Document text
_..,.'.._._-_ - ' - ~ - -~_...__-1-.-..¢._.. - ..-:., ~ . ,__ . . . . __.___._.H...._.___. ,=.._.__.-*____P_92_=:~_,»:::_....._:._._....&_¢_ _,_,__ .4- _ __u__ . __ .. .-_1§;_.., ,_ _ ._._ __ -_ _ _- . .- _ __ ,_ _ ., __ "' -~ 92= "----+92.-Ir-:-.-92-u- --.';_.-....~»:-_'92.._g4 '.'- .',;;;_-_'--_;_;,_-___- -!_=,_
92
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVE-STIGATION
, -v
W . ..ji-- *7"
¢ .FILE. DESCRIPIION
BUREAU FILE
SU BJ ECT S -mgrcmc C<>u...»1-
Fl L E N 0.- ..é<9-r<> ¢*<>P§i_ ...'9_@~. r? Q %
e.,[email protected]_ 3L L iii. 1 J71 i 1 jil I i
f" 7' i i i 7 if 7 7 fl _' i if _ i ' ' i if i _'*' H
.{
5'-I
N '1.0-.,-._/.,~
T §
. 1:,
"i F;
' .-_"¬'.
_.§=':
___L
_,__;
-L-:. 1 =
-92_I'P92. . ?-I
"=!'~: ..'I - 2-:-
»..-I t_-_ -Y 7.. I-_
_; -12.»: .
.-_ '
_.: .¢-a92...:
2-:- -I
., H.,a,¬In __ O»-' ' :'.vi P1 ¢§;;;;§..;é/ ;
gr £1
TM Attorney General "I7 2-
George Cochran Daub = l -ll f.rl92~M,
Assistant Attornay Gcnoral llunj;---Clvll Bl-vlslon -- 31*" H' " " -"'_ Miss Gandb--
- ' l .- " - Q . ,1-1!/5! " :;
. F ,, L__-QI believe you an? bu Intern: . stag A
lunar from Iy good ir end, Frank
thn lultlnorc I-Ir with lllpO¢t tIn the Sonata dulrad to nduu an of tinrecent "fru-when] 119" decisions air!
In coral» ctitlcnl Iron.loader of "
:1 laglilltlon _
-r
cc. Hr.°'Valsh H
Ht. lankin ' "'1; Hr. Anderson ' 8"5; Hr. l'loow¢r|/
§-
_ .< . -
a - ' >
A 11'92
' 1|K Vu n.
R£c- 31 § -~n 1 ,, L P}_.'l,'Z52.£§."_._;2 7_.._-Fgi?-:{i.*
f ' L- l " zammr 2019sa =" 1"
V D h _U___'__. ii H-» 1
. Q;-392'>@ -x9 - 22! $$C» ,D92 . . _ l
. "N 1 _M ll 9- am92{ I Hr. W 3 2 U1!
--~_'_-SH-"'-_
if;i 92- .§9292 7-1" - Q ' ~ "" -'
+92'I*A*|"21¬5¢::3@
--
3
-
>.
I ___"' '* ' Q 92./
0'J ';;;-;;,'_°;;;,___ Os:n.w|u.|AMs. Games 8. Srmsou
um A 0 ~'Fonumn.v inc»-us JANHl92.oIlI I Wituaulr
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
M» M-~-=-<>~ B»-»=~~= ...::~.:.'%".:t::.:.':f;...,Baumone z. MD. ""'"'"' W "1 ' ""I-LIAM Ill
Ionllrr Ivmoou
D>J'InQn"I L llbloll
J. Milan Hifuvnou-en t u-sci i
Inhbnu. C. COLIIIAILJI
DAVID $00 '
Y.-anal I JAIIBOI. IApril 23, 1958 '
11'
Honorable George Cochran Doub
Assistant U.S. Attorney General
Washington, D. C.
Dear George:
I am writing you because the fight against communism
is approaching a crisis. As you know, I first became articu-
late on the subject in my 1948 address to the Maryland Bar As-
sociation, when I was greatly concerned with the attitude of
the then majority of the Stone Court in decisions which
brought vigorous dissents from Chief Justice Stone, Justice
Roberts, and usually Justices Reed or Frankfurter!. That
effort resulted in my appointment to head the Maryland Com-
mission, which proposed a moderate law, upheld by the Supreme
Court on the loyalty end, and now of doubtful validity on the
criminal end because of the Nelson case a law which incidently
prevailed by an almost three to one popular referendum. I had
been much encouraged by the attitude of the Vinson Court in
the cases involving state laws and in Qgnnis;
while
must confess asthe anti-subversive fight is non-partisan, 1
an enthusiastic Republican I was greatly shocked
that the Nelson and the later "Red Monday decisions were made
possible by appointments of the present administration. I know
your difficulties, and I am not at all criticizing the Attorney
neneral. -But, whaceyer the history, the fact is that the Depart-
ment of Justice and the states fight against communism has been
paralyzed by this series of decisions. As I ointed out in myJanuary, 1956, article in the A.B.A. Journal {written prior to *
Red Monday, in which the decisions on that day were incorporated
in a revision before it was finally published!, the Court has
plainly put itself in opposition to the efforts of both Congress
and the Executive, as well as the states, in their efforts to
protect our internal security. There is no doubt in the certior-
continue to emasculate all efforts to control subversion intern-
ally, while ironically enough we are spending billions in the
external fight, unless the Supreme Court changes its attitude.sries that have heen granted that these decisions are going to
92
~. g ENCLOSURE
» ~ A2. >24? s'- /0 8l
i
,.
E1k"-. 92 h
U K1
lg"
Honorable George Cochran Doub April 23, I956
1 an wholly sympathetic, therefore, with all reasonable efforts
-of Congress to correct such decisions for the future, with the
earnest hope that the attitude of the Supreme Court will change
if Congress acts promptly. Moreover, I am perfectly willing
to accept efforts by Congress, even if I don't agree with the
exact method, to overcome the action oi the Supreme Cturt,
which clearly falls within Judge Hand's definition of legis-
lative action. Surely,gru-respect is to be given under our
form of government to Congress, to which the Constitution has
delegated legislative power, The Executive and Judiciary
should accord it real and not pretended res ect, particularlyin a field where legislative and executive %not the Judiciary!
have together the public responsibility for the national secur-
ity. Faced with the fact that the Supreme Court quite obviously
minimizes the danger of internal subversion and does not under-
stand it,and assuming the sincerity of Messrs. Brownell, Rogers
and Hoover in their efforts to control subversion, it seems to
follow in this context - that efforts of Congress to remove the
Judicial roadblock should he received favorably. l would cer-
tainly go a long way before opposing such legislation, even
though each one of us would have a little different idea on
how it should be framed.
Of course, in testifying before the Judiciary Commit-
tee, we naturally suggest our own viewpoint. As a conservative,
I happen to be against the original Jenner approach attacking
the entire problem from the standpoint of appellate jurisdiction
I did not doubt the constitutional power, as I shall point out
hereafter. Even though I am strongly against the decisions in
the five areas covered by the original Jenner Bill, 1 thought
it better to cover as many of them as were reasonably possible
by statutory change and to restrict the Jurisdictional approach
to one er two fields, as I shall point out later. Since I testi
fied, I am delighted to find that the Committee has adopted the
statutory approach except in one field, to be discussed below,
so that most of ny, objections have been obviated, and in my
own view the remainder are w1th1n the aalm of nanu nnnnncnhility ----1 ---v-- v--w -------'- - --_----- - - » - - - - . -wn --1-, w-'1'-I--y--._..._w
by tolerant opponents of the original Bill. I can only discuss
the Bill as I understand it now is drawn or is likely to be .
drawn. I think it will be found that the statutory changes
are readily clasBifiedwithin the admissible territory of a
possible legislative approach, as to which certainly no one
can possibly say in advance that they are plainly unconstitu-
tional. The gnigsberg case I will postpone until last.
v92_.. .
U J
..'3_ '
honorable George Cochran Doub ' April 23, l9po
1. Watkigs. I don't think you can possibly read '
Uatkigs without seeing that while the Chief Justice in his
Op1niOn free-wheeled over the whole field and his dicta are
far reaching, the decision itself was narrowly placed on the
ground of delegation by Congress of its powers to the Judiciary
by 2 U.S.C. §l92. Justice Frankfurter*s concurrence made this
even clearer. What the Court would say if §l92 is amended as
proposed nobody can possibly anticipate. But one thing is
clear - Congress is a coordinate legislative branch, and to
perform its functions must have the power to investigate. It
had, and still has, the right, if it wants, to punish at the
bar of the House for contempt without any delegation to the
Judiciary, and that is recognized in the opinion. The congres-
sional power to legislate in this field depends on its investi-
gatory power. Certainly, Congress has a right to see what the
limits are of the Supreme Court decisions, and BAG best way to
do it is to amend the delegation of power to the Judiciary and
see what happens then. It has the right to know. It may have
to, and could of course, recapture the entire power over con-
tempt. The effort to take back a part of the power is at least
a rational approach, which should, I submit, be treated with
due respect by the administration.
2. Cole. This has been dropped and need not be
discussed in this context. I hope some day, as I suggested
to the Judiciary Committee, that a special court can be set
up to handle quietly, in the interest of the T,0u0,000 employees,
employment questions. The long delays between hearings of var-
ious district courts, Circuit Court of Appeals. Supreme Court,
etc. is, l think, unnecessary and very unfair and militates
against the loyalty program, but since the second section of
the Bill has been dropped entirely there is no use in discuss-
ing anything about it.
M 1
3. §§}s0n." I hope and believe that the Bridges Bill
will be substituted for the Smith-McClellan approach contained
in the present Committee draft. If_this is done, as I believe
it will be, surely it should greatly affect the attitude of
your Department. The Bridges Bill is the same one,under a
different number, that was reported by the Senate Judiciary
Committee favorably before - I think unanimously - shortly
after the Nelson case, but never reached the floor. I have
been urging Senator Butler to seek such a substitution. It
would avoid substantially all objections to that section. I
pointed out as vigorously as I could in my article in the
January, 1958, A.B.A. Journal the errors in the Nelson case
and how it brought the Supreme Court in conflict with the
Legislative and Executive Departments of the Federal Government-
92.. _
._hU Q
Honorable George Cochran Doub April 23, 1958
as well as with the states, and created a fundamental attack
- on our entire conception of a Federal republic - because, among
other things, it ignores the most fundamental right of a state,
its right of self-preservation. I need not repeat my arguments
because the Department of Justice did support the Bill.
it, even
is not p
language
ually it1
H. Yates. I dont know how the Department stands
on Yates. I should think you would enthusiastically welcome
if you might prefer some other language
lite in fgwm hnf fhin in nnr rhc Pinat .. , -tau en...» 1.» slvv vu... LAQIJU
has been used by one department against
has been Presidents in the past, or the
past. So far as the substance is concerned, the
the construction of "organization" is plainly called for. The
balance is, I think correct, or at least represents a rational
approach. There is a lot of law indicating that the clear and
present danger doctrine should not block efforts
national
case had
Judicial
a part of the
ity. I don't
it is utterly
the Judges th
feet, between
reasonable toPerhaps it
time rude
another. Us-
Court in the
correction of
to protect our
security. Certainly, the Vinson Court in the Dennis
no difficulty. No human being can say that it is
plainly unconstitutional, even though some might argue that the
engrafting of the rule on the First Amendment makes it
advocating and inciting. It would
a judicial strait Jacket, or a judge-made verbal
Government can't protect itself against advocacy of its violent
overthrow on any theory that a little revolution or a slight
pregnancy is all right and constitutionally protected.
inal jurisdiction only in certain cases in
matters. Since Marbury v. Madison expressConstitution in fields other than national secur-
believe_it does, even in those fields. But to me
-..l'l'l_. 1.... Q _ _ ..-. l92..- 01-... ---L_s-92- J1-1-1|--0--I--..-. n.-I-92l-L5.1.1.1.] LU Cll5UU i.UL' DHC HUUL-.LC U.L5lvJ.HUL¢.l.UH, IIJLUII
emselves say is almost impossible to grasp in ef-
be utterly un-
say that we are in what Justice Jackson calls such
trap. that the
5 Th-ha lnaunss Knnic-nhna nlnnn tn ha r921nr92,11Q!=:br92, On . ....,,._. -.........,..,. ........_=....,._.-n _ . . . . _ . - - . _ . . _ _ - _ ..... -..
this 1 submit, first, there is ample precedent for the assertion
of a power in Congress to alter appellate Jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court because -
_h _. __ - _V a! T e literal language or the constitution
clearly, in Article II, $22, vests the Supreme Court with orig-
volving international
ly so held, original
Jurisdiction means the right to file in the Supreme Court orig-
inally. The appellate jurisdiction under
entirely a matter for Congress, and there
ing into the clause "with such exceptions
ttions as
questions are involved" or iords to that
some people think that the Jurisdiction should be frozen. AFEBPthe saving clause is
is no excuse for read-
and under such regula-
the Congress shall make" except "where constitutional
effect, ierely because
r-'. U _ U .
-5..
Honorable George Cochran Doub April 23, 1958
all, the constitutional amendment proposed for that purpose -
iIe., the so-called "Butler Amendment - was not passed, and "
there is no Justification for assuming that the Constitution
is amended anyhow merely because some persons think it ought
to have been drawn that way in the first place.!
b! McCardle, a direct authority in the Supreme
Court conceding congressional power to take away the appellate
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, has been cited numerous times
by the Supreme Court and has never been qualified, nor so far
as the Court is concerned has there been any suggestion that
that power is limited to non-constitutional questions. Corwin,in "Constitution of the U. S. of6America", published by the
authority of the Senate pp 014- 15 indicates that there havebeen no exceptions. Nobody reading,the cases cited by him ora dozen other cases which I have found citing HcCardle with
approval can find any qualification of McCardle. Nor does it
make any difference whether one believes the jurisdiction of
the Court is based upon the Storey theory that is derived froo_
the Constitution. or on the theory that the Supreme Court has
no Jurisdiction except under the Judiciary Act, for in any
event, as Corwin concludes, pp 616-617, Congress has plenary
power. In addition to the decisions of the Court, there was
much expert opinion quoted in the record of the hearings before
the Senate affirming the power of Congress, even where consti- e
tutional questions were involved. _For example, Mr. Justice
Roberts, quoted in the record p. B69, which attains particular
significance because he was the leader of the movement which
culminated in the proposed constitutional amendment and whichthe conservative bar then as it seems to me now, perhpg ti
naively supported. The Founding Fathers were more prop e c
than we had supposed. See also Corwin's statement on the Bill,
Record lbs-lob, Dean Manion's quotation from Justice Douglas,
p. 608 and note that opponents of the Bill on the ground ofpo1icy'did not deny power - e.g., Griswold, 35;; Pound, 359;Harris assuming the classification reasonable . gh9i DUKile
some extreme witnesses, such as, I think it was t e . . .witness, tried to argue the point favorably, even such 3 wit-
ness as Angeli, 21 , appearing for the Civil Liberties nion,
conceded power. Certainly, I agree with Judge Hand Bhat Iwould doubt the wisdom of treating the Court as our platonic
guardians. Congress is given the ultimate power to override
the Executive, and under the necessary and proper clause, as
Corwin points out, has organized the Judicial system, adopted
criminal laws and distributed between the courts the Judicial
power. See Corwin, op. cit. 308-310.
c '1
U Q!-~
s-» 92-
Honorable George Cochran Doub April 23, 1958
c! The arguments of the opposition are either
grounded on fallacy or the notion of the witness as to what the
Constitution ought to be, rather than what it is. In the first
category I place the argument from the supremacy clause, which
plainly has to do with which laws are supreme "laws" and not
who shall determine constitutionality. Moreover, general "laws" -
are not made by decisions of courts as between parties to a
cause. Decisions are not general laws, but bind the litigants.
The supremacy clause does not say which court shall have Juris-
diction of what. The distribution of Judicial power is made by
Article III, §2!, and under the necessary and proper clause
Congress has power to distribute it. Corwin p. 310!.
I can't find any other arguments in the second category
that are not in the last analysis based on some theorist's view
of necessity ~ i.e., what ought to be in his opinion!, but not
what gg in the Constitution. These include all those arguments
assuming the question at issue, such as arguments that the Bill
would virtually "amend" the Constitution and "tamper with our
constitutional form of government". How can anybody be impressedby such a plainly circular argument? And yet it is deliberately '<92
made in alleged 'legal" memoranda set forth in the record. Or
how can anybody be impressed from a legal viewpoint by such
arguments as "the Bill would do grievous harm - manifestly a
political argument? Or how can anybody be impressed with argu-
ments against the original Jenner Bill, and presumably against
the substitute, that it embraces several matters, when they are
all related to the "comon defense", which was the principal
reason for the adoption of our Constitution? So, the arguments
implying that because Congress and the Executive are not omnicient,
that the Court must be. Have we forgotten that our constitutional
system and the theory of checks and balances are based on the
knowledge that human fallibility, learned by the cruel lessons
of history? Isn't it slightly naive, even a priori, to believe
s Judicial oligarchy would be immune, after the experience in
communist, criminal and other fields, where the Court has acted,
as Judge Hand points out, as a super-legislature? Isn't it
almost stupid?
Many of the opponents, including of course all of the
left wing witnesses as_well as some Civil Rights enthusiasts,
argue in favor of the decisions criticized. I don't think there
is any doubt about the view of most lawyers being highly criti-
cal of the general tenor of those decisions, even though some
think that one or two could be supported on highly technical
grounds. The view of the conservative bar is perhaps best ex-
pressed in Senator 0'Conor's splendid report last summer to the
American Bar.
I92 ;.
L! Q9
...r.. _
honorable George Cochran Doub April 23, 1958
Qt course, it is not necessary for anybody to agree
that some argument cannot be made against constitutionality -
which indeed the Court will have to settle if and when it is
made. But where a Bill is prima facie constitutional, as it
certainly is in view of the unreversed decisions of the Supreme
Court and of such authoritative commentators as Corwin, it is
hardly subject to administrative objection on that ground.
e d! The Konigsberg case asserts the power of
Congress in an extremely limited field, ehere the States shou
never have been deprived of_jurisdiction in the first place.
It is not subject to the objections which could be made to the
other sections of the original Jenner Bill because one can agree
with most conservative lawyers that the power should be sparingly
exercised, and yet agree, or at least not oppose, its exercise
in such an extremely narrow field as the Koni sber area. The
right to practice law in a state court is if a privilege; !
granted by the state; ! no Federal right is involved; H! no
uniformity is necessary; ! there is appellate jurisdiction
already in state courts, so no chaos could result; ! the Court
never should have intervened in the first place if it had ad-
hered to its doctrine of political restraint in what is a pol-
itical matter, namely,'state policy as to professional standards
required of lawyers practicing before its courts; Y! Renquist,
March 1958 A.B.A. Journal, demonstrates that the Supreme Court
in its anxiety to reverse this case reviewed the facts and tried
it de novo in the Supreme Court. Such an extension of its jur-
isdiction has made every case a due process case. To assert
that state courts cannot be trusted with constitutional questions
is of course to deny the power of Congress under the language of
Article 111, §2!.
