c t
p r o v i d e s t h a t a p e r s o n u n a u t h o r i z e d by t h e s e n d e r may n o t i n t e r c e p t
any
communication a n d d i v u l g e o r p u b l i s h i t s c o n t e n t s ( 4 7 U . S . C . S e c . 6 0 5 ) .
The Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d d i r e c t l y o r
indirectly
by w i r e t a p p i n g i s inadmissable i n t h e F e d e r a l c o u r t s whether o b t a i n e d by
F e d e r a l o f f i c i a l s (Wardone v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 302 U . S . 379 ( 1 9 3 7 ) ) /
o r by
s t a t e o f f i c i a l s ( B e n a n t i v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 26 U . S . Law Week 4045 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) .
Under t h e F e d e r a l s t a t u t e , t h e r e i s no e x c e p t i o n f o r w i r e t a p p i n g i n
security
cases.
At p r e s e n t , s e v e r a l s t a t e s have s t a t u t e s a u t h o r i z i n g w i r e t a p p i n g b y
police o f f i c i a l s under c e r t a i n circumstances.
I n New York S t a t e ,
for
example, upon t h e o a t h of a law e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l , a j u d g e may i s s u e
an o r d e r p e r m i t t i n g w i r e t a p p i n g i f
" t h e r e i s reasonable ground t o b e l i e v e
t h a t e v i d e n c e of crime may be t h u s o b t a i n e d " (Code of C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e ,
Sec.
813-a).
While t h e Supreme C o u r t h a s e x p l i c i t l y h e l d t h a t S e c t i o n 605 d o e s
n o t make e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d by w i r e t a p p i n g i n a d m i s s a b l e i n a S t a t e
( S c h w a r t z v . T e x a s , 344 U.S. 199 ( 1 9 5 2 ) ) , t h e Court i n t h e B e n a n t i
court
case
s t a t e d b y way of d i c t u m t h a t t h e d i v u l g e n c e by a s t a t e o f f i c i a l of w i r e t a p
i n f o r m a t i o n i n a s t a t e c o u r t , e v e n i f p u r s u a n t t o s t a t e l a w , would b e
‫ ־‬21 ‫־‬
criminal under t h e Federal
statute.
S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e B e n a n t i d e c i s i o n was h a n d e d down, J u s t i c e Samuel
I l o f s t a d t e r of t h e New York Supreme C o u r t i s s u e d a s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e
would no l o n g e r s i g n o r d e r s p e r m i t t i n g w i r e t a p p i n g e v e n i n S i t u a t i o n s
where i t would b e a u t h o r i z e d u n d e r s t a t e l a w .
He i n d i c a t e d t h a t u n d e r
t h e B e n a n t i d e c i s i o n a law o f f i c e r would v i o l a t e F e d e r a l law b y t e s t i f y i n g
a s t o i n f o r m a t i o n h e o b t a i n e d b y w i r e t a p p i n g a n d t h e r e f o r e "a j u d g e may
not l a w f u l l y s e t t h e wheels i n motion toward t h e i l l e g a l i t y by s i g n i n g an
o r d e r " (New York Law J o u r n a l , J a n . 3,
J e n n e r and B u t l e r B i l l s .
1958).
N e i t h e r of t h e s e b i l l s d e a l s w i t h w i r e -
tapping.
W a l t e r Omnibus B i l l s .
The two W a l t e r b i l l s would amend t h e F e d e r a l
Communications Act b y p e r m i t t i n g t h e u s e of w i r e t a p e v i d e n c e i n
cases.
security
Under t h e b i l l s , upon e x p r e s s w r i t t e n a u t h o r i z a t i o n by t h e
A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , s e c u r i t y i n v e s t i g a t i v e a g e n c i e s may i n t e r c e p t w i r e a n d
r a d i o communication i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g a n " o f f e n s e a g a i n s t t h e
of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . "
security
E v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h i s law
would b e a d m i s s i b l e i n F e d e r a l
courts.
I t should be noted t h a t under t h e W a l t e r b i l l s ,
i t would n o t b e
n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e law e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l t o o b t a i n a c o u r t
authorizing the wiretap.
order
I n t h r e e o t h e r b i l l s p e n d i n g on w i r e t a p p i n g
(H.R. 1 0 4 — C e l l e r ; D., N . Y . ; H.R. 7 6 9 — K e a t i n g , R., N . Y . ; II.R.
D., L a . ) , government o f f i c i a l s may i n t e r c e p t communications i n
1010—Willis,
security
c a s e s o n l y upon o b t a i n i n g b o t h a c e r t i f i c a t e f r o m t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l
and a n o r d e r f r o m a c o u r t a u t h o r i z i n g t h e w i r e t a p .
McClellan B i l l .
Shortly a f t e r the d e c i s i o n i n t h e Benanti
case,
s i x S e n a t o r s ( M c C l e l l a n , I v e s , E r v i n , Mundt, G o l d w a t e r a n d C u r t i s )
- 22 -
i n t r o d u c e d a b i l l ( S . 3013) t h a t would o v e r r u l e t h e p a r t of t h e
Court's
d e c i s i o n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e l e g a l i t y of s t a t e - a u t h o r ! z e d w i r e t a p p i n g .
The
b i l l would a l l o w s t a t e o f f i c i a l s t o i n t e r c e p t w i r e a n d r a d i o communicat i o n s , i f done i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h a s t a t e s t a t u t e a n d i f t h e
interception
was made " a f t e r d e t e r m i n a t i o n by a c o u r t of s u c h s t a t e t h a t p r o b a b l e
cause e x i s t e d f o r b e l i e f t h a t such i n t e r c e p t i o n might d i s c l o s e
of t h e commission of a c r i m e . "
evidence
Evidence o b t a i n e d by w i r e t a p p i n g
t h e s e c a s e s would be a d m i s s i b l e i n s t a t e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s .
b i l l does n o t d e a l w i t h t h e p o i n t e x p l i c i t l y ,
in
Although t h e
i t implies t h a t such
e v i d e n c e would c o n t i n u e t o b e i n a d m i s s a b l e i n F e d e r a l c o u r t s .
The C e l l e r b i l l would a l s o a l l o w w i r e t a p p i n g b y s t a t e o f f i c i a l s when
i t t a k e s p l a c e " i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h s t a t e law. 1 1
B.
FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
1.
P r o d u c t i o n of F e d e r a l Records
Background.
I n t h e m u c h - d i s c u s s e d c a s e of J e n c k s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s
( 3 5 3 U.S. 657 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t i n a
c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g c o u l d compel t h e government t o p r o d u c e t h e
a n d s t a t e m e n t s i n i t s p o s s e s s i o n made b y government w i t n e s s e s
reports
"touching
t h e e v e n t s a n d a c t i v i t i e s a s t o which t h e y t e s t i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l . "
d e f e n d a n t , t h e Court s a i d , was e n t i t l e d t o o b t a i n t h e s e r e c o r d s t o
t o show t h a t t h e w i t n e s s e s h a d t o l d s t o r i e s i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l
d i f f e r e n t f r o m what t h e y t o l d a t t h e
The
try
reports
trial.
Two months a f t e r t h i s d e c i s i o n , C o n g r e s s p a s s e d a law whose p u r p o s e
w a s , i n t h e words of t h e S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee ( S e n a t e R e p o r t ,
No.
569, p . 2 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) ,
" t o e s t a b l i s h a p r o c e d u r a l d e v i c e " t o implement t h e
Court's decision.
T h i s s e c t i o n ( 1 8 U . S . C . S e c . 3500) p r o v i d e s t h a t a
d e f e n d a n t may demand f r o m t h e government s t a t e m e n t s i n i t s
- 23 -
possession
"which r e l a t e t o t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r a s t o w h i c h t h e w i t n e s s h a d t e s t i f i e d . " ‫׳‬
I f t h e government concedes t h e i r r e l e v a n c e , t h e s t a t e m e n t s may‫ ״‬b e g i v e n
over d i r e c t l y t o the defendant.
I f , on t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e government
c o n t e n d s t h a t o n l y p a r t of a s t a t e m e n t o r r e p o r t i s r e l e v a n t ,
i t must
h a n d t h e document o v e r t o t h e c o u r t w h i c h d e l e t e s t h e i r r e l e v a n t
and g i v e s t h e r e s t o f t h e document t o t h e d e f e n d a n t .
portions
In t h e e v e n t
t h e government r e f u s e s t o p r o d u c e a s t a t e m e n t made b y a w i t n e s s ,
that
the
c o u r t must s t r i k e t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e w i t n e s s u n l e s s i t d e t e r m i n e s
that
" t h e i n t e r e s t s of j u s t i c e r e q u i r e t h a t a m i s t r i a l b e d e c l a r e d . "
J e n n e r and B u t l e r B i l l s .
These b i l l s c o n t a i n no p r o v i s i o n s
relating
t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n of documents i n t h e h a n d s of t h e g o v e r n m e n t .
W a l t e r Omnibus B i l l s .
Both W a l t e r b i l l s w o u l d r e p l a c e t h e
section
enacted l a s t y e a r t o " c l a r i f y " t h e Jencks d e c i s i o n with a p r o v i s i o n
that
would s u b s t a n t i a l l y l i m i t t h e r i g h t s of d e f e n d a n t s t o o b t a i n r e c o r d s
in
t h e h a n d s of t h e g o v e r n m e n t .
Under t h e W a l t e r b i l l s ,
a d e f e n d a n t would
n o t be e n t i t l e d t o a document u n l e s s t h e w i t n e s s p r o d u c e d i t i n open
c o u r t e i t h e r f o r t h e p u r p o s e of e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e c o r d of h i s p a s t
recollection or refreshing his present recollection.
Under t h e p r e s e n t
l a w , a w i t n e s s may o b t a i n t h e document w h e t h e r o r n o t i t was p r o d u c e d
in
open c o u r t .
I n one o t h e r i m p o r t a n t r e s p e c t t h e W a l t e r b i l l s would r e s t r i c t
r i g h t of d e f e n d a n t s i n c r i m i n a l t r i a l s .
Under t h e s e b i l l s , t h e
the
trial
c o u r t may o r d e r documents t o be p r o d u c e d " i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n " a n d i f
it
i s n e c e s s a r y " i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of j u s t i c e " a n d " f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s of t h e p a r t y a f f e c t e d t h e r e b y . "
Under t h e p r e s e n t
s t a t u t e , t h e j u d g e h a s a n a b s o l u t e d u t y t o o r d e r t h e p r o d u c t i o n of t h e
documents, s o l o n g a s t h e y a r e r e l e v a n t t o t h e t e s t i m o n y of a w i t n e s s .
2
‫ י‬k
-
The j u d g e h a s d i s c r e t i o n o n l y a s t o w h e t h e r h e w i l l d e c l a r e a m i s t r i a l .
2.
Habeas Corpus P r o c e e d i n g s
Background.
The F e d e r a l C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t
criminal
p r o c e e d i n g s i n s t a t e c o u r t s conform t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of "due p r o c e s s
of l a w . "
O r d i n a r i l y , a s t a t e p r i s o n e r may t e s t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of
t h e s t a t e p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r w h i c h he was c o n v i c t e d b y a p p e a l i n g t o t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t t o r e v e r s e t h e c o n v i c t i o n .
Also, s t a t e law
u s u a l l y p e r m i t s him t o r a i s e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e
d i s c o v e r e d y e a r s a f t e r h i s c o n v i c t i o n , by b r i n g i n g habeas corpus o r o t h e r
p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t s t h a t can u l t i m a t e l y b e a p p e a l e d t o t h e
U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t .
P r e s e n t F e d e r a l law g i v e s t h e p r i s o n e r a n
a d d i t i o n a l method of F e d e r a l r e v i e w of s t a t e c o n v i c t i o n s t h r o u g h t h e u s e
of t h e w r i t of h a b e a s c o r p u s i n t h e F e d e r a l
courts.
Under t h e p r e s e n t s t a t u t e ( 2 8 U . S . C . S e c . 2 2 5 4 ) , a s t a t e
prisoner
niay go t o a F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t which i s a u t h o r i z e d i n i t s
t o i s s u e a w r i t of h a b e a s c o r p u s .
discretion
If the writ i s granted, the
District
C o u r t h o l d s a h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e d e t e n t i o n of t h e p r i s o n e r
is
l e g a l and i n conformity w i t h F e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s .
the
C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d i n t h e
proceedings,
If
state
i t may r e l e a s e him f r o m c u s t o d y .