The most strongly urged and most persuasive EBZECK on
the other sections of the original Jenner Bill, such as lack of
a coordinating appellate jurisdiction, with chaotic results;
Federal rights instead of state privileges, etc., are not in-
volved in Konigsberg at all. Here we have a simple case of
another last stand of state sovereignty - can the state courts
determine who will be their own officers, or who will have theErivilege of practicing law, without interference by the Federal
overnnentt Surely, in ihis ligited field there is no reason
why Congress should not say the state courts shall have the final
say, even if the wisdom of extending it to other fields should
be doubted - though, as I have said in the first place, I do not
doubt the power. Indeed, the time may well come, if the Court
continues on its present frolic - when the jails will be emptied
of all ordinary criminals convicted under ordinary criminal
state laws having nothing to do with communism, such as Mallory,
_ __ __=~-.=, 4 - ---- _- ~ ~7~~ *92---- V." -r -""7" r ' '*r''""""""
ta
_U_
Honorable George Cochran Doub April 23, 1958
Munn, etc., by doctrinaire extensions of the due process clause,
and when all blocks to communist control are finally removed -
when the assertion of the power by Congress will be essential
to national self-preservation. If the administration should
oppose this Bill because of the inclusion of the escape clause
correction of the Konigsberg case, it will go far to confirm
the assumption by the Court of its power as 8 super-legislature,
so justly criticized by Judge Hand. Here, in my view, we have a
fundamental constitutional clash. Both the Administration and
Congress have seriously sought to meet the menace of communism.
Both have sources of information which have led to their actions,
not available to the Judiciary. They, not the Judiciary, have
the responsibility for defense. The people have bacaed the Ad-
ministration and Congress. Surely, this is no time for minor
legalistic objections to be made to the Bill, as it is now
evolved in a completely different way from the original Jenner
Bill, when it is finally passed. But any such defects are minor
compared to the overriding importance of the Executive and
Congress continuing to cooperate in a field of importance to
national security, as is recognized by the public, was by the
Vinson Court - but is not by'a majority of the present Court,
I don't think.discriminating people will be concerned
by the editorials of such papers as the New York Times, and the
hang-over from the criticisms of the original Jenner Bill. I
must say that, even though agreeing with the objectives, I
thought it an unwise method,at the present time anyhow. Its
casual treatment by the New York Times is pretty ridiculous, as
pointed out by the comment in the National Review of April 12,
195b, and alsothe Saturday Evening Post of April 19, 1958, photo-
states of which are enclosed. But I don't mean to get off on
the original Jenner Bill, or even the Jenner-Butler Bill, be-
cause that is not what is coming from the Committee and it should
not be treated as the same, but should be analyzed on its merits
without that bacxgrdund. It is unfortunate that there is bound
to be a hang-over of that attitude in editorial minds, as il-
lustrated by the vicious attach by the Evening Sun of April 23
and the more restrained criticism of the Morning Sun of April EN.
As to the latter, the inclusion of matters such as theinvestiga-
tion of communism, the leaving of certain areas to states, the
correction of criminal laws, seem as closely related as the
various provisions of the original Internal Security Act and
the Communist Control Act. As to the former, the editor of
course confuses the issue as to lawyers, which is whether the
privilege of-becoming an officer of the state court is to be
left to the state to determine, and the rhetorical question is
based upon the assumption that it must be outrageous not to
b
a _ -_ -
__-
r
-92
--_.-.-_.i...ii*' U <10 h
u~:_,
l;nora"le Geolgt Cochran Daub April 23, 1955
have Federal control over the states. This implies a belief
in a wholly centralized totalitarian Iorm or government, rather
than a Federal republic. So far as congressional investigations
go, it ignores the admission in the Eatgins case of the power oz
Congress itself to puiSh for contempt, }¬ importance of its
investigatory powers, the necessary and proper clause, and even
in its legislative function indicates that there must be judicia
supervision. There might be a debate on these matters, but it
can hardly be settled oy the assumption- invclved in rhetorical
queS.lonS. Because 0? .he undesiraole sweep or tne original
Jenner approach, editorial criticism is falling into the same
error of indiscriminately criticizinp every part of the new
Bill, which is almost completely dissimi;ar.
1 wouldnt have troubled you with such a lengthy dis-
cussion except with th; hope that, in view cl your position
with the Administration, it might to some extent be persuasive
to you and, if so, it may contain ideas which would help you in
any discussions you may have in administration circles, with the
Attorney General, or othersl
Best regards.
.l
- _Slncerely yours,
K
ans B. Ooer
Fh-Q2 : A155
Em°l5' P.S. Note particularly the reference to
Lincoln in the Post editorial.
Fnglut
I
..92
-92_92
_ , __ 92I.l,
I
4I~ 1']
. _-.1 _- ,l .
i _ __ REG-3? __ .
1
.:|p_-1,.
--92-
@-
_' _ . __ D
- ..-.-,.'__
-f.-A-r _ ..c,, __- --.' ' .92. I
--- is
:.
Boimonih .Mo rNnauo '
Pa:-IonaFioann
Tamm " ! 92 I
TraitorClayton _.-- v_/
Tole. Room __
I-lollomcm
Gundy
921'.~.'-.1».-._ I Ra cf Q Ia
.6
Hay 5, 1958
/'7 !:i>;§eZ<5_"/0.?PERSONAL
._,'e"
lwnnttothanhyoulorlendingiome
n copy cl your memorandum of Hay 2, I958, to _ K$1 - 123 the Attorney General with which you transmitted ~a copy cl a letter addressed to you by Ir. Iran! B.Ober, cl Baltimore, and which, I think, given ansuccinct and an eeneible an analysis ea possible oithe iegielation which the Senate Judiciary Committeehas now iavorably considered in connection with Ieodeavoring to correct the situation that has developedan a t cl some recent decisions cl the United
State reme Court.
Ice:-tainly am iniull accord with
e ~ Mr. Ober'e views and only wish that they could receive
gao K. ;
v '
w-' ' IQ
COMM ___ FBI
MAILEQ
AY 281958wider dissemination as they. lpe1L_:__'_'SENSE" to me.
I I 5'-.7 --F
-1
y gomrahie George Cochran Doub
" Alaiatant Attorney General
' U. 8. Dqaartment oi Justice
0 I9292'92El. >_*92_ C-_ .-
u.|" .
1. 1.. i.1 1- #1 ~ -I1-.- P q kt i; 1 .M w n II -I r
MA .. .,._Y_ _- - I r
- Him |9 L 929292 F " J I 1
Q ,
Va-~..- -
flaI
"1 an erijticinl A but cl
cine the me er =>::}}TL&tte:-iihttlelllreilllidlatcriti _' Oolrt
if eeert. Ielue very cerdelpt in do lo,;_1_'hePireq_gtnr in nu toetimow, l.owvvIr,.,,
92 in u§>pi»iu; teuehnieetitieemend jiehyi attain in eaa..I i]{{fi|§i}1-int atI5 '1
nolltggt gin; ggigig igl Qylfgll hie Lei! Imclll-ll lg lQIlLlI- .37.o1'he Director nnehee itrery eieer that the eourte eheuinli do lolnethiu' -- it . - »-<1--. ".--- ' I - <- -~ -. --W »< -~ --; 1.-" . - =- ,:.-.{V _' _:{_A .?__ ,-;_,d_;__ _,,.j§._1l::__ ,- , _ _~M_.,u__..;;:__~_'_ ew;_;P_§ ?_1"a!.:__: _j_--*=,92._34_3§1f. .~. _ Gk} D >,1i_>H»92' .. ~_.92 A --w -' 1 -1'-'1' * " #1,->92 - . ' ' :5-' . 1 .='.»"" 9212' *1 -J. " Q: " ;_.§_:!§{_5:'_ 1; _ 1-:.,, ii,-M. -I T3: ,_ 1". |_-»_-;-,:_ .-J5.
..,__ I Jq}--A _ 1_ _
ruling! eIt:t'eme|ltmedebyatopCo_mIiunllthectk_>mryII|lh.'e_ teetirnony wicémg this eppeare cbpege lite
iqe en! the testimony in its entirety on thin point ie mo»-=
4. . - " 7 -;<.~- - , 7 ..-4: ' -' 1 ..»..92 S" ,- .- »-~§-t;---1.;.;'u...".;iih. .§92_.;i-511' .;.;..;m.".; '5! iii; %§'92n92!n92i4';92_1Ql' may i'3'gg;-81': _ .......- ...._..... .........._......,.... ..... .....,...... ...._ , .... _....,.
the lpreme Court decision of Jim 1'1, 1051, which ordered the ecquitte at
- Ceiilornia Smith Act eubjectmenl retrial oi the remaining D. '1'hie_ tunctio -commented: ._ 'o ¢.g__<27525- V;-_ ,»,f;. "V;»_._J|I»ri, i¢~_a'?:§S:~£M . }'..-~,3'_?_ 3'5: i1~,..' at '- _ _ , '."_ -' ""* the greatell victory the Communist Party in Amer ever received. ' 1This decision will mark e rejuvemtion of the party in America. We've iolt mm
nnaonkgnq In leg In-Q Q1. -peel bl ant d an lend IIntI eatin J nl llil _IIIULIIIIUIBI-I-ll-J3 wnI-3" JGQIQ B II "Gl'92Il Kl T _ :1!-IIO IT WI II? . I _ JT? ' _ _ _. . ' ~ . t . e-~'j; I; IICK llli IQ O__I1mh kill, <»~"~;>tp;¢-;§,,§'_ :i§:_?_r-¢,@;*-~::F";t.; -*5 £3, 4"; 7'~ "é -
3' mounting lucceee of criminal end euwereive'eiemmuhL @pm1u',
.;~,7jij?_-- technicelitiee, and delays;-in the law to deieet the intereetl V . roneider,7* lor example, the vicious hoodlum: who have been unleashed _deept_te the weight of
the evidenceegainet them merely becauee of proc_eilure1_erro|-It i_
.;; .',~_.., -:_ =,,_+:,-_';.¢-_,:.,._§ .,i- ~57; f-. ;':. .--_ i:_,..;- 92'__.;i-'f-#3--'1-." f -H-_,_' *_;_a=.~'.9.~_".:,q§92 Er-:1-Y-R .=~-'1 -l_'§j;§e~'._ it .f"Iu-lier this yeer, one dutmmie§d'P:u I. t,.
United &.etee_Court d Ani, Alletrictr Co&lIia Circuit!V"! 4 '5" 5' "4i' "_".'- 5; 1- .;§_r p;~,I"- =i'~";"i':i .1;-J.-ii:-§=~
i"¢" in momma trend pt paipiii famine lwms MR1 to
.;_tbep:iity, eotieeeme;-1tntvut1:ynorepeteeg:t1uthe'Iew-eb_idin;e.1, =_'j_._lZ. ;~ , r - _--_5§_|~i__*f,F;<_ _ x. -- L, 1 J :|.,;_a -_ ,; ' -_' ; -_ a " =' lb£92......_ _ ""_-t.- % '"- '- Q 9+».Ir. NeaeeouM'A_Y 7 r A t"
E . in Iva." r ',. -. 1.... - - . _~ r - .1: MV bra? wpy
_J_~'~=F I l I
jg? ."
i | _ - -.-Iii I... _ Ihl I . I I. -.| - -ii" Wllirn!
¢
. +,
--
"T
1.
0
"_- nu " '*' -1-==¥k T _='*-M-J *1-_.~.&.-E ; 2-Hana:-A f._-~='-~.,.-_i"::'e:~.*:~;§;-ii *'l'i}¥';,_;,;_, _'__"_,":.
-.1-F§' .':.:;r.=*...£:_:.':" '0 V -n ,1 92
.' V . " " -92
Qce Memorandum é UNITED sumé ¢pmLNn¢N;'
- 1 92
so t I'l:eDt:ector '_ . -- ,. PIM'l'l= "5 3'/5 "H I
0 W ._ i ;@~p-M. ='»~,.~n:.»,.-.~;<-. ' ,...:-;~, J; .l:"?-L3§;92-if? "*:;;».*#"r£l-"4-eJ 4. K n 1% I . ',. __* L "_t§..:' .. I _ I 1; :6 Pi MI a - _,,_}u;_k. Y .__ __3_'.l_:_ 5.; . ;. .__?_V_ _ L1; _ 1~_y%:,_. :*;_r__a*'.,~g"'_s;;:;1,_";_'!I_§§;:i,'_»'.~}ii-. _W _-§;_-_. in-Q 53 I Y. ' ""- :..<¢__ J ' yr y. ':.92_:, 1.-r1,}|.'1§-3 3.5 @ _ , n.~;Z-';t|trs'a¥"';-_3¥. '3; _;I.¢.- H:-1 -.! -E 1'-'i= I;,-1°"
v 4 -.r I i M ~ l ,! ..-'1' - ' L _, t __ '. V _ 7, _ . _.. _ -,=, 1-. F ._ .:v. i i»; -.1 we ¢__-,.92i ,_ U.<-=a'~f»i**-~»"i-92"+-'--4 ? 1~':e=.-e. 112* A-,-~.=:~» -*1'"-.z;"- =-.»- - ~.;-.;-r-*-= *2-=1.~=e-:1-v=*rF*[email protected]*¢: -o»-*.= n?¬ ?7'-L-Z "-" * ' -"i, ' - h .- ' I 3. l i",,.~."_ .--J -of {"3 If; A .¢}f '592':<";;.- 3 av, '13 I;_,......_?,...$t '#*'1r='=e.e_e-r» was wa 3% t e j » L an » A I
. ,3: -4&6"" " perils of r tze-eme Court. ' "ls coeus' uted onl. I848!
1 e um he introduced to um: up m or the lupreme Court in5 -°°"l1Il =l¢I- On pus» p&. Jmner mm "Remember um hsU 9.1;-=9--"E me-. =.-ac 9:.-.:t l- ' i a -c
people hsve used toril legislsve committeets of tkc kviat c-' ia-"pq-icy. _ 5'a inst --,4hem the right things in or right things. Q ¢ 1 The primary bol
t things isgtbe oesap-essionel or lste. =p _ 3!.?' outthefsctssndpatstheminthepehlicrecoaldé, ., Ea FE it; my of tziese i-as G156 it. :1 Tr'ii¬ i price iien *-ivazaiépAh thing em or United States rmncoerthspinsed ss '. *committees mum nu with its decisions m Watkins, asher, anuy, sod 1u1q,11i__
J92
' | et sl. sgeinst Ohio." He slso nude references to the FH in cmmectlm Iith the "i:f:: '
I--1-an-92 Q-I Tneenlrn an-Q1» VFLQQQ 'L¢.:A Ia - .6-A I-_ .._ -hl4._bI-_ V. r_ _| luv-Iv I-IIH vvuvmn In-Q0159. snubs: IIIVU llcuu lsuu-nu nus" Jenn gssuuuem. _ _. _Ef;&¬*.*"Y. - . A . " ;' '. -'.:"" -r7_ ."'
. , E ~. 3* - * * '.
-' * J ~- " III. -- -M-~ ' ~ - 1:I Y - I J I _| 92 ' .~,'n
w-Q2 0
_ I
e
: _ t} =' ;' , _
{tor RECORDED . A, ~
K 16/ JIM 2 assa -
/ -__n .azsuuns yw "--___j
§
-E
5
92-
-4!-
"2
T.~.
wp
i
- J!!!
E
E
,4
-V»-x
,.-n.----.
. -vrr
-92
i*"" 1"" a ' I - ~ -.,.,, :- . ._>:~ ._ 1:. ~. w -.,a I V. I Inga?! V '1;"J' I I 'M{:*_: 1!,; J L? ',l',;":_%~, 9.; - 3}! . , __ Z J A '§ L |_. ._. n - ¢ . .. , I - . _, - _n - -J - ~92 *1»92 - - *M1' - ". '>.- -1. 92_ ,
2 - - . _ 92__92 J
_.¢l>» *'
.t'..?.Z...£3..:. u . ~ L a - .e Q oOice Memorandum - UNITED smrns GOVERNMENT
. ,....m..,... 1-~"= 1%:/§'<§5:n=1 "' " ' - -_, 'J"..L¢- Q '* 1 %*"¬u1,"""1'L;5~§'-a"*"<J:"£ J»:-; ~ "-' ' " ' " ' ' " ""'
.-5 we '"'»'- ~92~i'-:7 "43",?-* -F-.,;",.v-I. -. 2'?" 3?. ." ?"".A .:*;" L '5 !!! - =14 -* .' ' ". ~ , ' 3 -1 .' " - L- -- - ' . : , - ~-'_ 3 . 92 = -. *' '-F .- -'11.-=....~71 - . . - . := :5. »;..-~-.-- i~_;.~ 3-f §>_°'=ii~.-:=1..'-I-»~1¢-.s=92.a;.F5;-i»u:-v':Ii..?5.%.¢ ;.n.'.~";;, ~.»-.."-:£3~:-;":.. J. 92.,__ ,. }.,. Fl? J: it _-3:2, *1 :15 1-. M; _;_e_ <{_§;M|Ig_v>_=92evf~... -5- -,<_1n,-2-1.:--.¢-.2,:1';;_¥ 1."- _ ~ 1- -*-I _
. ii N
-hp.-n--_ _ 921 .'