I n 1953, t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t a p r i s o n e r who h a d b e e n r e f u s e d
r e v i e w b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court i n c e r t i o r a r i p r o c e e d i n g s
n e v e r t h e l e s s a p p l y f o r a w r i t of h a b e a s c o r p u s i n t h e D i s t r i c t
(Brown v . A l l e n , 344 U . S . 44-3, 4 8 8 ) .
advanced a g a i n s t t h i s r u l e .
could
Court.
Extensive c r i t i c i s m has been
I t was p o i n t e d o u t t h a t a p r i s o n e r may a p p e a l
h i s case through t h e h i g h e s t s t a t e c o u r t , p e t i t i o n t h e United S t a t e s
Supreme C o u r t f o r r e v i e w , a n d t h e n , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t h i s a p p e a l
- 25 -
is
r e f u s e d , s t a r t over a g a i n with habeas corpus proceedings i n t h e
Court.
District
T h i s r u l e h a s l e d , i n t h e o p i n i o n of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of b o t h t h e
F e d e r a l a n d s t a t e j u d i c i a r i e s , t o "an u n n e c e s s a r y b u r d e n on t h e work o f
t h e F e d e r a l c o u r t s " a n d t o undue d e l a y s i n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t of
state
d e c i s i o n s ( H e a r i n g s , Subcommittee No. 3 , Committee on t h e J u d i c i a r y ,
of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , 8 4 t h C o n g . , 1 s t S e s s . ,
"Habeas C o r p u s , " p p .
House
3-11
(1955))•
To remedy t h i s a s s e r t e d d e f e c t i n t h e l a w , a b i l l (H.R. 8361) was
i n t r o d u c e d t h a t would r a d i c a l l y l i m i t t h e u s e of t h e w r i t of h a b e a s
corpus t o t e s t s t a t e court c o n v i c t i o n s .
While t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e
bill
a r e somewhat t e c h n i c a l , t h e y w o u l d , i n e f f e c t , l i m i t a p r i s o n e r w i s h i n g
t o t e s t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of a s t a t e c o n v i c t i o n t o a d i r e c t
f r o m t h e s t a t e c o u r t s t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t .
appeal
Only i n a v e r y
l i m i t e d number of c a s e s , a s f o r example where i t i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r him t o
"make a r e c o r d " f o r a p p e a l t o t h e Supreme C o u r t , c o u l d h e a p p l y t o a
F e d e r a l c o u r t f o r a w r i t of h a b e a s
corpus.
A b i l l i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e p r e s e n t b i l l was p a s s e d b y t h e House i n
1956 b u t t h e S e n a t e t o o k ho a c t i o n on i t .
The p r e s e n t b i l l was p a s s e d
b y t h e House on f & r c h 1 8 , 1958, a n d i s a w a i t i n g a c t i o n b y t h e S e n a t e .
O p p o s i t i o n t o t h e b i l l h a s b e e n l e d by t h e American C i v i l L i b e r t i e s
Union a n d t h e N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e Advancement o f C o l o r e d P e o p l e .
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s a r g u e t h a t t h e b i l l would " l e s s e n
t h e l a w ' s p r o t e c t i o n of c i v i l r i g h t s " a n d would " a l l b u t
completely...
e l i m i n a t e t h e power of F e d e r a l c o u r t s t o e n t e r t a i n h a b e a s c o r p u s p e t i t i o n s
t o t e s t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of S t a t e p r o c e e d i n g s l e a d i n g t o t h e
c o n v i c t i o n of c r i m e " ( H e a r i n g s , s u p r a , p . 7 9 ) •
In response t o the
argument t h a t adequate review i s a f f o r d e d d e f e n d a n t s t h r o u g h d i r e c t
‫־‬
26 ‫־‬
appeal
t o t h e Supreme C o u r t , t h e l a t e J u d g e Jerome F r a n k , a l s o a n o p p o n e n t of
the b i l l ,
stated:
" E x p e r i e n c e h a s shown t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t does n o t
now have t h e t i m e c a r e f u l l y t o c o n s i d e r a l l t h e many c e r t i o r a r i
f i l e d with i t . "
The e f f e c t of t h e b i l l ,
petitions
s a i d J u d g e F r a n k , would be
t h a t " a l m o s t s u r e l y . . . most e f f o r t s t o o b t a i n r e l i e f would b e d e n i e d "
(Hearings, supra, p.
3•
16).
A d m i s s i b i l i t y of C o n f e s s i o n s
Background.
Rule 5 ( a ) of t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s of C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e
r e q u i r e s F e d e r a l law e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s t o t a k e a p e r s o n a r r e s t e d
a committing m a g i s t r a t e "withough u n n e c e s s a r y d e l a y . "
to
The Supreme C o u r t
h a s r e v e r s e d c o n v i c t i o n s b a s e d on c o n f e s s i o n s o b t a i n e d f r o m p r i s o n e r s
w h i l e i l l e g a l l y d e t a i n e d i n v i o l a t i o n of R u l e 5 ( a ) .
(McNabb v .
United
S t a t e s , 318 U . S . 332 ( 1 9 4 3 ) ; Upshaw v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 335 U.S. 410 ( 1 9 4 8 ) ) .
D u r i n g i t s l a s t t e r m , t h e Supreme C o u r t r e a f f i r m e d t h e r u l e by r e v e r s i n g
the conviction i n a rape prosecution because the d e f e n d a n t ' s
confession
had been o b t a i n e d d u r i n g an e i g h t - h o u r p e r i o d i n which a D i s t r i c t
of
Columbia P o l i c e h a d f a i l e d t o b r i n g him b e f o r e a m a g i s t r a t e ( f r & l l o r y v .