_-£._...__.;",r;lawv flail!!!-I8-ll, lceetoa-Inner, ljhie, utndellleil|hhdunleaeidreeehvIr.l.l3artu-Ilt!nnelBe!In,Iea-u,/-_*""tlenemoeiieeleeuhrerybdetgdlledvermeleeegieen ;I17 1058. Ir. Plttnee'eeddreeeleaItIltiennle1-elreeatleclellne _ e¢ear_t.. Ir.,Ilttnueenanl:edeeII_e_IeIeIe, Ioebeeu-,Oele, ' '
BeaOold,!etee,lahevlrtlervine,ela.eeeea. Ieehtel"InlieIu-ee 1;-».;.
nee deaidelIIneH,1l blhelearelu-yellatelle an 7+ebeolutedlecretioaglvn enployeelehelntu-eetel "
heUn1te:I8tatu."*h hlereoerlnlele -"
eecretovereatioaiotreenlervlceen éennueticneguleg. _92
nedehehttu-'elotelrean. lied: heleerdtrenhet . I
reeordlngehleperhg hboatcertelamitnry leheIln'1lIalIere_§°veryeea-et."' Ir. Plttneeeaeteehetnte hecaeelletedebove Q,
Iereeaeeehehichthelupremeeartrever elleeeeleienl 1
euurteem-aeilglestooarteafeaverelplhtee. pereoneeereed f
@IQm¢Il¢lI1lDItII.Q0¢il.l[||iIltQl'lIl'l elebanrt
ehohvealelloeieellngbrammuelete. What e;
exhibit evidence etpareonal ineultudeoaaded 1| o 92
qeel11e|l?Iiyll|!ybIMbeDQl1c1tualIi||It&e '
Oommunleteleeqaeetiaeierldez-ninetlcniytheehhe
tbedutyeedponrbllvelglte. "'lIlBl'lllII!lIIlll n
doI1dknoweonelileglhattleCnnnInletoeneplre.q,&t -
IobnIQerIoarer,I>lrecInreheIederelBareue92IIlvelt1p&. .
eetloealaanentlneeubelmerlcenhginhlilhleelleledleenneeltle
decldoaeattheiapreuecourtebichglveaiduloenhrtbtiennnlet "any, eeyieg: 'I"elu:eeregpnerated doneetich-lnclelaehtenetiaeelxg ll -, neklngplneio exploit recent Overt-deelelnae and llgtlyeptlgletl '~m.h;?'.'" ' 02.01: 0' H I I ,b92!I92.I I
/ -M "J4 ' ""'* "'"' "*" * -- V, - "'1'
- . . "~ - I ~ -" ' 7% n ,_ ._,- _ - -- _ 4 -._ . __ P.3 "* : , ~.~'- g * +'92:, _ -' 92_ - 92 .
' H NW *'v*.<"n§r.921~:D
V 191 JUN 20 was
53 2 A m1':1A1»5 ° ° G ~
In the oq1na[__qf a memoraduyn captioned and dated aeabove,ii:e iiehqrelliww|1.¢°;-¢| fog kg -- .;r ,1 -~ 1 .8 wan reviewed and pertinent 1:111! Jam t
§- .
I;@41_.
D-ll {Ran-. ID-SO-51']r ' ,.'M14? -
I--9"_,_:. _ _1.-.-.
0"" 2
.9- - ~1T~
I
4=.
-In-~
4-.
1.-
:
19'
1._:, _ "2
v --92-.<,~ v
I ,
g ~
. ! IL1
L
Q
u
0-
".
fr
M"-0»'-,-2' - '
». '-'=-' - II!
"I" in-The
hsndeddowna
relniit to. - .~ - r x 7.- - _ 4, r p -I q-' ' _ T».;:_ '0 _ '. SHn@d.D@o.E n - ' r' i _r..~ . _1:__ i ,- dil-W
Gahbnh-an-1IIII"ui _
!1=1¢¢!4I=IIlv=1*>
"nu u Qubil an " u " A .
Iursnm¢hmntndw=A-' Cbeluldp , :;¬'3IlI_"I., at aofwotnlhndwu
ilxavotnotltotruiored
United Gina eitlzemhip at
0 forekn-barn Detroit reli-
uculld -ht canon-linz,
unist amliatimu during;
namralizatmn proceedinzs. The
o are Polish-bom Stanislaw:
ilownk, a former state senator.
Rebeca llailmberl. a in-0! 'RIl!1l- ' .7.Woiulewlcz. who
tense inonqscticat Slaqfd _
Denied I Hearing 1' Y1
Denied a _
sen Oozmectl
in: his conviction
shooting of my
1951 robbery In
The lute is new
e.o:iinli.|ugUpbalJ1 " --- '
.;,
-Left standing 1'1!!!-B this
ralini that Oaiiiolnln
tforc-.ea'1txaurei5ldentto
rim the care-othilindllent
or in a Onlitomh. state
tel. The use invol
eW.Oop|uo!I!aI.lu.--.
ram New Study _
ll Custody Ruling
' Idered N Caro $3m3uQ::Eeg[puanon . .
4mndg:F?nd%alI+mr4ecinnns . gpbumime éaavicommd -
ho t%%:;a"céuq _ aug__ _ o.SEE? waqooognt but o Leaner§:§Z££;£QJ:aum._' 7
In Fella China Sell "' ;
we 1... -as .a..a...m.
edit Corporation. irt not the
ii
4 1958' '
I*'92Et!? »u,Lu¢.be.
than under the "
"f I42-li-£Zé&.-/4'
Q.O OD
rdman
_ , ' lmont; "" Nohr '
' Nease
{'7' Parsons
H
tri_..__
ytn__...__.
Tale. com .__.
Hallo n_.__..__M _ _ ,Gandy| ._._..___.
/
" .
Wash. Post and __..
Times Herald
Wash. News _.____.
Wash. StarN. Y. Herali:
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-_i..
American
N. Y. Mirror _i__
N. Y. Daily News _
_ E
iJ -
1
E_*
-1
g _t» - Qi Mmandum - UNITED was eovammaur 1v/ a .T0 =. Hr. A. Rosengod" Q 5 l>ATl= Hay 2?, 1958IIOII * l 92 b " '3 . .+"_ 1*," ,7 -Y ' Nlchclsi1 %.'r~' ' "' -' Q - i:"_:. *1 b Belmont ;'_
. I J mm.1 3»
tti¢ "~, i D @;;r-1%
M COURT HAHE CHECK REQUEST ' mm,- ' -7 Trotter _....,
~ _ . _ _ _ _ -.; , X ., . - 1- .'-I ' -- - 4 -f M " I."'="'._.-. 3- I v I J fr tr» ' M Q Tole. Been ...
of name
Section on 3/26/53, from
Marshal, Supreme Cour e United Soming Form 57 reflects F to be an applicantfor a position of policeman wi he Supreme Court.
Buiiles contain no information re _Memorandum Nichols to Tolson dated 9/3/57, M ""2}LvToleon _._....._
w I
W 7,
reflects that the Director has instructed that no action 7
be taken concerning any requests received from the
Supreme Court until the matter has been presented to
him and he personally rules on the request.~._
REC om-uzmmmxon = I .
That if approved by the Director, the Form 57
be stamped, "No Derogatory Data, by the Name Check
Section, Investigative Division, and returned to the ~
Qfficp or the Marshal, Supreme Court or the United States., ' Sy---¢*'-'--/"71-I/1:1 M g Z,..._,4%,/u,¢..%./;0 a
rn Q, £-
3 * LP.6" S m
r: If "
b7</
1:;
.k'-db.
% /9' Z~ 412- ¢§<¢F/fem;
1.4, _ 'fL..4.¢, .44- In __:_ ~.L tn} J9 »;_kh__ RV 3 WM - I ~..MrT 92_ ._ . - ,_ ' _ *
_ 3 Q 2 , % % "1 % ...u_.%-7 :: ;;.:::::_ ! _7 _ _ é- _ ._- - - 1-. New
OI-E
1'0
3%-_
man__
i
-;ii_i_'_
1Ltz:zEi f!*7r; ;E;:i:;;"":f<§7 ;V_i'!;¬%:J;; §#i::IZ::
"?7 f IE .n£i¢4»4£45¢L3g»1%z% ;¢ZQ . _.__/#1éfA __ _ I h,
r v 7% I 4. in J
% **. '@%-.--rr.
% % 4477 ;?z:?,§z§%D%,§}@':z"@£;;,maé.%g:/Ci?75* 1# gr ¢~.4&~;¢@.=£Qv4 7én- 2é¬,é%7éaw4
4 5£Z:29[i§Z;,,MJh~' -ung Q E
,¢.¢4~¢J .3. g 1%' - I .. me. I:» ,?z,¢.,¢@°.,é7/>m> ,1; % %
-/7 - 7'2 - T5? 11 41 F. "/ ?'? Ill%;;;";. f 4,?22"f Zr "3222,.>,,.<§f,;1 Myg/.Z_..mL;ZZ ..1-ussy"'"~" 1 -<2»
-4.' . -.-. s -92-q-92_-_.a~~ ~ _ .. . 1. _
In
§__
.. .- : ,.
-. - -
1» - -._,92 - '_ YE. ~ ix - '_
.'§, 1' 92 . - _ ,..-- R w
. 1-3
92 ' 4 .' 1 . 1.; N " ' ' 92é iv} .~__j92'~ :5, '-=. - -1.-r" Liz" V;-5*; J-.792 92_ _:.__3i'*1'.:;, .1 -Q.-?':= :2" _5;,~,-=f~ -. =4-". --.¢ "_;;_H,_ !92 92 V; _ .- - .',-.,,,~.,.-*1» -=.|-5» L 1'3»_ 11"
ii.-.vH:"1 ;a92 ; - .>§- ..»--"- --"§92'.. ~J=*'*?"'5ii' ¥~ " . . L ' .11-4 ;--". . ~- '-5-' - .; -1; ' '-~ -'
1| "_¢.q. "'!J'92b "' . ' 1- ~4.,!92;__ '92.
- _. - _ ~ »- ;n _ _ . -, ~=*~»~ - 92 . ,~- . ~. ' ~ . 1,- - -1- - -I -$
x -- _. 92~cu, *;-.-._ - JH"'i92 - K -
92. . 1 ' '
xi 1 - '92' * " 92 .
-->-----~ ,_92--' -hw - _r. ' .~~ L: 92 - "r'~.,,_=.; I»
_ . ; _
. ~92 IE. _ Jun-.---*:92-_-J H
g ,._ _§._- ~., 1 92._' P--N-- ., '5-----V .r~- I:. -, _¢3
.."92_.
My I '1 "J_ P-£: I
I
-,= .1 -
_!. :~ ¢""~
.4. ..,_._
92
3-.-ul-¢ -1 ;-
II.b v
K
J-y..h..'92i "'~92}
~ . :. :-"lnn - - » L L- -1
-Qp ._: '__" ~-
F ;.,..
~~ ,J».~.»@»¢ »~~» -n . _LI: WI" J
.- L.'-;92 ,;,"~.pI1;. . i » i ' .0 _i Iv ..>.o ¢ $1. . B P $
- * "' ~11*92. " "- L; ?=»**- I l .. f V1 Jk_m .
./.3-w~<"".-~m~;~--.h ./~J'- ~.. J .' i NA
I
92
1 9' yd "_-
r
c _..__ L. .15. .. .i _5,; ;_S,. ;§;....n
l'_ Kn
Q15» ¢ 92
92 ¥:»»*_ ~. -92 #1: ....¢.,"1. M -. .2 -.._1-<- ._.~ __ f"'~!'-
?I __, 92 - ,, ..
.;_..:__;-¬.,,_.._},-I,_ .. ,
>-
~'92.. v= 1. 92. " ~ - '-Q '-+-r- 1.,
921 ha
x -92
""'§ ' -up-,.*- - . ,3 -._ .-
%..__.92.'.- 92, bk. 3;, ...'i'., -V _#../" -~.-
r1_ 92..
9292 9292 I _ 92. -;_._...|-.~ -on
g__i
_ _
...¢
é.--.L.-Q "~ '~
.. i
_- J .
.-1"? -._ ~ av
- .. . .'~_'- ' bubonic-an iIIIIIl|-nb- "i'II-lI- _ _ 92I J.. ~ - u; £1
-'~.... ._ -_ _92
~--1
v.
Q._ -1.. .._.
-n_-- vs"
"dz: 1 M _ ~ .-W
'- .3-.__ . ._ .1
.:.-. if __.a92_92 »__ 5 ~ 5
Q. Q--nu;
s .1 I *1 1: - ~11.» »~cl
---¢----"O .L./92,- 92 -J
. .,"" V_" - I * '
.-
-+- 1-._, l~_£ _.
.. 92- . ,_ . $ 2 M ___ _ " I. _ g w.92..a|_<- ____ , _II ,_'.__: ,__1 __ 3 I J I. _lg 8 4 -
.|
_ ~,__'-.
n-1. .- ¢ --- - -
.. Z % ;92.*_~ 359'» U1 Hill, sr . ' I h
-. s~ ~I: W .4-hr - %92 .i fl/P >*~::_ .3? ,....-I. @'~¢§.' - ,. . **' 92
*1? r 1 . . .- /* §2fi-. ~ 1 ?a38 j W
-~. n ~ ~- . ~... 92._.. " " ~ 3-_.]1
4-1 ' .J|,92
_ 38*- _ .
!__ :- --.1
.1:
._,
I92.. -:92~
'*' 1-'3" "L
_ 1- L
».~" 0
-9
<92
92
, .._:@6-' *-
$'- 1 ;".*.. 1'1
1, .
J>92n9292_ _"5 192.,; -~-a-- 1
4*Y
as _
E 2 " 92. '
5% ._ _ g 0 'ravscY g I
Tr . All your good time wasted
T May 31-58. To bad Senator McCarthy passed awayan .41Z__ I was glad to help _ "
. 7' '
Mr. J. Edgar Hoover p , _ H "
Federal Bureau. Dear Mr Hoover. T- en
Washington n.c. ' - ' V "
We just lately returned £1-om a 6 Months trip to Phoenix Arizona, and I will say -
this talk at place people congregate in, was a 100% for Edgar Hoover. I also was
one in Chicago Tribune May 5. and when it came out, what Supreme Court does
The conversation, why have they done it, for fright because when 5-6 of them
were put on bench they the Senate & Congress questioned them, what they were,
many of them kept quite.
The Conversation was if lthey would let the F. B. I. and Edgar Hoover alone, for
years the Supreme Court was, 0. K. till these new appointments.
The people spoke for F. B. I. they should investigate there doings and why.
-
iI am one of Thousands that believe you and your Office should, be taken apart
. from that group and take care of it your self because the F. B.I really investigateii I new one man, and he says yourpfiice really has work to do. I for one only hope
they keep you and your orgenization and give you 100 more men, now they are free
to hurt the U. S. God Bless all of you and good luck
/ / /2 E Iota B llaireMic gan
o _ .
1'M/ Q1? /L, A .K9 . '==i W
!
é.
?'
g
6;.A,.
-
1_T Q-1A 7
V - I - 5 - _ F;
*;I."I'Y~T *"» ., _'EHIEMI Ill Ii I"! v I-5; "'
NRE ll B?
11-»: T7;
,-.'92 - ff 'T'Y}V . '. __ 1.
aw wumnn mwuns
.92 Jnlpnu thug I-an um-1 ~
nu
Bgpréme mm! _deci31ons_
£r§ed_ 0 I:'0_n_mmnist';
u_ be Iodenl.
Of |hv Un, Ifu
1n_ £|I921_;_|nny midi}. 5.1-:~; .i' '1' tn in employing loophblu.1-I -.."§ 5- 2. J||llli
_' .~ | _ .1 ¢. u 92. E . _-|u| _ V w |;-- H
.. . - _. I I HI. K' Kr M
7"" . 19'." do ! hwm . _ ;92oon'nIej¢'§nl
.. hlgaww
p%~=ar!=.¢.~¢-.r»=m_-1~¢ '1-L»
ludlcinl
mejcrltical Ehlllengu du_e
4:11: mounting iuccenmi
*_ inal and subversive Ale-
nicalitjes, fund dT|_:1ays In
e hwtoiei at the interests.m~::1§w»:.:w=*
_ us: lppr'0p;_'ili_.i0II.I |ubcom-
_ Jam; 16. Re appearedpport pf; 1- request for !u_ s_ r1%1§_th¢ FBI-in cc_|m_ g
1. l}BlI._llr_ _qgin-pvur aiidledernj juries_ce I949had Tpinmed guilty
Wbrdicta against 108 _Commu~
party leaders under ll
_ nspincy mad membership
visions-of the Smith lift
é hich forbids the tucking am;-"advocacy of the forcible 'oqe1-fthrow u'f_the Ibvernment. ; i
I Spas 'l'A_rty-.I.:j'u_ve_aa0'nmu sub'v% ' nhi 92
¢
ittee -xi 1 hen-3'
Al-I rqsuii .0? é§11 pi'e'1'ne"
Wu ut-
these guilty A. vgtdicts 'Inve-''i - allmid mmd."md.:!°i
_ hlva 11001!
,he toidthe In 1-
"! iiop 'u:§mmu§I_it H I :
llllld DI ". .zn¢U1- I
an%lY%|||I:H ml.4 -. w nsmaga *
,- -_. ,'+, 3' '.__.g; A-.- 3
__ 13.14. ..,_:-.,,., .9; ;_ .- an Incl Q . -- .
-I1: Ina. .. ' I~=-£ U .-' V E
B:
1.? high, .. ., _:
- 57????--2
,--1 yru92:t'| ~--J
|.>- -|--
FRIDGE
Q» P tY' *?*°*F92"'..v::Ee.;"?1:'T@uf.:;e;mnwk:i
Ham» ufllhepai ,,?={m,L. . H
ll---Hie, du_.m.nuQdI, I. _.
Hoovex;_ Il.e've,lo¢t sum
'1-nnlu an 1G871! Ul-
miii an _%and-r;*1l~i&.'.1
IaH»__,¥~ 4» Lwt
¢»
w-.
*1
492- |
¥-
1
i .
- p
' '-t~. .
cu
I w -4
" '5
. r-1-", .,.
. '5q..
e ' ii
71".
92-1.;
FI _ .
. ,
Ii'_-
1f PIOi,-r t -r ~ "MM-.K .;. . . _ '- _ - , , .- ._._ .. ,-.
; -'." -' "1 - -2» '
- .. - v§<'. : , rP e*"92 "I_l;-= i::11"|9||e5"r'_ -J " 1*.
I. "I - i_ A -,_,.:.-, ;..&' V.-J
..¢v,=r¥.wI.1lI fife-11» or
the widespread clamor
in railed whenever our
ornméot attempts to"- -1
Q Hoovenquotedluatice John
Boll Ir, of the Pennsyl-
__ Supreme court, inn re-
t dissenting opinion, as ex-
in; common oense real-r
The brutal crime _wave,
ch is sweeping and appal-,
3 our country can be halted
-3 ii the eourt.=. -stop e.-.1;
rs, Communists, and crinh
__ on technicalities made oi
L _-_ oqver -_ not comment,
- nirectly on legislation report-£511 last week by the Senate ju-
diciary committee which is lstrtmgely silent when anotherdesigned to overcome the ef-fects of Supreme court deci-
Yllons in mt_i~co@i1_.nL|_=t
{He said the judiciary must re-
flllin independent and never;
e-come a mere nibber
F-Itilllp for other hnnchea of"the government", " - t destructionie-maybe
P Bil r.- ~ -
»Lm?o§"§}'°1§§r'$°§§T§*_ Court Justice seq" iroedom imbue"
t"iIII_¢e. tho dye
d, 18 due to the accuser
cept :5 Ilirllilali. strain til! t itIlrrowed down to_',,| ll-
Inent." ' 92" g and stop ireeing mu:-;i Decrlei Pseudo liberalism
5 aw." " . " " I but liberal, com-l1uesto_oat-- Certain omnia_ e"
hypocriticollyheromm pfrom their t
theyeeehmdimreditg, _-
eons who abhor lommnnts" when he'wrote: - fend communism. They claim
to be anti-communist but theylhunch attack: lglinet
I 1- ..._:|. ,..L-._---1--il -92 -_T-U WU L92lll-llll-IU-'I-l-Ql|_- -' " ' Q
<Fgressional legislation designed
" Sldly,1tiee cult of the.pseu-
tio liberal, which is
about in the pinkftlhtédi at-
Imnephere pprlotic irre-
qionslbilitylnd remains,
nation such es Hungary is pil-o
leged, plundered, and xe-
ducedtc ei_rtue1 gridnm py
barbaric communism. .. _ ,_ 7
V v_er3 pseudo liber_a1_'1nthis country nhould loolgsi
uide his heart and ve
»n1-iniini uporithe very that pefmits him to enjoy
e 5-'R1:"l1'li, nadir cover II 1*
" peace front," has stepped up
its lpyingl ieffottl nil the;
United States, Hoover aaid. He,
cited the recent conviction oi
Rudolf I. Abel, a soviet agent
-- Growing nee Front Peril twee operlted n ehotosrlphiv
. Hoover said the cotnmnniat
~92==~"|iiW in the ":u'r|ite.i= 3?- B8, despite nL!§ II.lC_UOIi in.~- P111? mombe p. continues
lint tulletrength in in vicious.
_-ebebind the aoeuea ope:-ations
who have resigned fromstudio inBrooki¥n- " ,9 92
'1: a-.=::t§.-..-: "'...i: -,-.e.*.t-r
icuiariy -there Iredome $ eep-Type» um outthe matter of soviet ugeggeis {thing of le P181." If
¢qnme'nted- ll__o_ccurredto the Gommunist party, .p¢;g1d_iir|i95?. iio1eover,"me'oe icii
trials fiwhich add cl -
_ The danger.-of eonununist promise. classied inform:/irontn. orlnignggg gym; time defeat the very lco oo6peretb_:Lw1hen' ceded. '. I '
gale: secret pin "" mst_ leader- pose for yuan-the wvibll, -chip which enlist well-mean-~ statutes ere "9'._'td' ,IV¢"-': Lc,c§_7' 8or ,
e
-1;;
r
5!.-
0
' 5
or__H_
.-er,,
#4;
11__
eta
-o
- Q _' :_-j_1'_ nu r_
. " _! a, -"f'""'-W 1 . t '1'
u
Ire -- 1
4 92
' O
R§§'Tl.,r92 ..:i=*""1 4
L_ I June 9, 1958
,5?
K
,... in
. 1
5
_?
'11.?!
>1:,_, ..._ id_#Bellaire, Michigan .»92-._.________,,_....,..... Y
1>==r
Your letter dated May 31, 1958, with enclosure,
has been received, and I want to thank you sincerely for your
kind message and the clipping you made available.
It is reassuring to know that we have your support,
and it is my hope that our performance oi duty will continue to
merit your esteem.
Sincerely yours,
1 1. Edw 11°°1°=¢;
NOTE: Correspondent is not identifiable in Bufiles. Search not limited!
H1" M
. ._,.~q.
1 -~.'=n
.71-sl. I:Oit Memmndum - UNITED s'r_]Es GOVERNMENT
c-'-"-
T0 -4' Rosen ; DATE: June 16, 1956
mm Z//v /0// Q@£:':::;;_ Bourdmon _
Belmont i
ri /1 L-/IO I Mohr _T
arson/ H VL_
s m _i_
Trotter ____
Neclse__?
Talc. Room _
Hnnnmnncusps:
i§§§{J§ __" _~47
LLI
s jec : of name
tion on June 13 1958 frola
/2
U, mMarshal, Supreme liourt or the United States.| 6/ Form 57 reflect to be an applicant 1lo:l_a position oi_part-time Supreme Court; 1' '
La Q; Bufiles contain no iniormation re-
Meroranemm Hichols to Tolson dated 9/'3/5? reflects
that the Director has instructed that no action be taken
concerning any requests received from the Supreme Court untilthe matter has been presented to him and he personally rules
on the request.
RHJOPMENDATION:
That if approved by the Director, the Form 57 be 2Istamped "No Derogatory Data? by the Heme .1heok Section,Investigative Division, and returned to the Office of theMarshal, Supreme Court of the United States. - ,..¢ G-M
,1-4/i/- $-rv~"[""m9"} 4-/7-sf92/ yew W
# /,9, 55%;; _ ., K/* it» ,1 S,/92? 1' Iv '/ ' u aJUN18I953
-
1
l
. xi
Q
. __;__
.. .
Z3.
Jr-1
I
'.>
7'! 1
A--.a~
4:
2
é_t___,_,_..._-__.__..___________....-......._...-_-_'_.. e V » . eII IP. 4 4- . - I
ITAIIIIIII III: ID. ll . 92 ,' fl 92 .Oit {ll/Iemonmdum - uurrsn s'rA-,ts GOVERNMENT
T° = Mr. Ne££,92@¬'92]"" DH! 5-39- 58
4 Tlhun /
ol
"Nine Men Against America" §::f;-
By Mn _ GOI'd0l1 . Trotter ._.._3 , r c Nause_._3 I " - Tole. Room _
Hollomun _
oguav 7! -
!u/
.
,3»IIOM :
IUIJICI:
..92 /
yThe attached book by Rosalie M.3l{§-orden was iorws.r¢.1ed tothe Bureau by the Devin-Adair cumpuuf of New York City without
cover letter. This book is subcaptioned "The Supreme Court andIttgttack on American Liberties" and is a strong attack against
th ___i3:_nreme Court. It is quite probable that any reply might be
usedasan endorseme nt and it is not felt that acknowledgement is in
order. ,-
!Miss C-or-don Le identied as the leng-tinle assistant of /
John T. Flynn, the American Firster who we have, of course, always
dealt with most circumspectly. There are several references to the
Bureau and Crime Records will review these for the sake of accuracy.
I/r ere
Enclosure ' _ <e,_;.__
-_,_S__. I
» I3]-3NCLOSU i. A !, _ 92| W ,
-92 x® 8 JUN 2° 1958
92 , 92
:»" u'/
66 JUN25195B1/
4-750 Rev. 4-I7-85!
C]
II]
B
1:1XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
FEDERAL BUREIAU DF IIIVESTIGATHIN
FDIPA DELETED PHGE INFDRLMTION SHEET
Pagetsl withheld entirely at this location in the file. One or more of the following statements, where
indicated, explain this deletion.
Deleted under exemptiontsl _ __ _ with no segregahle
material available for release to you.
Information pertained only to a third party with no reference to you or the subject of your request.
infonnation peained only to a third party. Your name is listed in the title only.
Documents originated with another Government agency/ ies!. These documents were referred to that
agency ies! for review and direct response to you.
Pages contain information furnished by another Government agency ies!. You will be advised by the FBI as
to the releasability of this information following our consultation with the other agencyes!.
Pagetsl withheld for the following reasontslz
n For your information _Jj;'7-924'£,.@$'11~Ll- L» A-4 5 ée» /6»I I I I r 1-I'D
74
XXXVV V
XXXXXX
XXXXXXkm/la ' ' " if' - 1 7 ,, 92_- . _ _. fy .-:5, . 7 . E ' "~" "*" Ti El 5" F '1' "%~ e A;-> 1» £1 _ ate; E 92,r~!PL-Q /RA? e .-I21-.t.-r.-»_:"d Q/5-..: ... __ ' -_-; ; ~ _ I; -1 Rn
The following number is to be used for retleience re rding the ages: 5? ""* 'eela 7 95> /751 or?/1 C/es./.¢.».e.- it
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxg DELETED PAGEXS! §no DUPLICATION FEE X
x FOR THIS PAGE x
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
92
, - _.._.. Ma.-_.=_-_-¢_ *~ - ._~ ___ i--._,-____ . ..._._.,_ .a_._. ,_ ______ ~
W"" '"""" fr - '92 'Oi? Mfmammdum - UNITED sr./sols G_0VERNMENT'1'° = m92'rn= June lé, 1958
.... . M. my
llcmlmyscwgf "NINE MEN A T A.MER.lCA"9292v_ BY ROSALIE T. anon T3322.fa-92i i 1 92 / . ;' 1 /' Clayton _i_
i . Toll. Boom __
11 , I-lollomcn ____
/ G dr __i
Above-captioned_Qgk has s_1_1btitle, "_'1he;§.;pr§_g;e__QourtSYNOPSIS: . _"" """"
/ and Its Attack on Liberties. " Thesis of book is that recent /3 -'
""IiberaI"'HFcTsTons prem_e_ Qoiirl have been handed down by politicians /'
rather than jurists m 7§¥§ oi present court lack judicial 1 ._-/background and experience. Gordon also claims that many oi Supreme //'
Court decisions made with an eye to "minority" votes and have in fact
xiisurped the legislative functions oi government and accordingly menaced
our mdamental liberties. Gordon discusses various Justices on Supreme
Court and claims court has been "packed. " Claims court has conrméd
decline during Eisenhower administration. Denounces recent decisions as
putting central government directly into public school systems of the Nation.
- Also asserts that Warren Supreme Court has struck down practically every -
W-J bulwark Nation possesses against communist conspiracy. "In doing so, it continued to wipe out state lines and actually to leave the sovereign states
7 helpless in the face of subversion. " Gordon identied as Research
Assistant for 25 years to John T. Flynn. Flynn is veteran writer and£1/_,! lecturer on anti-communist topics. The Director and FBI mentioned
,, aw number of times. Nothing derogatory. .
nEcoMMEnpA'r1oN= .
None. For information.i obi ,Enclosure- Y 1 if f ,i 92§" M @=+s~Zr»~//5
U 92 F953I?»@";,, We ----.._..5,
..»6 6 JUN *2'§ié$a I ca
Q}
a
K
Y1_
. ~_
at
»;
._.._-
TUI. ' @7-
1%
.392 --A
______________ _, , L -. 4.1.. -. H __ J - _1-'1'*!*'T""'-"" ' _ . " _____=___:__i_____7 __,_,__:_;.__'._..;- --- '-'-1" ' i _ _ ,, __ ,§__ __, _:_»=l-T--={~ F-s__-I-1."?-< -- " "'_r""" 4"/"r J" 7 "V" _ 7 T v . , -eQ£;4-_-;-1-P5?-P?*T'§75 5 ' _ i _ _-_=:=-_¬.-*_<f -=-- . - 1 l__, 2-: 51:5. 1. é , _ M- 1; _ ___ _ ¥ __£->_- »>;,-=_-5.0' a
1
1; 3
M. A. Jones to Mr. Nease Memorandum
DETAILS: ,i-iii
Author:
The above-captioned book, published by the Devin - Adair Company
New York, is subtitled "The Supreme Court and Its Attack on American Liberties.
The dust cover describes Gordon as a Research Assistant to John T. Flynn, for
25 years. _Flynn is identied as a "veteran pamphleteer. " She previously had
written a amlet entitled "Nine Men Against America" of which the above-
captioned book is an expansion. This pamphlet, as well as another written by her
entitled "What's Happened to Our Schools? J have previously come to the attention
of the Bureau. Bules that is a m
3 _
1 I- .bl? Theme of Book: '
The theme oi: "Nine Men Against America" is set forth in the book:
dust cover in these wordsz" _
"It is the thesis of this book that the recent 'liberal'
decisions of the Supreme Court have been handed down
by politicians rather than jurists; that the members of
the present Court are almost wholly without judicial
background and experience; that llmny of their decisions,
made with an eye to minority votes, have in fact
usurped the legislative function and menaced our
fundamental liberties. '
Itarting with 1937, Miss Gordon shows how the makeup
oi the Court has gradually but noticeably been changing.
She shows how and why the Court has been packed, and
the shocking results that have followed. She discusses
the further decline oi the Court during the Eisenhower
administration. The present Court, she says, is uisurping
the function oi Congress by passing laws rather than
interpreting them. Hopefully, however, Miss Gordon
_ _ _ -l£..-.---.._-- L-. -~- -J;-92_ 1:2: 24-IE ;_II92.I9292 Ian! ,1-92_}92g'92l92392 ;9292nQr92r92cIr92rl 1-r92
_ _ .. ..__ !i-_-_- =:___'§_ -- / * _ i - e - _ _n- l=- -7==<3-1-_i'=-<-{i% -<-'=¬" t """_ _ _ L _; -:-_=' -7;»; - J5 _ _ ~ C l_' _-I _=;m<_=-___-:_-:-_:-:-:_-_%;1__:- i*- _ __ _l_-- J _ -_ _- _e__e _
d_L'£'1
ii
:C.
.4.._v-t-
gt
:e:"#§
" .=I.
QI 92 "92
G 3
M. A. Jones to Mr. Nease Memorandum
The book, in fact, very seriously criticizes the Supreme Court, both in regard
to the Justices themselves and the decisions rendered. Some of the typical
comments are set forth below:
"All this and very much more actual assaults on
the liberties oi Americans and on their means oi
protecting themselves against tyranny from within l
and without - has been brought about by a Supreme
Court composed of nine men - nine men against 170
million Americans. " P, 7!
"There is only one legal way in which the Constitution
can be changed by amendment initiated by the sover-
eign states or by the Congress and concurred in by
thgeye fourths oi the states. These nine judges simply
usurped the powers of the states and the people's
representatives and tore to pieces the charter oi
freedom oi the American people. " P. 52-53!
"One decision continued to follow another from the
packed Court, each of them designed to break down
further the constitutional bars against growing
usurpations by the Washington government. The
remaining years of the Roosevelt regime and those
of the Truman Fair Deal saw generally a continuation
oi the same type of Supreme Court appointments and,
with one or two exceptions, the same type oi major
decisions." P, 62!
"But so tar as the Supreme Court's decision in the
segregation cases is concerned, the socialist
revolutionaries in America now have what they want -
the opening wedge for complete congnol oi education
by the central government." P. 89! '-
"TIese were the men - Warren, Minion, Clark, Burton,
Jackson, Douglas, Frankfurter, Reed, and Black - who, on
the 'authority' of a batch of left-wing nobodies, did what no
Congress oi the United States had ever permitted. They put
the hand of the central government directly into the public
school systems of the American states." P. 103!
-3-
t'. '. .-'e.;_. ,1 .I
..-aw.
3,1.
t.-
*4-1}
.-
0-4l92}
" 3 n
M. A. Jones to Mr. Nease Memorandum
"Before we go into the shocking aid which the
justices of the Supreme Court have rendered to
the communist conspiracy in America, it might
is well to take a look behind those black robes at
what are known as the bright young men. '" P, 110!
"In the years following the segregation decision -
and particularly in the last year or two - the Warren
Supreme Court struck down practically every bulwark
we have raised against the communist conspiracy in
America. In doing so, it continued to wipe out state
lines and actually to leave the sovereign states helpless
in the face of subversion." P, 118!
Qlfhus the Warren Court wound up its 1956-195'?
session. In the three years up to and including that
term - three years with Mr. Eisenhower's Chief
Justice at the head of the Court - it issued at least
fteen decisions designed to put the meddling ngers
of the federal politicians further into state affairs,and to break down completely all our dfenses against the
communist conspirators in our midst. P. 130-131!
!l_e1i_tion of FBI and Director:
The FBI and the Director are mentioned a number of times in
the book. None of the references were derogatory, In fact, Gordon attacks
Supreme Court decisions which, in her opinion, handicap the work of the FBI
A copy of "Nine Men Against America" is attached. '
92
s-3f, ',_f-'
-4...
-o
.....u
" _
-
92-9
é;
i . 0
i41:.___..,.- 92I '_- - - _-_ _7 i __ Me .---- 4m ._._-..._._,_ ...___~ __._..-.e_..»..._- .~ W 92--_ v
1- 1 - . _ ~ f_wr~',- __._1 g>=_-}'~I"_._»_- 92 _ A . -.
II .I.P.Iohi'
"FF ' be Conqreeeionel Record
.. t, W
"»e§eelere|eerkebtee1udeIlle1e'icIippQredinlleIeh-qr;hebueeu ' mu. Q-'/,3-5'?
/ Peaee All!-ANN, Gqreeell Ieei, ll! Ieet V11-[lags
eleieredtlelnerlan weljeee-gem;-u ..:h -_
'. . _ -' , 921{t -lulclde Or ».l'V1Vl15-I-P170, Pelri0ll" Irilld by Jeealcg pq..92 I
e neuter of tie Welt Vlrginl Legleletur . Ir . gtgd "'5' 5""!-I P1081180 Know the.tr-utli end th.e tr-uth.wll;1"::ke you beenIlfeeleei contribution to the eeving of the netioe ie to eetnhlleh the truth eieet -y
DI! en ntuetione or ectlvittee in government, echoole, unlone elm-¢|; 3I I22:. ::n !$r Wliilngly, gnome e channel tor Cemmunilt end/erhum" or me u PI0Pl8lI92dl- It we ere etreld, beceuee of intim-* U: nag; ud':;: Wit? Ipl the truth, or, write it under our oen ne1: lo 9'0 -ti or y Q '" M M u °° "°""3' ' " ° l°"'¢"n nu G" ' Ehliizo: Wig: mede theee ethelet coneplretore end their depeecan. u mtud°e tn Wu °- In 3°!» W ililnl ednntnge of our eilence gtveehr 67 Ye ready eucceeefully infiltrated end inuenced Q;-
0:9: elhire end dozneetic leeletlon. Even the Fupreme Court had; Q d h _..._.._.._. -. . _ $1 to the Comnnmllte end detrtment to the rm end Amqigm
F
I .
NOT T92'E.- ORDED
191 JUN 261951:
i-iiii-.
O JUL2 92-35% r
In the origin ol a memorandum _ca]>Uoned and dated aeabove,the ConqreuianalRecord lo: - 1,} - eiarrevlewed and pertinent Meme were _
marked tor the D1rector'e attention. Thin form has been prepared in order that
portione of a copy of the original memorandum may be clipped, mounted, and
placed in appropriate Bureau coee or eublect matter lee.,1 J_¢
.4-
7 M5, .
1
4!
*4.
-- .-4.. _...
. F
_-~ne _:~~1=~,*~* I _ i ' "L;'"r"4f_ _~'_' J _ -~92 1
..'l;Z.Z.i-53.7.2235! G . D ' ,'
Oi? Memorandum UNITED sures oovsnnusm"
TO : The Director DA : é h/j/-3,!