U n i t e d S t a t e s , 354 U.S. 449 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ) •
These d e c i s i o n s ,
i t s h o u l d be n o t e d , were n o t b a s e d on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
p r o v i s i o n s b u t r a t h e r on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t h a s a d u t y t o
" s u p e r v i s e " t h e F e d e r a l c o u r t s a n d t o make c e r t a i n t h a t t h e y m a i n t a i n
" c i v i l i z e d s t a n d a r d s of p r o c e d u r e and e v i d e n c e . "
I n f a c t , t h e Supreme
C o u r t h a s e x p l i c i t l y h e l d t h a t a s t a t e c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d on a c o n f e s s i o n
o b t a i n e d i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e McNabb r u l e d i d n o t f o r t h a t r e a s o n a l o n e
v i o l a t e due p r o c e s s ( G a l l e g o s v . N e b r a s k a , 342 U . S . 55 ( 1 9 5 1 ) ) •
F i v e b i l l s a r e p e n d i n g i n C o n g r e s s t h a t would amend t h e F e d e r a l
Code of C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e t o p r o v i d e t h a t c o n f e s s i o n s o r o t h e r e v i d e n c e
‫ ־‬27 ‫־‬
" s h a l l n o t be i n a d m i s s a b l e s o l e l y b e c a u s e of t h e d e l a y i n t a k i n g a n
a r r e s t e d p e r s o n b e f o r e a commissioner o r o t h e r j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r "
(H.R. 8 5 2 1 ‫ ־‬A l e x a n d e r , D . , N . C . ; H.R. 8596 - Cramer, R . ,
Fla.;
H.R. 8600 ‫ ־‬K e a t i n g , R . , N . Y . ; H.R. 8624 ‫ ־‬P o f f , R . , V a . ; S. 2970 ‫־‬
E k s t l a n d , D . , M i s s . ) A l t h o u g h F e d e r a l o f f i c e r s would c o n t i n u e t o h a v e
an o b l i g a t i o n t o a r r a i g n suspected o f f e n d e r s promptly, an i l l e g a l
d e t e n t i o n would no l o n g e r i n i t s e l f
period inadmissible.
render confessions obtained in that
The b i l l s do n o t d e a l w i t h c o n f e s s i o n s
obtained
b y means of p h y s i c a l o r o t h e r t y p e s of c o e r c i o n a n d p r e s u m a b l y t h e y
would c o n t i n u e t o b e i n a d m i s s i b l e (Compare, Chambers v . F l o r i d a ,
U . S . 227
309
(1940)).
C. PASSPORTS
The b i l l s d e a l i n g w i t h p a s s p o r t s i n t r o d u c e d i n C o n g r e s s up t o t h e
end of J a n u a r y , 1958 were d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l i n t h e A n a l y s i s of
Pending P r o p o s a l s Dealing w i t h t h e Right t o T r a v e l Abroad,
published
by t h e Commission on Law a n d S o c i a l A c t i o n of t h e American J e w i s h
Congress on F e b r u a r y 5, 1958.
Rather than repeat the substance of
t h a t Memorandum, which i s a v a i l a b l e on r e q u e s t w i t h o u t c h a r g e , we c o v e r
here o n l y developments s i n c e i t s
publication.
On A p r i l 10, 1958, t h e Supreme C o u r t h e a r d argument on t h r e e
p a s s p o r t c a s e s , B r i e h l v . D u l l e s ; Kent v . D u l l e s ; a n d Dayton v .
26 U.S. Law Week 3297•
W i l l i a m Worthy, a n e w s p a p e r
Dulles,
correspondent,
commenced a n a c t i o n t e s t i n g t h e power of t h e S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e
to
impose g e o g r a p h i c a l r e s t r i c t i o n s on t r a v e l a b r o a d (New York T i m e s ,
A p r i l 10,
1958).
On F e b r u a r y 24, s i x t e e n S e n a t o r s i n t r o d u c e d S. 3344, which d e a l s
i n a c o m p r e h e n s i v e manner w i t h t h e law of p a s s p o r t s .
‫־‬
28 ‫־‬
T h i s b i l l was
i n t r o d u c e d b y S e n a t o r Thomas C. H e n n i n g s , J r . ( D . , Mo.) f o r h i m s e l f
a n d f o r S e n a t o r s A n d e r s o n , C a r r o l l , C l a r k , Chavez, F l a n d e r s ,
Humphrey,
I v e s , J a v i t s , L a n g e r , Magnuson, Morse, Murray, N e u b e r g e r , P r o x m i r e a n d
Symington.
The f a c t t h a t t h i s b i l l i s s p o n s o r e d b y s o many l i b e r a l
members of t h e S e n a t e i s s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e i t would g i v e t h e
Secretary
of S t a t e e x t e n s i v e powers t o c u r t a i l f o r e i g n t r a v e l a n d i s f a r more
r e s t r i c t i v e t h a n t h e b i l l ( S . 2770) p r e v i o u s l y i n t r o d u c e d b y S e n a t o r
Fulbright (D., Ark.).
I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t s e v e r a l of t h e
bill's
s p o n s o r s i n t e n d t o w i t h d r a w t h e i r s u p p o r t a f t e r t h e Supreme C o u r t h a n d s
down d e c i s i o n s i n t h e p a s s p o r t
cases.
The Hennings b i l l a u t h o r i z e s t h e S e c r e t a r y t o r e f u s e p a s s p o r t s
to
p e r s o n s u n d e r i n d i c t m e n t f o r f e l o n i e s o r t r e a s o n , t o p e r s o n s f r e e on
b a i l a n d t o c e r t a i n t y p e s of s u b v e r s i v e s .
The c a t e g o r i e s of
subversives
who may be d e n i e d t h e r i g h t t o t r a v e l a b r o a d u n d e r t h e Hennings b i l l
f a r more e x t e n s i v e t h a n u n d e r t h e F u l b r i g h t b i l l .
is
Under t h e Hennings
b i l l , t h e S e c r e t a r y would deny p a s s p o r t s n o t o n l y t o members a n d r e c e n t
members of t h e Communist P a r t y b u t a l s o t o o t h e r p e r s o n s s u s p e c t e d o f
e n g a g i n g i n " a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h s u p p o r t t h e Communist movement" u n d e r
direction.
its
This language i s d e r i v e d from t h e e x i s t i n g S t a t e Department
r e g u l a t i o n s b u t i s even b r o a d e r , s i n c e i t r e f e r s t o t h e
"Communist
movement" r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e "Communist P a r t y . "
The Hennings b i l l would e x p l i c i t l y r e q u i r e a p a s s p o r t a p p l i c a n t
to
t a k e a n o a t h r e g a r d i n g p a s t o r p r e s e n t membership i n a s u b v e r s i v e
organization.