I101! I LP. Hohr
3 .._lmjscr: The Congressional Record 5» Vi {+ v- -5' i"{ M r .._»
, -._ _.._..a..,.....-__ ...-...-..., ~ --A-.-1-1-as-....,_~-n-_ n.m~-n-I-»---I»--'-P-$' A-e
tam
/ Pages A5380-A5384, Congressman Halter, n! New York,
extended his remarks to include an a_r_,_t_i5:_le by Maxveil;"_BrandIen, member of
a prominent New York, rm of attorneys, entitled "Th.o,_Supre1ne Court-Current
Criticism in Perspective" which appeared in the Hay 24, 1858, issue of the
Nation. Hr. Brandwen commented on the attacks against the Supreme Court.
Be stated, in connection with the Jencks decision, "From the cascade of press
romment, one wold have apposed that the Court hid announced a startlingly
revolutionary doctrine. Quite the contrary. It is an old, veil-established rule
of law that a party to any litigation may discredit the testimony of an opposing
Iitness. * ° " In the Jencks case, the Court permitted such examination and
comparison. That is the core of its decision. " The references to the FBI have
been noted. Hr. Brandwen vent on to state "ue Court, at times, undoubtedly
has erred. The Congress, at times, has erred, too. The intelligent judgment
of a future day may correct an erroneous decision of today, but political control
of judicial decisions miiht open the floodgates to manner of evils which could
be corrected only by the greater sacrices of human dignity and even of human
life. History has shown that the Court is concerned with, and is capable oi,cpiécting its own errors and that it has served its historic purpose in pro ctingindividual liberties from overzealous legislators and misguided Executive "
Ric. -'1:/." --.,- / ~
N I T? ORDED
l 191 JUN 2619sa
lIiipn||nelHI|liIli|ui
. /I / A1/.24-__ 4-_» / 1/-/V/~ -
- /52 JUL2 19%. "'°°é"""/C
In the angina; of 5 gjgmqgqndum eopuoned and dated as above.tl:I'Cong1:-zatonalRecord for {Z __ / . - ' was reviewed and pertinent d guard thatmarked for t e Director's attention. This form has been 9199"" e t d andportions of a copy oi the oriqinal memorandum may be ¢l|»9P0d- 1110"" 9 v
placed in appropriate Bureau case or eubl man" H1"-: |~
"' rK
.92
&~
9292
'"/ /4
-92" 4-1
-g
awn-
cqk 11. -.5
""- r-I 1
-I-_
.rZ" D06
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
£, Amer__1ca"'5y Rosalie M.-Gordon, .Jgjygent to the Director _from the Mn mt, M evin-Adair Company, 23-East 26th ,,,_ mesStreet, New York 1§l,,New York.B k ert s t ¬"S e i
i|
i
rUN ITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE92
I _ or 3 1
/'.,__-Mr. Tolson-i..__
Mr. Boardmani.i_
Hr. Beimont/ Hr. HohrA Hr. lease
Hr
HrAttached b en Against - " 's°"~ _
. Rosen_._._____
re
Mr. _C1a_ytqnoo p ain o th __gp_rem Court Tale, a<m______and its attack on American i e ies. Mn Hollow-an
Miss HolmesDirector is mentioned on following /"'55 °°"°'Y
pages: 59, 60, 144 _ W. C. Sullivan ~-' -W9292~v-92».M, _
FBI is mentioned on following pages:925, 76, 77, 108,109, 125, 127, 145, 156
edm
F
l .*{ c3>
,~-,,0»~ A- ~--5-1,E92Y bbV@ $ REG.-713 /..»-/' ' J 7 57- '1--H5
L}/~ -.-. 92
92 "*
23 JUL 1 1958 _ r .gt. 4:41-925?;-//.2, .4 /' ....--.» ~g,,.4;, 4.5:; ¢.,_¢,,l.,;;1; , 4....- .
. ,1 - I
_/,. L
63fJUL5.» 1 1 .5, rfv
@51
9 1'£¬*:'1.-5%. lI*" '.It -:2 /L xiii *
"P1!-11_ '- _3!-f'7I!e ,4 I
3'» /4' Q
: .,_c_$,~
i
-._7'-_|,.,_,,;
-¢._1'
113""-74;. Q . 1.4
_- -.»w_-.-,.A,.,
.-" *-J'92- '
3 "_g.n-- _-
_g:
' _._ _
.-- '.»-v~.J- M
is
z-.. T'L
~924aP'J5.
,.,_,, .--' 0 1 7"
I~
I 92
1
i 92l
92
i
M
P
i
92
92
i
ii
»
Il
8
_. . .._..__._-._.--._,.-----_~_,__..___,_ _____.._...._...-..-_._.._-92.--
-_,_.' _ __;__' 7
4
gdirorial Copy
Wm: 11-12 Couruunms or
The DEVIN-ADAIR Company
25 EAST 26111 Stun, Nzw You: 10, N. Y.
This copy carries with in permission
to quoce in a periodical or ndio re-
view up to 750 words, provided
full credit is given to ride. author.
and pubiisher. Aii other
sions co quote from this book for
my purpose whmonfer mus: be
requested and secured in mixing
I from the pxdplisher.
Phat uni two clipping: or copiu of your review.
PUBLICATION:F
i
- ---qi-_-.-of-.._._.......--__r-. - ... 1.. ._ . w._._.._.__ ._-__-p.,_-~_---~__, _r - _.-._..---.--. 1 __
.-L-l-92
4-750 Rev.4»17-85!
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGRTION
FOIPA DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET
__i_ Pagetsl withheld entirely at this location in the le. One or more of the following statements, where
indicated, explain this deletion.
lj Deleted under exemption s! _ _ _ with no segregable
material available for release to you.
l:l Information pertained only to a third party with no reference to you or the subject of your request.
l:l information pertained only to a third party. Your name is listed in the title only.
l:.l Documents originated with another Government agency ies!. These documents were referred to that
ageneyes! for review and direct response to you,
i_ Pages contain information furnished by another Government agencyes!. You will be advised by the FBI as
to the releasability of this information following our consultation with the other agencyes!.
_.___ Pagetsi withheld for the following reason s!:
or ourinonnaion?_m_'_i4_, 92 _ y_y !/i W _ ff
Q _ L,L ;c,.q _ L/L!/92 pt; -1---..... > IILQA. ¢¬»¢2L¬r~ 1' 1"» J1/;>_ '7 5 fls! The following nurnmr is to be used for reference reeing these pa-es"/ _ we -'..=?f75 55 .-_-1]e , K
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDELETED PAGEXS! §
NO DUPLICATION FEE X
xxxxxx _ x FOR nus PAGE x
XXXXXX xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4-750 Rev. 4-I7-85!
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
FEDERAL BUREMI OF INVESTIGATION
FOIPA DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET
_.____ Pagt-! s! withheld entirely at this location in the le. One or more of the following statements, where
indicated, explain this deletion.
E] Deleted under exemptionts! J _ __ with no segregable
material available for release to you.
E] Information pertained only to a third party with no reference to you or the subject of your request.
I3 Information pertained only to a third party. Your name is listed in the title only.
E] Documents originated with another Go-vernrnent agencyes!. These documents were referred to that
agency ies! for review and direct response to you.
______ Pages contain information furnished by another Government agency ies!. You will be advised by the FBI as
to the releasability of this information following our consultation with the other agency ies!.
..________. Page sI withheld for the following reas0n s!:
For your inl'0|1t1B.ti0nT7?i;;_0 EE ._i.__._1L¢?1;rMt 4»~~<_ lg/1 __ __ _ __ toIf I .. . ,- if .' _ A ~_-{ . .- it 6 » .' 5* 1" E 92... r. ~ 5 LL/Alli- l 1 F? "* '4!/2»/.1 ..% The following number is to be used for reference reging these p es:o ave-1..-it--.=;1.'7F?.~$-;:- LZE7 1: -__.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
DELETED PAGE S! §
no DUPLICATION FEE X
XXXXXX _ X FOR THIS PAGE X
xxxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
_ __ _A_ _"_M_1 Haj _' __ _92_ ___M % I A
éV %1 '_ ikww
If
____ tI. _ . _m _ {J _y!ML_92VI 5
M? !_ I_ i 1 _GH ___92_"_92 Iulb db ?
_ &mW_I mmmwmwuwmmml M
_ Wlwymw N humuhmwmwm WWW
H MM mwmmmmmmmmmmwmmmm_mw_ _ mMmWum_mmM_MmMWmm
aw mmWnmWmMMm_m amm
w m u _m_mMmMm__mmmWmmm'
_ H "m_ _u _wmmm mum lmmwmwmmmwmwmmmmhmmwmmmL
anF __ _
| _' if; __ _ 1 ,_. _ . Wal Tu . _ _ _ W __ p_ D k W _92 _,}_lF 92_ S _|___ I {b_7 _ _
T _' ___ H J_ _'_, I X - D J Dru L m_ L _ E _ P _ |_ __ _ 'up .__ !_ Q V
n L L HwmrnmwrL B Q _ S_ - » B114 _ _92_Jr _ MM mm Mm:Wmwmmmmmwmmwmwmmmmmw mm mmWMmMmmmm%E_ é
Em MM _§ mmwmémmym n _mW§%__ m %
_ _ Q M _ _ mm M mwmm mwmhm _M _ MmuMmm_l :__ _ %L: I b M __ W" :___W_ K u 7 '______m h A _ @%i%@g&w _@&% %m@Mmmmmmwmnhmmmm%wmwm$iuUwbWw* _ m_ w%m_U _ i1M%h%WL A _ Q1 % _w _ L H i
% _ __w___mW_m__%mm _MmE_H_m;____§W~_mWa g MU __ _ k . _ ulji! ' IA __P___._r_ _ _ 1F . ' ____¥ . _ __ , _' ii Ill-III __|_ l L l_A__:_,_ _ _YU ____' _"___'_ I I _ _ _ V _' _ _ V 92 ______ I Us X"1t$"_".__,.J*_! __Pé_rV_$_w am __T ; _ T __§j_M_ _ _ 7 __ __£__f E __ ___;_ ¢_ __%__ ____ _ _ hi %@%YE/3_;@ L:%UjI9292¢L% _ 3?W% W Q MNJJwwN_M . 3 W I W N H? _
w J M ,__ _ " _ l__
CM A kwm i_*_
u %A_*_IW/Wnk w pa _
_ _LJ _
B 1 I I H
__ d_ __M___ _ G? 92_ M
__> _= r_ I _ V _I__ ___h__f__ J '92__J_,2 $ v jw
92_ wx _ J
__; . _ nu 92 __: QI _ S Hm__ __J__ w v__V_ 5' _ ka ___ ,_ _
_92 A I _ :7 _ _ _ _ _ ; |_
w L; f_ ______:____w H _J_ __
____ _ _A_ _ _ _ L _ W J _ t Q H _ 1__ __ i _ ' __M ; __
M {___*_? n_____'_ _ L?__ 1*L _ __ _ Lad _£__!__ _ f8 I _h _h___, __w___I K Eh ____ 7 _ __ __ _ K_ _ _ _ J h_ I
H F! W ___ _ _ _ > _M___ ~ _°L___4c _O_ M i92@&___ _£__E____ ___q_": J_ I ____ _ _ ka _ 92 {__, __ _:_1_ f _ _ _H_____v__h__| ___7___W__|_'___ _ _ gr
, __ k__ __ __"_' L ___W__v_ r_ H H _ _E % A V _ % ; _ $3 BM Ar? J j __H__% 4 _ M hi, k__ __ _ _ _ _ N_ "V _ _ "___ I_". K___ 92_ 4 l
_W W1 _| __ NJ __ __V A hi __W_ ~ V _ in _ V _ _ _ _ _______h &____I__L1 _ F >_ f __H MM M W%__W_mma gk L__;_ _ _J' _ _ __ PH; _'z_____ A_H __92____m_, _ Ihvm m __mnHé__ '_ __h h HI___h_ _ _
WW _ U? W W _ _ A __ A _H___WM$_¬Hh_ _____ _ Mwwwhn A fI 3 92 V _P_ _ tr n_ __ _ _ _d_ ux__'_"_"H_~h h_ _ _92 0 H__ Mr! 92_é4_4_%nR_H_'_
_ _ _H _E,__r _ ~J __ _ ___ ".' V _ i :2 _ myV j __ n _ j A _ _ _. W___n____4 ___ __ I H____ _?__mN__A amwnw ___ __ _ _ A F T. _ ' _ _ w'__92_ _Kr i_ 1' _ _ ___ M at W Q- Q*
_x_ _ W __ ' _ __ K N 3 __V_ __ _ hm _ _ "n__H__L__ _H _ 1 |_ _J_ _ 1' __
__ _l _ I 92 _ _ P_ I_ _ r _, _1_ _vj_ _____ v 92 _r A_ _ __ W _ i __92_ _ _ __ H in _! i I rm % i __m_v_______E____ __°m___t_Am'mMW_mmm
xv _ _"_ ml haw_ __ _ J M M%WWM_*uW" m__ _r 92__ N __ 1 J __ _! am. __ __| ___:__ __h_ _ Hm_m_W___$692 ,_._lL|£ U_ > 92___ mt _ z _ I
I _._H __ _ L _ __, _ ______
H "__ _ u 7- __H92_ XI :92V New M _. __ _ /_:_T,y f __ __ H _"__h __ H _ _ I
J; __ A____ __ ' _
J '__ um _ H A x _ _ _tn?J. ___Lh ___ _ ,_ . ____1M_m _a:___92____ ___h_ M_fh|______: _ __%? ____ N 5 N F __Mh
Y _ _ _ 1 _ _aM_""'__ _ H_M_V __ U __'___n*V _*__ _'____H, _i"_~____.__ |______M__ v
Q1 V? V x __&_H? ___ .___'_92 _-_ M; * '__1_ ~_hM___"_ Mm __ 2* WM ______!H§_f_n__ ___ _qMW__/M?n /0 Rm M %S _ 1Y _ V_ bk _ I __ F: __ V _ __1,__ _ _____ ___ " __ 92_ In _ I 92 '____ _' I_ _ _ _ 9 ' J9 '___ Nb z V __ F? V Q_ _, it _ _ _ V _ id: _ A _ __ _ _u_ ;§{ __,_r _n __,_____'_ __ ___ __ P __q 5' _ _ _ _ nap H, __ _rH_ 92 __ _ 1 K ;_ _ _ ___| _ _* _ _! I i _ _I _____H|__'_|_ _ _ __h
_ _ '_ _>
M I 92_
__ __ 1' _ _N____J__fH -_u_92_'_'___w___I__L |_ at _' P Q H M J _ _ ! *_ _
W __t__L ___r _ _ _
|:___ _ _ , _ _ u _ _l_ HP._ _ P ~ T' __ _ , _ *_ 'U_ _
___J_|___92 _ ' r I_ _ V ___ '_ _ J '1 _,_ _, _ _ _ 3. ":4 _ _
Y _ HA _ _ 1 , #1 H _ I __ __ . t J _ _ ___% % 1 M gF _, Aw ' _ , ir U_ |_"_is _ _ ___ h _ ' r _ N? H __ '_ _ J __ WP _ _ _ "I 3_v_____" _ W_ _ 2 _ f ; _ J ,_ II . _ U M1 bu %
} W mm bW3 mm A
L m n_ it _ ______ £A ___ u ____ L __ _ _ _J, _ _ V ' _ $__ __ , . m _" __, _
é_ T MM __ _ _ , _ _ _ __ __ _V _ __ _ _ _ _ '2 __ _ _J lli _ __
A _ W I 2 ;___ _ Mu _ _Z I _ _ m___ __ __ __ _ H Ly _ I! 1 |_ inli_ _ _1 _!_l I I _I H£_k_ _ Fix T _ _ __ _é __ __ _ _ _ '-
1 M dI _F I _ F_ 5%,_ _'__ 1 _ll ._ __ _ __ __-I_ O __ ¥_l_ I! __
up h
!___h Q [ I h___Ntm__b92:m_ A My M__ ___U ___ ___ »m"_%A __V___"L_,h_ _ _ ____D L __ H
. J 9 :__ X_ __| _ __ _|H_ _'____ __ I Iv"_ __ ___ __"___ _ ___ _92I _!_ H!_ 9_ III- S
é ,4 H
_ 0? 92__ _ ___: IF _
h _
r7
-=
I_-_
an '92 *v "
I /792
| -. ' ' ' 92_ V' .' .. - . V- , _ _ -.
'.rej;
I-572 -29-55! - - . -
. K - - .
o0iC6 - unlrnb 518.55%
. ,- .;__._ _ =1'-0 _; "1° n 'l'heDiroctor , , _ ' ..-_ -, _ ;<i""".l-.' '-QAII: -_ ~ -
Q_ _-..' .. __. _. I - .-. ,- -_,y, . . _.;1- P -J-.;"$@~-. ow-it»-"@ 92;f-".'e$"T?11*~'"&,-,;~3»@ I;n.-!- v: "".*-= =?-~.'3.j"?- . _ __,,_ 92.e__ .92,92_ A ._. 3 W .- .5 -_ ___.-.§=-__.-. ~»,_;__i .1; 92- > ..~ ;&;&-_- _H,g>; f1 j___'§~ __ .,_¢ éi_; ,L_,}. ,5;-F ii ._ _ - .. 9-_-q - - ._ . :3. - _ l_.__:_92 -J. I-1-1;-.. __'I_-I ! 5 .-mp ."'-Th Cmlllil Record JR ?tY'~.,»- H _. -";_»"*- 'g~ii»"-1I§7,t"T"-;"' '-7:3. -"*""I§'*-
- - _ ' - 92- . . - 7"" ' J 2 .3 V .7 -~-'- . .." , .. I .t, ' ';--_~>_' ; __..' f Z-»»~7,-mu; " -gt, _ -- - . .- .- ~"."55--,. _ .~_-;..1_'- F . ._"1'K-I -_.--- - .~= ~r: }J_ . :8; -Va _ ~* 7 _ 9?; ;_ -.-_ -E ';: ,5? _-I_ -.. -tau"; |.._ nu J; i _ r _r £*_._ ._ _ , _ I _ ._ . K .. , . .- ' - -#5;-. . ',.' *' _ " .'- ' " " " ' -_ _- .-.-»--.>:'_.~"- - -. _ .- .¢ -,_ .. V ,pt QB; '5-': ;".%~* 1' " - '_-*'§.i¢'=-17*;r3-='-3-="e5§~7-g§"§>§¥F
. - - . .-;.-- - _.- ..'- A "' - ' ' - " >- I.' _ . w . - - - 3 | .- 7' " -. ' .-,3 -1' *_ V I .. . . - 4: . ,. g, |- _ 92 p . . . I _ ,
"#. . ' . - . . . - -,. n .- -. - V . . . - » o~-= =- 1'-.~~ .~ . ' . :31;-.1...-.~~;"'.--.. 11*. . - - -..- - " - -- , '" . ' .-- '- - 2 -* " . 92~ ' .. "' *"- " --~- - 9' I --'. s 'A; ... 1; _ ad :3} 1': 9 mu -,I-.-,'- _ -_;-.'u,__ . _ -lg}-C fi. _...-, RE, _ A -. _ -"".;- -'.' . _ _._|_a- . ,t____.-I-.2 3; _7 n.