At p r e s e n t an o a t h i s r e q u i r e d o n l y u n d e r t h e
Secretary's
R e g u l a t i o n s a n d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e r e q u i r e m e n t i s b e i n g
c o n t e s t e d i n t h e Kent a n d B r i e h l c a s e s .
Neither the Walter nor the
F u l b r i g h t b i l l s e x p l i c i t l y r e q u i r e s a t e s t o a t h by p a s s p o r t
- 29 -
applicants.
Like t h e Walter b i l l s ,
t h e Ilennings b i l l would a l l o w d e t e r m i n a t i o n s
t o be b a s e d on i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h h e l d f r o m t h e p a s s p o r t a p p l i c a n t
r e a s o n s of n a t i o n a l
for
security.
The o n l y p r o v i s i o n i n t h e Ilennings b i l l t h a t h a s b e e n e n d o r s e d b y
groups f a v o r i n g f e w e r t r a v e l r e s t r i c t i o n s r e l a t e s t o
limitations.
geographical
Under t h e b i l l , a p a s s p o r t h o l d e r c o u l d t r a v e l t o
d e s i g n a t e d "unsafe f o r t r a v e l " i f he f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t t h a t he
countries
"waives
t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s " i n t h o s e " u n s a f e c o u n t r i e s . "
o t h e r w o r d s , American r e p o r t e r s c o u l d t r a v e l t o China b u t t h e
In
State
Department would assume no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r s a f e t y .
D.
OBSCENITY
Background.
The F e d e r a l a n t i - o b s c e n i t y s t a t u t e ( 1 8 U . S . C . S e c . 1461)
makes i t a crime f o r a p e r s o n t o d e p o s i t f o r m a i l i n g o r t o t a k e f r o m t h e
m a i l s f o r t h e p u r p o s e of d i s t r i b u t i o n m a t e r i a l which i s " o b s c e n e ,
lascivious,
indecent, f i l t h y or v i l e . "
The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of
s e c t i o n was u p h e l d by t h e Supreme Court l a s t y e a r i n Roth v .
S t a t e s , 354 U.S. 476 ( 1 9 5 7 ) .
lewd,
this
United
The law ( S e c . 1465) a l s o makes i t a c r i m e
t o t r a n s p o r t o b s c e n e m a t e r i a l i n i n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e i g n commerce.
An i m p o r t a n t i s s u e t h a t h a s a r i s e n i n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t of t h e F e d e r a l
a n t i - o b s c e n i t y s t a t u t e r e l a t e s t o t h e j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t i n which
p r o s e c u t i o n s of v i o l a t o r s of t h e law may b e b r o u g h t .
The p r e s e n t law
has been i n t e r p r e t e d t o l i m i t such p r o s e c u t i o n s t o t h e d i s t r i c t i n which
t h e a l l e g e d l y o b s c e n e m a t e r i a l was m a i l e d ( U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R o s s , 205 F .
2d 619 ( 1 9 5 3 ) ) •
Pending B i l l s .
S i x b i l l s a r e p e n d i n g w h i c h would a l l o w a n t i -
o b s c e n i t y p r o s e c u t i o n s t o be brought not o n l y i n t h e d i s t r i c t i n which
t h e m a t e r i a l was m a i l e d b u t a l s o where i t was r e c e i v e d .
30
-
-
(H.R. 6239 ‫־‬
C e l l e r , D . , N.Y.J H.R. 7829 - D e r o u n i a n , R . , N.Y.J H.R. 10582 ‫־‬
Moulder, D . , Mo.j
H.R. 10873 - R e u s s , D - , W i s e . ; H.R.11185 ‫ ־‬Cramer,
R . , F l a . ; S . 2307 - D i r k s e n , R . , 1 1 1 . ) .
Proponents of t h e s e
p o i n t out t h a t obscene m a t e r i a l i s u s u a l l y mailed from l a r g e
hills
cities
t o s m a l l e r communities a n d t h a t " F e d e r a l j u d g e s i n c e r t a i n l a r g e
have b e e n e x t r e m e l y l e n i e n t i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e l a w . "
cities
They a r g u e
that
" i t i s i n p l a c e s where t h e f i l t h i s d e l i v e r e d t h a t t h e damage i s
b e i n g done i n t h e t e r m s of c o r r u p t i o n of m o r a l s a n d j u v e n i l e
delinquency"
and t h e r e f o r e t h e judges i n t h e s e l e s s populous a r e a s should be g i v e n
t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e c i d e t h e c a s e s ( H e a r i n g s , Subcommittee No. 1 ,
Committee on t h e J u d i c i a r y , House of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , 8 5 t h C o n g . ,
Sess.,
" M a i l i n g of Obscene t e t t e r , "
2nd
p. 8 (1958)).
These b i l l s h a v e b e e n o p p o s e d by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e book
p u b l i s h e r s a n d t h e American C i v i l L i b e r t i e s Union on t h e g r o u n d t h a t
tinder t h e p r o p o s e d l a n g u a g e t h e Government c o u l d t r y o b s c e n i t y c a s e s
i n a n y j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t t h r o u g h which t h e m a t e r i a l may have p a s s e d
while in the mails.
They p o i n t o u t t h a t i f p r o s e c u t i o n s a r e b r o u g h t
a g a i n s t a n i n d i v i d u a l f a r f r o m h i s p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e , i t would b e
e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t f o r him t o d e f e n d t h e a c t i o n a n d i t would be a
violation,
i n s p i r i t a t l e a s t , of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e t h a t a
d e f e n d a n t b e t r i e d " i n t h e S t a t e a n d d i s t r i c t w h e r e i n t h e crime
have b e e n committed"
(Hearings, supra., p.
shall
87)•
S e v e r a l b i l l s a r e p e n d i n g t h a t s e e k t o d e f i n e o b s c e n i t y somewhat
more p r e c i s e l y t h a n i n t h e p r e s e n t l a w .