A at~15:-"' ggg 1-.{~I -r F >1 * , G1 .. L..--| ;_ 1|. , ~- .1 ~ -... . -A. " ' "---- .- I --" '-4"? " "- i" 41 '1-'- >-92$' .-J ' " 'Q- t M m ?-*-.i1..,-5.-e. :15 re:-.92.:..-. ' d A .... an Ah_erl_n_1 enmlnd .t lie Inks Stock" Ihldl." -Appeared In 1. recent oditicn oi the Cotton Trade .3?" Qwrigdlvm "Tho pom from which we have departed is the ¢<>nI*=1=== vi the W B"*"-* ' * "Jun mu in-we have durum 1°' wutigmdpl m=r_b§ IQ 92;_{_ 1: a glance 1» reviewing the record 0! the United wt
#1,» =*:=-=1.1 torinl lurthar potntl out "There win .
I _ 5 . - _ ' _ . . A 1 , >' . =2
' - --1:-=,= 92 1 .321;-a.§:"~.' ' at I 1'
'7 I U!'1
_;. =. -... d *.- 1V wl V Q. .y_._.§_, ..
' . _ '-..I
Iv _F"L I.
i |éil_'_'&_?_;_¬:g'~';/
. A . 91 JUL 2a1ssa . -I7 -- .im.m1501~:onxc1NAL '-
A A.
BYJUL2 .958
In the ozlqinal i a In morapdurn captioned and dated oeobovehe ConarelnlonalRecord for /L5/.*-n/ wan reviewed and pertinent item: ION
marked for the D ctor'e attention. This tom hon been prepared in order that. v '-n
92
mm Q 4-512 9-20-55! , O
Q 92Oie Memorandum - UNITED smrns GOVERNMENT
i To I The Director I DATI:
- e »_ _ -- 3" - . -. .1Ir . _ .4-. K, _|--'1- J g4 __3;¢_ _ ,_.,:_ _, ,,<' "' 4' _ -non 1 LP. Molar], _, 1. 1;, #5 I ,_ ., _;'%.j -»- . I '. . r *-..' *3 7-Qt-T1 ,_'- 7* 1= 7' E J I 4 =_ ;rrn-1" I.-"-.i-_§:.;_.'-._| . _ 92§r_.§ " - ~'- 1 »' P
4 r_ ,-
.-'
. 34,.
-I-Ii. :-
"-"_;;- < _ Q, - r Q 92---- 92,- - - . , _.
7 ' at .' _ ;- -. 1- " - _ .,_._. _ - ' 'N -.= _ - . .- _.- t-~_ ._ . . ; 1.~ .
, d 'U3J'5¢1= The Conqreenional Record r . - ..-K3. 1,-e._,-ti; ' , . ~ ' er. . . .1 ,4 .2 " _ . 1 ... tA _ ~__ - __-_: -~ _. - ,,_
' * ' - .-'-"'23,, '».' - 2-..~-» _. ». ..¢"-=»- .. "W".92-. -. .92. _. . . .. . _ _ .-- _ ,_ ;- ,-j_-.__ t 1 _ - ,1. . r 92 . _
- . . '; .l' ' 3 ' . -- - _ _ I ' ' - vi T . ' J .-" 0 p .. '23..
;I3eAOI01 luator flnnnoed, D!IoathCerolllI., hwnmnq
ebliltoeetnhlielrreieeolterpretetionpvereingqa
tleeectellcteotdoegrueoeltetehn, polntedoetthttle
bqertlneet ed Iuytice is opposed to tile I11.Pegee A!588- Uugreennn Yenik, D! Ohio, extended its remerke to include KI.
_ .1
1"$4g§gri§l tron thelle! to.-2 1I.lmeeelJel.y11,_J.l58, entitled4 ler grunt ettl|eCourt." Thteedttorlel dee1aIit.hB. 1; at a
/eitun-pqueeyrunmmuruyrv, ma. nummm 92.92
H11 FEETIIQ crléfllle Supreme Cont! because the latterI tleeditorie!";§ettlelouleIudoin¢hpesein¢thieI'1ldi1=t1.Ie"92
In Ilinded down e number of decisions ed Ilicl certain people .
eedoreedtutlnenouee tebedlepurpoeemdweree ieeontent,
ienocredithothelllnaembereelo, eetnetehie¢eeltnl1eeQ,disapprove, particularly u" tie eld at clrll lihertlee. he 1:?
_ votedbrtt." _
,,.._,---_»---'-P" . .7 .-__.- .._».~-.._. --n--a--~' 4
eeI1
I-1
DII
3
er-a
v-
NOT nE§B}"D'-"--
149 gm 31 ma-1!
_L
II
i,
¥
'§r.
.,, 921' 92
A-r92
-1
'.1
1 -
;
_ . 92<
1'
|
3
ix.
E,
~ .. i '
- Vi .
r _ .1 . -rL- - _. .. 92 - - 4 - /
512 '2"-2-$5! O _ * " 1 - A , . _
it? Memorandum - unrrnn stuns eovnnnmnnr
,' _ ¢=i-_--I-*._ »>$;"'T*.."~£- "
m ;_~?;,= 1
. .._ . _, 1, _ -.-! :92 » =- , ,. -- " - I ~'L I ._E_ H _:_ . l V5 : g :3 1. _ . .l_,: 1-r. ._{____ :1.-H J: 1 hr _-W; r 1.1-. 41, r' " - - . :. -1: ." " " ,- g "W <- '= '"*'- :2 - -H .. - . ';-aw ,-w _. .. 1,, +1 9- in " ?.3"=; ~*""#392'-'.""*"" -'1 .'-'.< '- *'-I-:51: Q '7-'11 -P J 3'3 9 "" r I M "1 '~_""15 ~-'.-L. .- 1 "I" 5'" f '7 I g ,_ J_ _, . . » w -
gm. m4:- Tlleoulg ;,...,,,,u,,, ,;;,;,*- H -~ ;_ 137'! bl Interpretation gay ml. I 3 D eltetduh M I d 1;7;-» L; agiifn, Ir_ . . . . . ~ -_. ,7 ~ *5.-.7 .-'1 '-92*' ,d- .-w- :.- 1,. -_ ~ ~.' .~'-" . _ . V-*>¢,.¬_ '-;__-:*:92u_ in-2 L~-_,~._¢_.__- _=,v,;,.£_ , ,3-.4 , . . J -. . _ . --me.-I - - | - ,.- ""* 1~ -12-; +_
i
o Ill!!! Ollllgreeemen Abernethy D! Ileeilllppl, mndodlle rlrh
h°l:!c1odeae;_e£__ erecoeteoeolllel-J-Icy!a 1 1- * I kugpod. t Iii IeewrltteeY. iyliividl-ewreeoe. leldeelellllligggreneoerte docleioeregardingtbeieeueeoeelpeeqorte. RleetiBH"iE' _
edltor1e1"'rhaOourt, mo:-eaves-evnhlhefeceoteerldoonditime iodeyinoie'te momiverip in The 9 a
, dommnll movenut ie merely e political belle! end eeeocledol. I -
Thiemeenethettieourtleeotooecened Ilthecteoftreeeune i
oltilm neg oommlt while he le traveling ahead. The Governmnt
' e!tleUelted8tetee,tnoIlngofhleerr-d,Ioeldiepoeorleeeb
reetrehenyoeemeeghequeettrlpehcklelbrtlhontnet
nemyegenteebroed." T92ood1tor1e1Iertherpointeout"Ilthe
lupreneourthdrulodnttx-oeeoneoIieleI!ul,ttooe1dIthvedetenoredenetatingiloebtieeefotyeltiepeepleei '
_,_lmericatlultd1dIelhe5-to-ddeeldeeorderlngpeeqorteleeeel
"loen_ypereaaoiAmerlcencltiI-aeilplrreepeotlreethleleyeliq 1e to the mm sum. - _ H" -21% ~-~~---»--~»-1 m .._.,......_.__._..r-1.__._....----.-=-»--*~=%~ ~ P; -1 ""*f:" - -"* "~- . - --
r r . 92 ' ._ ~_,__- 'a1f_" *, 1 ;-"" '-'~ '. 33;-.1. gig!;-- c-?L92;'':-Vi? -' ' "§"_'5'}I"" .
» .
1
A
H 392=_cr23| g=_=£*E:':-§c%|?:§é"'-I/7 4.
B435 149 BBL 31 1960 -
-ru-n&lJ-1-¢,-;,L1J.x.|.na-. - '
In um oqmql 91 q 'gno_gmd tloned and dated aeobove, the Congressional
4-750 Rev. 417-85!
L
E]
C]
E]
E]
e
XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
FEDERAL BUREAU DF INVESTIGQTIDN
FDIPA DELETED PMEE INFORMATION SHEET
Pagetsl withheld entirely at this location in the le. One or more of the following statements, where
iiidicamd, explain this deletion.
Deleted under exemption s! ___ _ with no segregablo
material available for release to you.
Information pertained only to a third party with no reference to you or the subject of your request.
information pertained only to a third party. Your name is listed in the title only.
Documents originated with another Government agency ies!. These documents were referred to that
agency ies! for review and direct response to you.
Pages contain information furnished by another Government agencyes!. You will be advised by the FBI as
to the releasability of this information following our consultation with the other agencyes!.
Pagelsl withheld for the following reason s!:
T
For your information: _ o, _ __ ____.__ _ _
The following number is to be used for reference regarding these pages:
/,."92=_ L1"792r*£»t" /A -92W Q / _! Q -J __:'_-if/f_y'¢ ! 7
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxé DELETEDPAGE6! §
X
%
¬
'5
_-v-
Y-_
--1
13..._,_
'4»
9
.i.;
312'
.*'
-{T
...-
F
F§ JR by/ A 2 g 3 I9, non t: __ - I _~§_*
0
b Q Burilee contain no intormtion re I- -
.'1 ' ura|Qa@|Il_aIn.C""'-7' I
KOid Memoalndum - UNITED stage GOVERNMENT
| I1. la D@__l'B= QB_:892I-It B;1958
falcon i
Bnurdnma _i
Belmont ..,.,.,..._....,,,,
>31-:'§».-#5-' ' .-
-I: ;"',_"_;:,:, -= - I ?' B
I hem '
abjectHob: .
IIO
P
rotta _._-._._
Clwlcn D
T010. _.._'nu"°L
Marshal Court of the United Statee.re1'lecta o be an applicant tor a position or policeman
with the Supreme c . -
.-q . *
Memorandum iichola to 'l.o1eon dated September 3, 1957. reflects
that the Director has instructed that no action be taken concerning - -
any requeete received from the Supreme Court until the latter has _
been__p:-eaented to him and he personally rule: on the request.
,-.
RECOMFIENDATIOU : . " a|I V; '1,-
. -JThat if approved hg the Director, the Form 57 be stamped"Ho Derogatory Data" by the ame Check Section, Investigative Division,
and returned to the Office o1 the Marshal, Supreme Court or theUnited states. p - _ _p _ <;- _ D .. Q; "vw W
1.3 c» .6 7
,. , _ 0 Q Ave 13 1958,, _ ' -~£9qf' an» 8 174- _* - 1
T r 5" 5 "H '. _ _- g "A-_;. .D ¢5f$¢!$*; 1
W /gr_ ___. 1- ' '
P e ' . G RM, A 3} h _,. -A-1
$976/.:~ - *-
I575 '7 we 15w=>~ 92e§.§l" ._.__._ '
" nsection on August 7, 1958
to
it
- r
;_£'-l
§
r
§
3e-512 -29-55! -' e n - *
eueuoelloulane-ureter _ . - _ , _.1;-Q-.._.
1OEce Memangzdum - at iJN1'r1ao stag sovsanusnr
" ' -I .
J. P. .+ I In - ,.'_ "- -'_' -4 '- _ . I -I
..._ 1 T'?s~_; 1; "*'n 1* do . , . -~.~"J-T-_ - -'~¢i;> ""1 1 ' ' -"..é *2; ' .1 _- 'i7lJI?l'=*'r92l;§1'3ooargeeiaoal Record -ti ' -t -*. ".1" - -1??-"" W To I T|1QD1tIC'lOI* puj; .47£$7L J;/£5-Y I
.- Q ._, V.
Q," "A _ ...-,A _ t92 t, ¢_ 521-? Z?;¬l.;-r ;_...._'s if ;~=_.;_..-i_._. - ' * u I" *-- "' I H "' " J:.- _' .I&_.§.§;-
legeelllfb Ilenetediecuuedlu tetialttbeeppeletell! tr-iediatian oi the laprem%%-In eerhtn aeeee. The refereooee- iv J - the IE end the pl:-ector ooateieedeepegee 1'lI.14- Ill,I t 11111, end 11124 yere brought to your etteetlee in e memorandum 1prepared earlier today. _ w_,_q;__,_t,.1__?_q_ _p,_,p.g_-,_;_.,'" "- * '='- 7' " " ', . - ,_,,; , t _- -. ,J_~ 4" ~.._ _j. ; t ' t :._. -2 .- '1, "W5711-,. --_.;-.-I _n:~r"1'92t""' >. --_ 7. i - ' 1, ., ~.,-"K,--,-_. -, - . . _,_,;- -= - {.1 5 ,1 _. -_. .. "_'i 1- '-, . ., ~. - .| . -_ _ - . ._ . . _ _ 1 , . , *._ ~ -., - ,.' t, ,, . l. _ -» 3, , - -I
=--- _ _, I 5 _ , ;.' _ _ »_ .. I _ _ . _ ._ , __ . . _ _,_. __ _ _ 1-, ._ , ._4 . _r »_.' _ 4., I! ;_,.!, _ _ ,1 ~- . ._ .1 J. .92 e -. 3 _,_' In-' .9 .5-. __ . -1 ' :}_92 -. J. ,__-r 1. > I .-.,v 0:4 L '. w =" ' - 4 ' -' . . ' I _ ~ 'n' . . " a F.-. "~ -'t_'
Q. '7 Qt -We } ' h 1% 5 ' :1 '1 Q? 4 * Ii
1 Q.1. ! IL E _ i. . r: . _,., , _ _ -> ., _ .» 7 - - . V .- -" . v .
u I ' _ I r I
. -__ '. W I _ . .| -. ,,_' __ _
14,1- ;<1s;z¢:':_{/
tin r P*~ u0P.DED
. 175; SEP_ 12 19589 _
-:1 t ' I".._._-n-up -_,_,,qi-___.Z- __
_~ __.Img "
92
__-S .
I
r- " - .»_ , ,
* 1 ~ ~ ,~ _.= .
' ', _~ '. _' '= I -' '"- '~ _ 1 , -* .»-. J | Iii. g .-,-.f_-12: T1 - |i-.uI- r1: - 1* '9292 ta. _ x ._ A - ,, 4 J, __.4_i__h -,' gt I, , __~ »92_ 92 W; L¥ i .-. - i. ~. _ r-A 4 u I _.__4t'_.. D Q 7 _' 3* -_ In .< -e V : _ 1" I A
| -. ¬
2,1 _ l _ . -, _-.92'_ - -
' -. .- '. ' -1: . .-up r - l 92 J A D.
d e8§EP1s19aa_ e r J t 1. m J, i
31;;
In the original oi a memorandum captioned and dated aeabove, the CongressionalRecord for /71-13¢-i 7'30 195' J was reviewed and pertinent items weremarked for the hector: attention. Thie form has been prepared in order that
portions of a copy of the original memorandum may be clipped, mounted, and
placed in appropriate Bureau case or subject matter tiles. {>41
1- I - " -t ¢~ 7 1
E; Ir 1, ' 1
er
%
?=I..
.r
; t
- E
,- , ,' --r,I-,
_ T
'9
*1-
1
' l
F;____|,__..-_-_ _
. Ilfslqslgorunal no I-I
'6 C6 Memorandum UNITED sures GOVERNMENT
an TOLSON om August as
non G A NEABE W
92 ' 7' I- g 5%?
=v»J=¢r BENATQR ssmzme oiiiisnr
as ssmrs BIBL 1%5 1:» /-an QM!-§.»1*11f>°r.Ihw ,'41:, 01,05 -Q D 1. Room __
The Congressional Record IorA92lg'ul§0 dawn 3':-15:
of Senator Jenner, carries the complete legislative history oi Senate Bill2646 commonly referred to as the Jenner Butler Ill! designed to limit the i l
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in certain cases This review is
some 55 pages in length
Senator Hennings, sharply critical of the provisions, clai ed
that the third provision of this Bill would "revitalise state laws which prescribe
sedition against the Federal Government" and said that this proposal would
the state to interfere and hamper effective eniorcement of the Federal statutes in
this area Be went on to state "Because of the interstate nature oi the 0communist movement, it can best be combated by a uniform policy under D
centralized control He then said, "I believe it can be best combated, as
is being combated by no less a person than J Edgar Hoover, the friend oi
many of us, and admired by all who know him and by many who do not "
Hennings remarks must be considered in light of his ill
considered remarks last May about subpoenaing the Director in connection
Iwith the Bureau s wiretapping policy s d that he now regrets
having made such May No letter is bei.g_ sentB
1 - Mr Jones
GAN 0]p
°p Y5 B4135
.@3;'f3_Z5.§§. /Zail? W nus 281958-W-1 *1 ' " 'M" __'ZSEP2 195 35
_ i J1% _ __
_ _ M
_ I b I _ .