Under t h e s e b i l l s (H.R. 3663 -
Dowdy, D . , Tex. j II.R. 10353 ‫ ־‬P o f f , R., V a . j H.R. 10581 - M o u l d e r , D . ,
Mb.), o b s c e n e m a t e r i a l would b e d e f i n e d a s t h a t which " i n t h e
o p i n i o n of t h e n o r m a l , r e a s o n a b l e , a n d p r u d e n t i n d i v i d u a l , would s u g g e s t ,
‫ ־‬31 ‫־‬
induce, arouse, i n c i t ^ o r cause, d i r e c t l y or
indirectly..‫״‬.lewd,
l i b i d i n o u s , l u s t f u l , i n d e c e n t , o b s c e n e , immoral, o r d e p r a v e d t h o u g h t s ,
desires, or a c t s . . . "
S p o n s o r s of t h e b i l l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t
the
d e f i n i t i o n of o b s c e n i t y i s made more p r e c i s e i n t h e b i l l s s o t h a t
government s h o u l d n o t h a v e " t o r e l y upon v a r i a b l e j u d i c i a l
t i o n . . . f o r conviction" (Hearings, supra., p.
the
interpreta-
11).
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e s e b i l l s would make i t a s e p a r a t e crime t o m a i l t o
a p e r s o n u n d e r n i n e t e e n m a t e r i a l t h a t would i n c i t e him t o s u c h t h o u g h t s
or acts.
At t h e h e a r i n g s i t was o b j e c t e d t h a t t h i s p r o v i s i o n would
a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y be u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l tinder t h e Roth d e c i s i o n a n d t h e
d e c i s i o n of t h e Supreme C o u r t i n B u t l e r v . S t a t e of Michigan, 352 U . S .
380 ( 1 9 5 7 ) •
I n t h e Roth c a s e , t h e C o u r t c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t
the
s t a n d a r d of o b s c e n i t y i s n o t t o b e j u d g e d b y " t h e e f f e c t o f a n y
i s o l a t e d e x c e r p t upon p a r t i c u l a r l y s u s c e p t i b l e p e r s o n s " b u t r a t h e r by
w h e t h e r " t o t h e a v e r a g e p e r s o n , a p p l y i n g c o n t e m p o r a r y community
s t a n d a r d s , t h e dominant theme of t h e m a t e r i a l , t a k e n a s a whole a p p e a r s
to prurient
interest."
F i n a l l y , two b i l l s a r e p e n d i n g t h a t would p u n i s h a d v e r t i s i n g ,
printing, distributing,
s e l l i n g or producing obscene m a t e r i a l f o r s a l e
i n i n t e r s t a t e commerce (H.R. 11190 - H o l l a n d , D . , P a . ; H.R. 11361 Fulton, R.,
E.
Pa.).
JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT AND TENURE OF ITS JUSTICES
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e J e n n e r b i l l ( S . 2646, i d e n t i c a l w i t h H.R. 9207
S t . George, R . ) N . Y . , a l a r g e number of b i l l s h a v e b e e n i n t r o d u c e d i n
C o n g r e s s t h a t would c u r b t h e Supreme C o u r t .
A l t h o u g h none of t h e s e
b i l l s have r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n , n o r i s i t l i k e l y t h a t Congress w i l l
a c t upon them, t h e y a r e summarized h e r e b r i e f l y t o i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t
‫־‬
32 ‫־‬
of t h e a n t a g o n i s m t o t h e C o u r t a n d v a r i e t y a n d n o v e l t y of t h e a p p r o a c h e s
u t i l i z e d hy i t s
critics.
Most s i g n i f i c a n t of t h e s e b i l l s a r e H.R. 175 ( F o r r e s t e r , D . ,
H.R. 1228 ( R i v e r s , D . , S . C a r . ) a n d H.R. 2020 (Matthews, D . ,
Ga.,)
Fla.),
w h i c h would p r o h i b i t F e d e r a l c o u r t s a n d F e d e r a l a g e n c i e s f r o m d e c i d i n g
any m a t t e r " d r a w i n g i n q u e s t i o n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n by t h e s e v e r a l S t a t e s
of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m s . "
I t i s obvious t h a t
these
b i l l s w e r e i n t r o d u c e d by members of C o n g r e s s d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e
Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n t h e s c h o o l s e g r e g a t i o n c a s e a n d d e c i s i o n s
by t h e F e d e r a l c o u r t s of a p p e a l o r d e r i n g i n t e g r a t i o n i n s t a t e
schools.
public
Under t h e b i l l s t h e r e would b e no F e d e r a l r e v i e w w h a t s o e v e r
i n i n t e g r a t i o n c a s e s , t h u s l e a v i n g t h e m a t t e r e n t i r e l y i n t h e h a n d s of
t h e l o c a l s c h o o l boards and t h e s t a t e
courts.
S e v e r a l b i l l s a r e p e n d i n g which would l i m i t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of
t h e C o u r t i n s u c h a vague a n d m e a n i n g l e s s way a s a l m o s t t o be f r i v o l o u s .
II.R. 692 ( H u d d l e s t o n , D . , A l a . ) a n d II.R. 463 ( S m i t h , D . , M i s s . ) would
remove t h e b i n d i n g e f f e c t on i n f e r i o r c o u r t s of Supreme Court d e c i s i o n s
which i g n o r e p r e c e d e n t a n d w h i c h a r e b a s e d on " c o n s i d e r a t i o n s
than l e g a l . "
other
A n o t h e r b i l l (H.R. 10775 ‫ י‬Coimer, D . , M i s s . ) i s a n
omnibus a t t a c k on t h e Supreme C o u r t , combining t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f
these
two b i l l s w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e J e n n e r b i n a n d a d d i n g y e t a n o t h e r
s e c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of c o n f e s s i o n s i n F e d e r a l c o u r t s
( d i s c u s s e d above,
11(B)(3)).
A number of p r o p o s e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendments r e l a t e t o t h e
powers of t h e Supreme C o u r t a n d t h e t e n u r e of i t s j u s t i c e s .
d e a l w i t h t h e method o f a p p o i n t i n g j u s t i c e s .
Two r e s o l u t i o n s
At p r e s e n t ,
Supreme C o u r t j u s t i c e s a r e a p p o i n t e d f o r l i f e b y t h e P r e s i d e n t w i t h t h e
‫־‬
33 ‫־‬
a d v i c e and c o n s e n t of t h e S e n a t e .
H . J . Res. 438 ( F i s h e r , D., T e x . )
p r o v i d e s t h a t Supreme C o u r t j u s t i c e s would b e a p p o i n t e d by a c o m m i t t e e
composed of one j u d g e o f t h e h i g h e s t c i v i l c o u r t o f e a c h s t a t e ,
t o r a t i f i c a t i o n by t h e Senate.
subject
H . J . R e s . 406 ( B u r d i c k , R . , N . D . ) would
r e q u i r e t h e American B a r A s s o c i a t i o n t o a s s i s t t h e P r e s i d e n t i n making
a p p o i n t m e n t s t o t h e Supreme C o u r t b y s u p p l y i n g him w i t h a l i s t of 75
l a w y e r s whom i t c o n s i d e r s q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e p o s i t i o n .
A number of j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n s would l i m i t t h e t e r m of Supreme
Court j u s t i c e s .
Most e x t r e m e a r e t h o s e w h i c h p r o p o s e a t e r m of f o u r
y e a r s ( S . J . R e s . 114 - E a s t l a n d , D . , M i s s . ;
DMiss.).
H . J . R e s . 403 ‫ ־‬A b e r n a t h y ,
T h r e e r e s o l u t i o n s would p r o v i d e f o r a t e n - y e a r t e r m
( I I . J . R e s . 388 ‫ ־‬S m i t h , R . , W i s . ; H . J . R e s . 407 - W h i t t e n , D . ,
H . J . R e s . 415 - I l e r l o n g , D . , F l a ) .
Miss.;
One r e s o l u t i o n would p e r m i t Supreme
C o u r t j u s t i c e s t o r e m a i n i n o f f i c e f o r t e r m s of t w e l v e y e a r s ( S . J .
9 - Long, D . ,
Res.
La.).
O t h e r p r o p o s e d amendments would c o n s t i t u t e a n e v e n more s e r i o u s
i n v a s i o n of t h e power of t h e Supreme C o u r t .
H . J . R e s . 476 ( R o g e r s ,
T e x . ) would a l l o w C o n g r e s s , b y a t w o - t h i r d s v o t e , t o end j u d i c i a l
altogether.
D.,
review
A n o t h e r e x t r a o r d i n a r y p r o p o s a l (11.J. R e s . 395 ‫ ־‬S i k e s ,
D.,
F l a . ) would g i v e t h e S e n a t e f i n a l a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r Supreme
C o u r t d e c i s i o n s i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g t h e power of t h e S t a t e s .
H.J.
Res.
458 ( W i l l i a m s , D . , M i s s . ) w o u l d a l s o a f f e c t t h e power of t h e Supreme
C o u r t t o d e c i d e c a s e s b y amending t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n t o p r o v i d e t h a t
"there
s h a l l b e no i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h o r l i m i t a t i o n upon t h e power of a n y S t a t e
t o regulate h e a l t h , morals, education, domestic r e l a t i o n s , a l l
r i g h t s , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , wholly within i t s
borders..."
B e n j a m i n W. M i n t z
May 7 , 1958
- 34 -
property
APPENDIX
LIST AND STATUS OP CIVIL LIBERTIES BILLS
PENDING IN CONGRESS
( B i l l s m a r k e d w i t h a s t e r i s k a r e t h o s e d i s c u s s e d i n Memorandum)
STATUS
BILL
I.
II.
A.
OMNIBUS BILLS
* J e n n e r B i l l ( S . 2646)
(identical:
H.R. 9207
S t . George)
H e a r i n g s h e l d hy Subcommittee
of S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y Committee
*
B u t l e r B i l l ( S . 2646)
Four s e c t i o n s r e p o r t e d f a v o r a b l y
b y S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y C o m m i t t e e ; one
section rejected.
*
W a l t e r Omnibus B i l l s
( H . R . 9 3 5 2 ; H.R. 9937)
No a c t i o n
INTERNAL SECURITY
F e d e r a l Employees L o y a l t y P r o g r a m
1.
*S.
C i v i l i a n Program
1411•Johnston
(*H.R. 8322-Murray
( * I I . R . 8323-Rees
(*H.R. 8334-IIiestand
(*S. 2399-Johnston
(*S. 2414-Cotton, Stennis
( i d e n t i c a l with Wright
Commission b i l l )
P a s s e d b y S e n a t e ; amended v e r s i o n
r e p o r t e d b y House Committee
H e a r i n g s h e l d b y House P o s t
O f f i c e and C i v i l Service
Committee on H.R. 8 3 2 2 a n d
H.R. 8323 i n J u l y , 1957
H.R.
278-Keating
No a c t i o n
H.R.
981-Walter
H e a r i n g s h e l d b y House P o s t O f f i c e
a n d C i v i l S e r v i c e Committee i n J u l y ,
1957
H.R.
9665-Keating
No a c t i o n
S. 37‫־‬Malone
2.
No a c t i o n
M i l i t a r y Program
(H.R. 8 3 3 8 - H i e s t a n d
(S. 2415-Cotton, Stennis
( i d e n t i c a l w i t h Wright
Commission b i l l s )
No a c t i o n
‫ ־‬35 ‫־‬
BILL
STATUS
Federal Criminal Statutes Against
Subversion
1.
2.
Smith Act
—
H.R. 8 8 6 7 - K e a t i n g
Wo a c t i o n
H.R. 8925-Cramer
No a c t i o n
H.R. 9 8 4 6 - D i e s
No a c t i o n
P e n a l t i e s f o r Communist Membership
H.R. 8 8 8 6 - S m i t h , C a l i f o r n i a
3•
—
No a c t i o n
Proceedings before Subversive
A c t i v i t i e s C o n t r o l Board
H.R. 8 5 7 ^ ‫ ־‬W a l t e r
No a c t i o n
D e f i n i t i o n of T r e a s o n
5.
6.
H.J. Res. 1-Walter
No a c t i o n
H . J . Res. 53-Keating
No a c t i o n
W i t h d r a w a l of S o c i a l S e c u r i t y
B e n e f i t s From P e r s o n s Employed
b y Communist P a r t y
H.R. 2 1 8 5 - S t . George
No a c t i o n
H.R. 2 3 9 0 - B a k e r
No a c t i o n
T a f t - H a r t l e y Act:
Employer
Non-Communist A f f i d a v i t
H.R. 2 5 3 ‫ ־‬K e a t i n g
7•
No a c t i o n
Non-Communist A f f i d a v i t s b y
Private Educational I n s t i t u t i o n s
II.R. 3636-MacDonald
No a c t i o n
S. 1 0 6 1 - M c C l e l l a n a n d o t h e r s
H e a r i n g s h e l d b y S e n a t e Committee
on L a b o r a n d P u b l i c W e l f a r e on
torch 18, 1957
- 36 -
STATUS
BILL
8.