I_ f_ la __ m _ M ___ _ __ _f__ h ___ In JMQWM __ M w
hum,___.* ____ x4 '__,_v___~;_, n __ _ __ _ _é_ {_
i 92 __ __ J, ~ __ 2 H_ _ J _ _r>_ P ¥__ _ 4 ___ _ k _ "_ M _ A '"_ U ____ _2 _ '_v_ r _ _ _ __ _ __w__ _ ~_ D _ _' _~___ ____ H __k____ __5 $1 é L _ k u __I_ __ r_V: _ v _h__ii M uh _k A V § x_ MM M _ vi __ _ _ _ J _U____ V A _ _ __ __ N ____ 1? _ M ___ _ __ __
__ II, 3" H? M Q f ' r_ _U %?§_ + J, _ ii 92E '_ if
92_Mm _ _u 92 __T _ _ _ 92f _ |_ _ __ __ __ _H_w_U__ 1k , _ _ V H_ __ _ __ _
_ I _ _¥ _ __ I _ _ I 92 ___ J __ t- _L_ _ _ _ T I N tQ l1 H _ _ __ v _ _J _ __ U _' g I Hi P J mf y__ _ ___ VI _
________ _ J; _ Q_ __h§ _r 1 t_ p V V A __ _ _we L _¢_._ in UL ___ __ __ ___ ________ _ __h _ _ JH P} '_H92_ _M1 _ __ __' 3 _ _A E _ __ f _w_ __ I 5 _ __ __ _ _ _92 _ ' __w_h,__w_ _ ___ 92_ V? __ _ k y _ $ "Kt Q _I _ _ 4 ___ __ Q H __ _ '__ 5 _ _ l_ Q _____"_"A In A __4 J _l ' G 9 _|
'1 _ _ L _ __~_ 4__' _ _"_ _
__mW_ iill.I.-....--I-}lElms-..E.s.IIIIlIl!lI _ wagww _%mmmm_£ %_t M W Wm? MdW%_EMhMHm wg _ ggmmm mhw WM wmmmdw Hmmmmmmmmw vmmmm»wWMm#___Hq%mM_ _ J? %WL£nMm Wmummm NWWW__%%WmmmWWmWMMM Mm mWmmwMm%M mm M
0 Wmmmummmm mm§MWmM$MWYMMmM WWWmMmmWMmmW~MwMmmWmm%_ _ mm W Mm %_ M M_kM@%% _ M %m_ ha Z M @ W} _ dd % W _ _ mm H l H w ul QM1_ pk _x____ __' ____92___r_ _____
__
__92____ ~. . I H__"_,_, ___ _ __u _ __ 92__"__w I_~ H __ _ ___ _ _ ___»_b__ #w_ J. ___ __' V_n*_ J2 ' 5 I '_ _ __ _ Kw _ _ iii h _________v _ I at I __ ___ ____;_t $0 __ _ _ _ _
l
92
.1-I
V-i
S
v
I. 1 .
lgrnr¬*"**""* " ""' "i..Xi "
f .
..".92* - -_ _. .-.' _ .1. ~-1 - Q
~ "-F, 1
Director J. Edgar
Federal Bureau of
Washington, D.C.
Dear Hr. Hoover:
Q2747 able to supp- wei C1Su reme d
ecisions. I am a92
" 1;-mi
W 0, -
it
27, L010 92 V t
York . ;jQ ; ~ .-.
.. _* f _"Qngust 27,h195I ;§j;;ne
y?f§¥Q@w;£1,fiaygmkh$§§'e H, fa Y xi-l_t~___!-, }§.~.:-7;Q,~,l"c95,4|, Q-"i; _u/ l.nGan__dIu O - r I? Y3. "f I It. L__ 4:" 1
Investigation 7 _g Z ,.§ it _ ,_ J ,=_ _
~. it H ft 5Mr. '1'oIaon___......
Mr. Belmont___
Mr. Mo
Mr. NMr.
Mr.-
Hr.
Mr.O
Pa s ..._.
Ros ......_
Tam _____
Trotter-_____._
Mr. W.C.Su1]ivau
Te%e. Room.._.._.
Mr Holloxna1,7?
I . '. _ n_ _vi
_ - . . ..,.* _, ..¢ _ _' ,». '* - .a . - - t < I 'I - _ -. - ' - t .
writing to you in the hopes that you will be
with some pertient advice, concerning the _'--the current and past series of Leftist " »
Senior at the University of Dayton, and only '
recently have really become acquainted with the serious situation
which has been createdéin our nation. J H
1 Ithe American Me. - >1_ _ -. . _, ... ._l
have read a number of articles, some by yourself in
rcury Magazine, and have found especially sickeningfacts concerning the supreme Court._ I have given the matter some
rather serious
that I managed
they are, are tI20
,-
From
have been atlin all of its
you might be
do something
our countrye
1959, the
even moreable
to me.
activites
the handsI have collected a number of articles concerning the
6f the Supreme Court. I want to see that these get into
of people who can attack these decisions, and place the
Cburt in its proper place in American Government. I would like to '
know where you feel the best effective work can be done and whereinvestigation, not simply accepting the few articles
acquire. I have found that the facts, terrible as >rue in all respects. -P" '< 'H%¢"' '3' 7
what I have been able to discover, the decisions
tines harmful to the proper operation of the P.B.I.
"111 American" activities. Therefore, I felt that
to supply me with the information that I need to
helpful in a situation which I ¢>nsider dangerous to
Since I expect to finish ROTC and be commissioed in
future of our country and those fighting for her means
U
Q
I
letters and information of opinion can do the most 200d: Whv is - _ . 1
the Judiciary Committee still handicapped in forming repressive "t qV
1- '5;.-
1-»--. 92'TT fq-..*i1.=? ' "1;# * 5 '" . * -A _. 92-/E" _*- ; - ' ' k _ . qr new--I
I I - i" _ '
»; - . .. _+
J4-_ ~ - -Q_ .__ ,..= M . -'-' , _ » a - - ~ _-4 _ - =0-; w _ . H _ _, J1-_ _ _. _: _ V,.,,.. V _
_¢_' -.'= s
.nf. . <92 '" ,'3f!~j"-'»~x"_ "
92§§:.1-"i"
;
~ 1
f
2uQ
==-§@.~."1:.1 1_;§#'_§;-_
.1-92._§.r'fA. > E
i¬?"3'. °"-
1"'- 4 .1
~ tm nae: alum 11.1
ace cl llr. louver from Wuhlqtu,gtectnaedglngtb g. -. A
j
._-- ..-92w ._is;
<92_»., _e-1. _:! $1 1 . _: .V_ ' » a--r 1-4.1. ~ -$3....-'4' ~ -1-? Iv I
t - |.3 i _, sq. ." ;
5*."-7 '."l'-.'-1." ?f~S.§i-J :4?
pa-omptedyoutowrlte. '
-n
,.
~ - .._ ; 5' -J? if"! 1'. -"_recent address before the I _, _, u:__.,a,_¬ ;_':,_1m-;.w=;..,»-d .1 V-;_";=_;'-;.-?.._>;¢J*:- ,-_.- ;.g .M aw M mi "T-»"jI'.~{' "}#"_. '5?--V;-.- , ._- 1 $1 "»~ =_-.-.',; .~__ _ - . _ . -_ _ . _ ._v_ A-__ 1;» H -'$_':.J a n'.';~_ _ 4 92 P ~;$__:v*L! -»'._5§,,;,.a_. .--Q =.==1»< A -jJ .. % -' »~ fA -~_.=_;__-;' _' 4; _,_..;» 1': _ - 1.1; y - _-,._._f... " _,.-/' _f-.,_ " '_ . 1.5- Z-.'» '" _~- --i-_._-3. T ."§:7 .. -,1 . -- ~_» » =:-»- -. .1 - _ - - - _,,- -.._' n .-,%._.-,; -~ ,= 1*r?1;~i'~:4@*;=,.;;.:.,1f~*1..;. '5-F5 .f.""e_: ;-a_§;;;+l:: 3-_1..~-A -~;"'..=?.-.- 7-s*rr=? .£T>~ fa; -:1-*1-hi--.e.2.' I ;t=' .J_._ ::_-f,'!,',-_7_1:_-F: 1 :11_¬':-¬.jf-§}H_- gf ._,,$v.j j";>r.v',|"r . *1? .k-"I'n_| ' - "V'9292. - Iv L .2 -gfj-_&i_ I 92 ' !w.* v -" P ;,"92'1T=A. [V .3, ._,.i'__:_.n-J; J_ _;' t |___¬._'!., , _4"_r ._ __:-. A l I l;r;" 2 sf" '_ ~ A e £15 e1 - éf -< ' ' . .; ;. '-I*~ .-1 .'=.-I; ~_ . .l- 5- ' - A."- ;. -Iacloenie *3" ' e' " *-=1: :'-<---*Y1--- I-1*" '- ;='-.*.'- ' ""- - §i§- '1 .. ; :-- _@*@%=~s>;:-kg-~ 1-VA ".' ;."t ' " ~ '.__ " 1'é"é" ?'f='-ii»-E I ?:t.' 3--mi A e __"-.#~".- J -"1 --1-':'"'-7 ' A MP 3'195B1- Yr" I1 1 ~ < .»'*""? =E=ih -.3=-. W _ 5% -»_ .:"i@&%§:w.it_.@;aw¢m$§.- _;¢:-1; , . ~§-= ""._: 1: : "-.1 .- ' W " ' ' ':<- F J " - -' - '-.i.-" . Y; '1". ,'=-J , at the nafure _ .¬»¢- :¬@"'-.~¥ 7 " "".e'-*-*- "-Q1lt'an'in-iabaencelettéf {s1i~'b er; *=Io lg 92 ,Tollon__-_ I_ m ' 7::r;:::'r'__ 3* -»' '4 U B» - -<
4?
i
.0, .10 _ea--"*1-ta i
. . , 1,_ LkWRENCE8l.ll'.LIVAN 9 Ocounnmm-on _
' u. s. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COORDINATOR OF INFORMATION
_ WASHINGTON, n. c. AI:-I-via» ._.,..i..
'92." _. --_, _l- . - '3' -,;= _ A ," -'1 "-_.. ' 92
_ w , I 1* 1 , - 92 , - . .
,. 1 ;._ _ _; September l0, 1958 _ _£7 "j-::if;.»-" ".'i. J
: 0 F41 "!>ear!§rHoover f e " H ' .Ia0
I - The attached summary oi O O ases - -I ,1 Supreme Court c 7
relating to communists and subversives doubtless will prove '
your tiles. pass along - a handy reference kiocument for
with all good wishes for your continued success in this
difficult field. The study is from the Legislative
Reference Service, the Library of Congress, and is éiow .
in the hands or all Members of the Committee on the Judiciary , _
in both the House and Senate, Kdespite the late publication -
dt'A 1: 198 -"" ' ''5 ea ugus 7| 5 0 "' ' X-K ~,1.-_ :3. I
' "1: :7 Cordial regards, r ' ' _:._- "'1
- it ' I. Si erely - if N._= ~' E3428 /Z: M 'J I v , LAWRENCE SUL IVAN, L_ REG Coordinator. _' ' '
-16 ~~ - - - . I ' - . 'Hon. J. Edgar Hoover, Directonil.Federal Bureau pi Investigation, 5""-I--__-, i ' ,,e ' ~Department or Justice,_ - n , e- -. sWashington 25, D.O. ' 5 SEP 231953
meet?
yr
*2"
1
i
-uLu ,1 . Q "1' La/*T92
II 20 U.$. -
, I . ~ . 1- ' '
R THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
L LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE .
SUPREIIEI COURT CASES RELATIM5 T0
COIIUNISTS AND SUVEHSIVES
E
>
B!
Hugh P. Price
' Legal Analyst
American Law Division
August T, 1958 '
Washington 25, D.C. i
_ * é;27:»' "/-"~/
s
is
R
at
I.
_1
-he
E
u7.2
SUPBEI COURT CASES RELATING T0
COIMUNESTS l&D SUBVERSIVESk
eweiriee> ed: wean =4 tad: nrihnih ed* s?~*e" at a~aeLEva"on"ai'sdsdt +
__ ibransy v. !ini_ted_§tateg 919!_250 U.S. 616 _ . ~ _ ~"-
Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to violate the e .
Espionage Act of 1917 by printing and distributing circulars containing
revolutionary propaganda designed to encourage resistance to the war
_ efforts of the United States in order to aid the cause of the Russian
Revolution. The Supreme Court found that the evidence was sufficient to
support the convictions and that such propaganda was not protected by the
First Amendment. It affirmed the conviction. A
_I,I_nj,te_QyS_,tatg§._e:c__,f1-3K:i~lB_i1ok_1;n_|s_§1 v. 1911, 923! 263 U.S. 149
Bilokumsky was arrested for deportation as an alien within the
United States in violation of law in that he had in his possession for
distribution printed matter advocating overthrow of the government by
force or violence. Upon being calied as a witness to prove his aiienage
he stood ante. The Supreme Court affirmed an order discharging a writ
of haheas corpus._ It held that admission of alienage, which is not and
element of the crime of sedition, would not have tended to incriminate
the witness, and that the inngration officers night properly have inferred
the fact of alienage from his silence.
_ILli,t__ed §tateg_eggyg'g_1,!_i;isi v. Iod 924! 264 u.s. 131
- Tisi was arrested in deportation proceedings as heiag.withiu
the United States, in violation of Ian. The ground specified was knowingly
having in his possession for distribution printed latter which advocated
the overthrow of the government of the United States by force. Tisi claimed
;;__..
an
e.-a
__'.'_ZI
5,.
é
f. . 92 92 .
o 1 - tun I 4
5 ' _
=;
-92 92» -e ..sn.aL.i;- 2 - _
Ir,-r"£-'J":':*-"'1='y := ;>= c i;i.~.3h%I;':f :l.i- ' ,
that there was no evidence to sustain the finding that he knew the seditious
"character of the printed latter. The court upheld the order, saying that
' where the alien was given u full and fair hearing, were error, oven.if it
consisted in finding an essential fact without adequate supporting evidence,
was not a denial of due process of la.
Gitlow v. New York 925! 268 0.5. 652
r
Gitlow was convicted of violating the criminal anarchy statute
of New York. lie was charged with printing and circulating a Innifesto
a
advocating the Communist Revolution. The Supreme Court uffirned the
conviction. It held that a state does not deny the freedom of speech
guaranteed by the Constitution by punishing utterances advocating the
overthrow of organized government by force, violence and unlawful weans.
Dniteg_States ox rel Vajtaner v. Gom'r 927! 273 U.S. 108
Yajtaner was arrested in deportation proceedings on the charge
that he had illegally entered the United States because prior to or at
the tine of his entry he believed in and advocated the overthrew of the
United States government and had written seditious pamphlets. The Supreme
Conrt sustained the deportation order. It found that the order was sup-
ported by substantial evidence and that the action of the immigration
authorities in drawin inferences from his refusal to answer questions did
not deprive hiw of any constitutional right, where he had not asserted the
privilege against self-incrinination in the proceedings before the
iwwigration authorities. ' - ' " " *
§
Ff
R:t:
- _92.-_
II~.
-t
FPE
F5
- 1»
no-..
1
92
I92
. 92_ __ I __> -3 I .|_ i . I Ir" '
Q. H. . .
V 4 '
L 3 I
C 151,"?! '- Ql1_1f_°_1L1!1' 937! 374 "-5- 357 -"-7'? " '-"' 5 14..-Q-.5 -'" 2f5~.:';:.<"e..~.
..,
; y. " I-lee Ih-Itlnv l sennrlrtaari nf Iinlntlsnal if rlliflllil C1-i I Q1 - - -. ---- --.----I --- wv-.---av-- __ ---1-_---_ '.. -*___.._---- -___-..!__
_Syndication Act by assisting in organizing the -Connnnist Labor Party "at
a California and by being a nenber of it. The Supreme Court held the ~ v
statnte constitutional and aifirned the conviction. Itdeclarod that a
State in the exercise of its police poser nay punish those who abuse C
freedon oi speech by utterances iainical to the public welfare. tending
to incite to crine, disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations
I _ |-~.|- . c 7
of organized goverment and threaten its overthrow by unlawful means.
- -' ' -.'s A
Stronberg v. California 931! 283 U.S. 359 C " '
. A masher of the Ionng Connnnnist League was convicted of
violating a California statute which torbad display of red flag as a
synbol of seditious activity. The Supresae Court reversed the conviction,
holding that the statute was too vague and indefinite.
De Jorge v. Oregon 937'!' 299 U.S. 353 I I
' -e Appellant nas convicted under rogon Crininal Syndicalisn Law
oi assisting in the conduct of a neeting called under the auspices oi the
Consnunist Party. The '!Snpren92e Court reversed the conviction. It held that
. pnnishnent ior participation in the conduct of a public neeting, other-uise
.-
lnutnl, because held nnder the auspices oi the Covnnnist Party violates
the freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed by the due process clause
oi the Fourteenth Amendment. _
_ 92 ._ . a -:-:2-1 a':;*i. an min -if-i
5'
E;
2
F0
oO r 92-
92
¢D
e ,.
grndon v. Lang; 937! 301 0.5. 242 a.. . -; Erégj .» _s : _
- Bcrndon Ias convicted by a Georgia Court of attempting to
incite insarection by calling and attending public meetings and making
speeches to organise the Communist Party of Atlanta to resist and overthrow
the authority of the State. The Supreme Cont reversed the conviction,
holding that the statute, as construed and applied in this case, did not
furnish a sufficiently ascertainable standard of guilt.
Kessler v. Strecker i939! 307 0.5. 22 _
An alien is not deportable on the ground of membership in the
Cmmunist Party if his membership has ceased at the tine of his arrest
under a warrant of deportation. _ .
Breeder v. nitedm$tate§ 941! 312 U.S. 335
Earl Broader made false statements in his application to obtain
a passport and used the passport to establish his identity and American
citizenship upon retuning to this country. He was convicted of Iillfnl
use of a passport obtained by false representations. The Supreme Court
held that the use made of the passport mas nithin the scope of the statute
and affirmed the conviction.
Schneigerman I; Qnited States l943! 320 U.S. 116
The Supreme Court reversed a judgment of a loner court mhich
cancelled a certificate of Naturalization on the ground that it had been
procured by fraud because the petitioner concealed his Communist affilia-
tion from the naturalization court. It held that the government had not
proved with requisite certainty that the attitude of the Communist Party '92I v 1 x
t.
F-92
A-.a
-w
r
-.~L
§___ .
i-_
1!
. 4-Ia;-_"'
4.
V -u ,-
7 rial.. _-
7i§%=
-, 2
>__ . I .-_... ' l|.l. I - _
L, ' 2 If- "I D
/ g ,
in the United States at the time of naturalization 927! towards force
and sieleace nae such as to disqualify petitioner fer eaterelizatien. "
._- _- - 1 ' - _r w - - .
I
Bridges I. Nixon 945! 326 U.S. 135 __ __
etentiou of Barry Bridges under a warrant for deportation on
the ground of affiliation with the Communist Party was held unlawful on
the ground that the term "affiliation" had been construed too broadly,
and that the hearing on the question of his membership in the Ceinunist
Party had been nnfair.; The Supreme Court held that the acts tending to
prove "affiliation" within the meaning of the deportation statute must he
of that quality which indicates an adherence to or furtherance of the
purposes of the proscribed organization as distinguished from mere coe-
operation with it in lawful activities. The act or acts must evidence aV ' e " y
nothing alliance te bring the pregree to fnnctien. ' - w
United States v. rm 946! 32a u.s. 303
' ' ' I It-BCIIQ IOTDIGGIHQ PHYIBIII Of INIIIPQISHIIOII 10 DICE Illd
employees of the government who had been charged with being wenbers of
Communist-front organizations was held invalid as a bill of attainder,
!