S t a t u t e of L i m i t a t i o n s
S.
9•
No a c t i o n
1254-Butler
Loss of C i t i z e n s h i p f o r
Certain Subversives
No- a c t i o n
S. 2899-EastlancL
Congressional
Investigations
No a c t i o n
H.R. 6 5 8 0 - W a l t e r
S. 2 8 9 1 - C u r t i s ,
S.
No a c t i o n
Hruska
No a c t i o n
2900-Eastland
A c t i o n by S t a t e s A g a i n s t
Subversion
H.R. 744-Lane
No a c t i o n
H.R. 9 4 6 - S m i t h , W i s e .
No a c t i o n
H.R.
No a c t i o n
1129-Fascell
H.R. 1142-Hende r s on
No a c t i o n
H.R. 7903-Hyde
No a c t i o n
S. 654-Bridges and o t h e r s
No a c t i o n
S . 2401-Thurmond
No a c t i o n
Wiretapping
1.
A d m i s s i o n of F e d e r a l W i r e t a p
E v i d e n c e i n S e c u r i t y Cases
No a c t i o n
(*H.R. 8 3 4 0 - I l i e s t a n d
(*S. 2418-Cotton
. ( i d e n t i c a l w i t h W r i g h t Commission B i l l )
(*H.R.
(*H.R.
269-Keating
1010-Willis
No a c t i o n
*H.R.
104-CeHer
No a c t i o n
2. Wiretapping i n State Criminal
Prosecutions
*S. 3 0 1 3 ‫ ׳‬M c C l e l l a n and o t h e r s
-
No a c t i o n
37 ‫־‬
STATUS
BILL
III.
A.
FEDERAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
P r o d u c t i o n of F e d e r a l R e c o r d s
1.
S t a t u t e e n a c t e d , September 1957, " c l a r i f y i n g "
Jencks d e c i s i o n ( 1 8 U.S.C. Sec. 3500)
2.
Bills Identical with Statute
3•
B.
*H.R.
8335-Hillings
No action
*1I.R.
8341-Keating
No action
*II. R.
8388-Cramer
No action
*H.R.
8393-Jackson
No action
*H.R.
8414-IIosmer
No action
*H.R. 8 4 2 3 - P o f f
No action
*H.R.
8416-Loser
No action
*H.R.
8603-Laird
No action
Other B i l l s
*H.R. 8 2 2 5 - M i l l e r
No action
*H.R. 8 2 4 3 - B o s e h
No action
*II.R. 8 4 3 8 - A l e x a n d e r
No action
*S.
No action
2379-Bricker
Habeas Corpus P r o c e e d i n g s
*II.R. 8 3 6 1 - S m i t h ,
*S.
C.
Enacted
Va.
1011-Watkins
A d m i s s i b i l i t y of
Passed "by House of Representatives pending in Senate Judiciary Committee
No action
Confessions
*H.R. 8 5 2 1 - A l e x a n d e r
No action
*II.R. 8 5 9 6 - C r a m e r
No action
*H.R. 8 6 0 0 - K e a t i n g
No action
*H.R. 8 6 2 4 - P o f f
No action
*S.
No action
2970-Eastland
- 38 -
STATUS
BILL
IV.
PASSPORTS
( H.R. 8 3 3 9 ‫ ־‬H i e s t a n d
(S.2416-Cotton, Stennis
( i d e n t i c a l with Wright
Commission B i l l )
No a c t i o n
H.R. 5 6 1 2 - W a l t e r
No a c t i o n
H.R.
No a c t i o n
*S.
8655‫־‬Walter
No a c t i o n
2770-Fulbright
*S. 3344-Hennings a n d o t h e r s
V.
No a c t i o n
OBSCENITY
A•
Substantive
Bills
H e a r i n g s h e l d b y Subcommittee of
House J u d i c i a r y Committee on many
of t h e s e b i l l s i n J a n u a r y , 1 9 5 8 j
ILR. 6239 ( C e l l e r ) r e p o r t e d b y
Committee, w i t h amendments, on
A p r i l 1 7 , 1958 (House R e p o r t , No.
1614)
(*H.R. 3663-Dowdy
(*H.R. 1 0 3 5 3 - P o f f
(*H.R. 10581-Mbulder
(*Ii.R.
(*H.R.
III9O-Holland
11361-Fulton
(1I.R. 3 0 3 3 - D e r o u n i a n
(II.R. 3498-Nimtz
B»
Venue of O b s c e n i t y P r o s e c u t i o n s
*H.R. 2542-Dowdy
*H.R. 6 2 3 9 - C e l l e r
*H.R. 7 8 2 9 - D e r o u n i a n
*II.R. 10582-Moulde r
*II.R. 10873-Reuss
*H.R.11185-Cramer
*S. 2 3 0 7 - D i r k s e n
VI.
A.
JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT AND
TENURE OF ITS JUSTICES
J u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e C o u r t
* H . J . Res.
476-Rogers
*H.J. Res.
395-Sikes
No a c t i o n h a s b e e n t a k e n on a n y of
the b i l l s in t h i s section
- 39
BILL
STATUS
*II. J . R e s . 4 5 8 - W i l l i a m s
*II.R.
175-Forrester
*II.R. 4 6 3 - S m i t h ,
B.
C.
Ho a c t i o n h a s b e e n t a k e n on a n y o f
the b i l l s in this section.
Miss.
*II.R.
692-IIuddleston
*II.R.
1228-Rivers
*H.R.
2020-Matthews
*H.R.
10775-Colmer
Method of A p p o i n t i n g J u s t i c e s
* H . J . Res.
438-Fisher
* H . J . Res.
406-Burdick
Term of O f f i c e of Supreme C o u r t
Justices
*11. J . R e s . 3 8 8 - S m i t h , Wise
*H. J . Res. 403-Abernathy
*11. J . R e s . 4 0 7 - W h i t t e n
*H. J . Res. 415-Herlong
* S . J . Res. 9-Long
* S . J . Res. 114-Eastland
- 40 -