Iprzani v. United Stabs; 946! 166 F. 2d 133, Affirmed by equally divided
Court 33$ U.S.' 946!, Affirmed by equally divided Court on
rehearing 336 ". -322 £1
_ Iarzani was prosecuted for making false statements as to his
membership and activity in the Comunist Party to the Federal_Bureau of .
Investigation and Civil Service Commission, and to his superior in governmem.
service. The Court of Appeals held that counts based on statements made to .
F
.
In
4'.1'
-
a
Qt
Fl-_
iv
L-,~
_Iit
¬
. =.
!:70
:5
He
J , 192'- ."-Q 92
I
_-,6 - - .
the FBI and Civil Service Coslnission lore than three years before the
indictment were barred by the statute of linitatiou but nffirned the con-
viction on counts based on false statements nade within the three year
period H ' ' C
Uni_t_§_d§tate_s v. Bosesn, cert. denied, 338 U.S. 851 949! . .
Rosen was convicted of contempt of court for refusing to obey
an order directing his to answer certain questions he had been asked when
he appeared as a witness before a grand jury concerning an nntowobile which -
4
was connected with an oiiegeci crininai conspiracy by unists.
Reversed by Court of Appeals. '
Christoffel v. Hniteidp States 949! 338 U.S. 841
A conviction of n witness before a Congressional Conittee for
-'5-'.. Al I I ' ' Ii nil in. ll i "I i ti I . I. Ir II -I---u I II I I I
! . - ~ 7 '
1 * '-... >. 1--' | t - .._ __. _ 92 _ ¢ . » .
-is 1 '__ ' I » - "-J"- » ~ '
. . ' -- - - . 92 *'* -.' -4 . . ,1,.'r»r "."=' -'"":'=*.- -- 1 F-" -1 1 . F-. J V p _ an _ _ __ _ .- Y. - _ _"_:_;_, I: F. . _W_ ,:. -_?.- 43%. 1:; A -o- A - : _ _ ._ _- . if - _- 1 *. . d - s "3 l" - 4' *-L- - '
-I .' Q / -.
7 -.s-- - -
. _. . 4-1,, p I.
£5 - 1 '33 --'-1:- a-r1? ;:"¬92? .=»i'.*i.i?" -:;.~2r-="*-"F." *"--. l "P3 '.*~<n '!.""i'- 92--'T'L"P 1* -a 7'/3*w. _ a . . .-_ E. ,_.._ . ._
92 .4 1. 4-us 5|-
"United sum v. arm nose! see ns ms **=~~v*$-'~~ t at W .5»"'i-i" gr __ and ' * .. A at
4;
r
1 '...--d .-U._ w
r._ n
E
1 .
o
I
I9292I92 - ¢- - s
'I==*=-='-'»** 1-Y liespondent was executive secretaryiof the Joint Anti-Fascist
o -' ' l. .! ' . _ . 1" ...| __ ~ "
Refugee Connittee and had custody of its records. She refused to produce
' , 0'
such records in cowpliance with n subpoena of n Congressional Cemittee
E.-
_tL
&' "
.3
. r -___,-._Z_,._-
E92 92 ; . . 'V T. ' er %7Iv
_ ._ ..a- .
_ Ihose officers had not filed_ non-Connnist affidavits, the lemr. cearts 7
held the affidavit requirement valid and denied relief. _-the Sapreae Cenrt
affirmed jndpants. A aejority Of the court agreed that the reqnirenent
of disclosure of overt acts of affiliation orpeahership in the Conunnist
Party did not deny any constitutional rights: hnt the court appeared to he; .
equally divided with respect to that part of the lan requiring disclosure
of belief unconnected Iith any overt act. ' i "'
Osnan v. Bonds 950! 339 U.S. 846 7 ' -
' e Section 9 h!. ef the National Labor Relations Act, as landed,
a
pertainingto "non-Cocnlnnist" affidavit, held .valid, in so far as itis '
concerned nit]: aembershipin, or affiliation with, the Communist Party. "
Iith regard to the constitutionality of other parts of the section concerning
beliefs of the affidavit, the court'nas equally divided. .
; _
United $_tates ¢so!s-no n.s. 159 7 . _- e ~ _Blan v.
A witness cannot be compelled to testify before a grand jnry, over
ea claia of the privilege against self-iacrinination, concerning his eaploy- "-
lent by the Counnnist Party or knowledge of its operations. _ Even if the .._
QISRIS_ to snch qaestions nonld not support a conviction for crin, they
night furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed for prosecution nnder .r .
the Snith Act. Accordingly, a conviction for refusal to ansller each
questions__eae reversed. ~ ' , e - -- , v _ -- gt
p_l_a_n v. n_i_te_d §_tat_e_s 951! 340 0.5. -332 - '
. Petitioner, a witness before a federal grand jury, declined to
ansnar questions concerning activities and records of the Conlnnist Party,
claiming the privilege against self-inerinination. Be also refused to di- _
vulge the whereabouts of his life, asserting a privilege not to disclose
confidential communications between husband and nife. The Supreme Court held
992
%
r
.C
§
2?
1
we.
92
.jQ;, .s _ . _. .
4*-@F!taieed.=-1-It also "held .that.he"Ias"entitle6 ta ..1.'-.1». jrivilege "against
92,. _. L.,_92. . _ " , I _ _
T -.'
IH 5-e '92
I
.g y n v. g _ rig _ w _ H ,
that his elein of privilege against self-incrinination should have been sas-
'diselosing confidential coeeaeications betuaen husband and ante since the
_.n 4.- _________ 4.n__ ________n__ ,n__- ¢e__ -l_;___n._'_-n.,._ .U. BU DYIITGI ill. pI.IIIIPII.III"II'I Tl OIIIIIIGIIIUII I.
goueriiiit £-
7 , .
QQnf1dg|t1n1, ?1¢;- pd, _,u . r= -v ":* -'; ;n - M r>.u.. ' 2 _
Rogers v. United State; i951! 340 U.$..S6T ""A rii_ ' :w";' '
':? k§¬' After testifying without objection that she had been Treasurer
of the Communist Party of Denver, had been in possession of its records and
had tuned thee over to another persons, petitioner refused to identify the
person to uhon she had de1ivered.the records, giving as her only reason her
desire to protect the other person. The Snprene Court sustained herbace-
riction for contempt. It held that the privilege against self-incrininetien
nus solely. for the benefit ef_the eitness and could not be asserted for
of another. It also held that records kept in a representative,
rather than_e personal capacity, cannot be the subject of the personal M-the benefit
privilege against self-incrinination, even though production of than eight
iecrininate their keeper personally. 5. ,<.,,_ »=. ,..-,;l L 1; T:M' - -
Kasigggitz v.-Q, 5,, cert. denied,-340 U.S. 920-951! 7 --L pa n
of 1 Kasiuouitz, Steiuberg, and Dobbs were found guilty of erininal_
contempt in U. S.-District Court, for refusing to ansuer questions in
grand jury investigation of Communist movement, en ground that they eould
incriminate themselves by ausucring such questions, and they,appea1ad.
The Court of Appeals held that defendants uora justified in refusing to
_. _ . . _ __|
ansuer the questions.
- Judgment reversed. ' »' .
Estes v. Qotter, cert. denied,
IIOOBBGI ll I. II IH§¥II340 U.S. 920 951!
-1 ___Il_4A..l__ ..__ _.-_l _I____-I. _.E E.__DI IPPJIUHBIUI 101' pill]-Ullllll» U1 I1.
2,.
n
I
P
§___
$-
_A '_ .._n 4.5 . ' ' '92.
z
-Q.-.
.Y-fk
F
J
¢~
i
P_ 9292.._ Ir r
I-' ¢"92
. ./
P 10 - _ J
__ ' .- t ~ . Ir _ ' __ 92, __ _|.,_;:;_ u _ riré; =_-f92_ _*;|f ,..;. ; . ; ._ ,4 ___§..-_,~ w- 1
rd-_-jin an examination by inigration inspectors. iiistrict Court held respondent
{in couteupt of court and he appealed. Court of Appeals held that testinony
by an alien whether he personally knew another alien, whether other alien
was member of Conanunist party, whether other alien contributed funds to
I
Cotnanist party, and whether other alien attended netings of Conunist
party, would tend to show that witness was a wenber of or affiliated with
the Couluunist party, and therefore witness could refuse. to answer _
questions, on ground that it night nuke him liable for criniaal prosecution
" r .
and deportation. _; _ Z l
92 .
Reversed by Court of Appeals and remanded with directions.
eigende v. i-Ilection Board 951! 341 u.s. so t '
A decision by al state court denying appellant a place on a
ballot pursuant to a state law, construed as requiring that, in order for
a candidate for public office in that state to obtain s place on the ballot,
he must nake an oath that he is not engaged in one way or another in the
attempt to overthrow the government by force or violence" and that he is
not knowingly a wenber of an organization engaged in such an attempt,
effirned on the nnderst- - ...... -
$
F-an-'
r
=
,__.-u-
IT -1 -
I4: "HM
IQ
"s 11 .
did not eatherize the Attorney General to - -itr- - - - Ii ' " -.-zsr.Jr
92 H ' ' It
-f~.- ' . --.:.a -.' ~ "M,
an organization and that the complaints charging his with arbitrary action
stated a cause of action. 9 "' " ' ' ' " oi '1" H '
gash v.-Highland Park a£g,,co, 951! 341 u.s.-:22 ' y _ V
Ihe 6.1.0. is a "national or international lahor organization" ' h
within the meaning of section 9 h! of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended. The National Labor Relations Board conld not proceed against
an employer at the instance of a anion affiliated with the 0.1.0. when the
officers of the 6.1.0. had not filed non-Communist affidavits, although
the affiliated union's own officers had filed snch affidavits.
Dennis v. Qnitedntates 951! 341 U.S. 494 V //6
Conviction of eleven Communists ander the Smith Act affirmed.
As applied in this case, sections of that Act waking it a crime for any
person inowingly or willfully to advocate the overthrow or destruction of
the government of the United States by force or violence, or to organize-
er help to organize any group which does so, or to conspire to do so,
~
5.
-5
AvI I Inn II-ullul I I .i .1-1| -I |.|.
~ . -.< . y -I .- | ,. . . _$.__- ; -_
-13-so 4
vyihad not for five,years been I£member_of,8moh an organirati2n,Jand_§o- P '- -, s ' - '---' "- ;_-- ' --i---- M-'> '-- -»~.44=--=i_»-- :_....i-.41. ...1- Sol-." 9;-1 ;a-» ;- J
,fnn affidavit stating mhether he mas_e; ever had been a_memberdof_the
mmnist Party. The Supreme Court held these requirements valid. Theijiiié
-'a- _ -I ?"
Com-
city
was entitled to inquire into the past loyalty of its employees. Since
membership in subversive organizations had been forbidden since 1941, the
oath reduired in I948 mas net ex post facte. "
.._, . .
_g11gy v. §1ghg;g§ggL l950! 182 F. 2d 46, Affirmed by equally divided
" Court 341 U.S. 918 951!
5' "" " liss Bailey was separated from the federal service as a result
4 _ 1 _ u I_l . m._ -m. 0 __I¢ I-..l_ Iu__.._e .1 m__ Jam mu n__ .3
OI ll HOIETIB G¬C151OI Dy HG LOIBLII KEYIQI UOGIG OI
Commission. She had been informed that the Commission had received
evidence that she mas or had been a member of the Cmmuunist Party orIl¬ B1111 SOIIIGC
Communist Paty-Association and had attended meetings of the Communist
Party and associated with known Comunist Party members. She mas granted
a hearing and permitted to offer evidence but was never informed of the
names of the persons who had supplied derogatory information against I61.
She sued for reinstatement but the District Court granted the governent's
motion for snmary judgment. The Cont of Appeals affirmed. holding that
employee and did not violate any constitutional requirements.
Stack I. Qoyle 951! 342 U.S. 1 _ _I --->.'l4--n-u_ -92- 1-¢.'lb ----also I-u--.'I_.-mil _- _l_I.A.-1 cmpsuycc um luymlsy qruuuum lnvvsvuu mv Isqutm
viii h Z V -I _ _ V e Vwt
. | _ l I2-- HQ
..-,1.
4_ .
_'-IP
-13-.
_ e
district had forfeited bail. -lo evidence Ins produced relating those" person -
to petitioners. Held that if bail in an amount greater than usually fined _
G-nil: Us. II U-Inu in-Inna Lnnnnp nu --I-an: In -41-n-nines -I 9 Q I H. J» s n-was up ¬u 1'6! s vn;|;n 1.0 nvquns
it was a matter to which evidence should he directed in a hearing so that
the rights of each petitioner could be preserved.
Qd_ler v. Board of Education 952! 342 lJ.S. 465
A hie! lurk law nade ineligible ior egploynent in public seheels
any member of an organization advocating the overthrow of the governuent
by force, violence or ;any unlawful means. It required the Board of Regents
to promulgate a list of such organizations and to provide in its rules that
membership in an organization so listed in prime facie evidence of dis-
qualification for employment in the public schools. Ho organization nay
be so listed and no person severed from or denied employment, except after
sa Isnnvlnn maul lll'|92'|llI!'I' in Inn-Ila-In1 1-an-inn the Snpres-.e Gcurt held tase
requirements constitutional.
{ln'__l_s_¢E v. gang 952! s42 u.s. 524
The Attorney General had ordered certain alien Comuuists taken
into custody and held without hail pending determination of deportability. »
In habeas corpus proceedings the Supreus: Court held that such detention was
authorized by the Internal Security Act when there was reasonable cause to
1%-
2.
' F
:
§uJ .. o
- -J
U
fl-
arisiades v. §hg!ghness1 952! 342 U.S. 580 . 92
.-;_ -- .
l. _ The Alien Registration Act of 1940, so far as it authorized
deportation of a legally resident alien hecause of wembership in the
Communist Party, even though such membership terminated hefore enactment
of the act, was within the power of Congress. ' _ =
g,_5_, v. pivpii. Cert. denied, :42 u.'s. 920 952! »
V Judith Coplon and Valentine A. Guhichev were convicted of
conspiring to defraud the United States and the first named defendant was
convicted alone of attempting to deliver defense information to a citizen
. v
of a foreign nation and the appealed. Ihe Court of Appeals held that the
evidence did not Justify the arrest of defendant Coplcn by agents of the
FBI without a warrant because of lack of evidence or likelihood of escape
of such defendant, that the prosecution should he required to divulge the
contents of wire tappings'and that the examination as to o "confidential
_
informant" should go far enough to show that he was not a wire tapper.
Reversed and remanded.
Coplon v. U, 5,, Cert. denied, 342 U.S. 925 952!
. Judith Coplou was convicted for copying, taking, concealing
and removing document; of the Department of Justice, in which the defendant
was an employee, to the injury of the U. S. and to the advantages of a
foreign nation. During pendency of appeal, defendant filed a motion for a
new trial which was denied. From this denial defendant appealed and court
of Appeals considered latter motion separate from the record in the main
trial. The Court of Appeals held that while there was sufficient evidence
to sustain the verdict of the jury. the District Court erred in holding that
7,, _ . 7 _._. '_ _ . _ >47»---._._v,._ -..-.-.--a---_...__.-__...._....----
h
is
.e - I
av-
4
3-._
gu-
£1.
.
1
.__ WJvI
_ _'.w -1-
D
- 15 -
the interception of telephone messages between the defelialt and her
counsel before and doing her trial, if it occared, was nothing lore _
than I larinns breach nf Qthins- nivn-.9 if the Inter-msnt-I t ni I n ll II ID!v---_ -- ----'-- ------- -- v----v-' ---vv -- -¢- --v-wwr--w- w-wq rm-wnvw
the defendant was denied the effective aid. andessistance of counsel.
Judgment of conviction was affirmed, order denying notion for
nev: trial set aside and case remanded with directions.
Uonsnedieu v. Board of Regents 952! 342 U.S. 951. per cnrian
opinion, affirmed 301 N.li 476, 95 N.E. 2d B06
Plaintiff in three cases sought adjudication that lbw York's
Feinl...92~rg lee, .. A as emp. - - - '- -
>1.,.____ y
92_ - ,. _
yv Pi
£
gh
it
I U
@16-
.y. ' _ .-
fiudlug such counsel guilty -of criminal coutemptaud seuteiciug then ""'
to imprisonment. Held, this action was within the power of the trial judge
United States v. Sctor 952! 343 U.5. 169 , u
L, - -' '1
Specter was indicted for violation of a law which made it a
felony for an alien against whom a specified order of deportation was eut-
standing to "willfully fail or refuse to lake timely application in good
faith for travel er other docments necessary to his departne'. Ail
order of deportation was entered against him in l960 hy reason of his
advocacy of the overthrew of the governncnt hy force and violence. The
District Court dismissed two counts of the indictment on the ground that
the provision quoted was void for vagueness. The court held it was suf-
ficiently definite to free it of the constitutional infirmity of vagueness,
and reversed the decision.
United States v. Remington. Cert. denied, 343 U.S. 907 952!
Remington was convicted of perjury for denying under oath that
he had been u nemher of th Connmnist Party and he appealed. The Circuit
Conrt held that instruction that to find membership in the Conmnnist Party
jury must find that defendant performed the act of joining the party,
that the act of joining is crucial, that jury mast not find evidence of
the very act of joining the party hat rather frou all the evidence jury
most he convinced beyond reasonable doaht that defendant was in fact a
laminar nf the Crllnmnlnf Qlnrtv and -an ans-nan!-.nrl me luanll law e. sanemw-r-ww- was wmaw wv-suwrmuamgupv nun Ti wmmman Iu-ussw Ivmwvwrrwal Ilslr -Uwlm 3 - Iuumui
error and error uni prejudicial. D _
Reversed and remanded.
.
i
_
Q.-.
3 92
;- -4.
_;-2-él
,-,'I
av
:-F
V...
.v
.- n"-In
u
PP 17 -
Brasher v. United States 952! 343 U.S. 918, per surian reversing
190 F. 2d 167
Brunner was called as a witness for the United States is the
prosecution of another person. He refused to-answer questions concerning
his membership in the Consnunist Party is 1937 or 1938 or nhether he ever
saw the defendant at meetings of the Communist Party in those years. lie
claimed the privilege against self-incriinatio_n,. but the trial court
denied the claim and sentenced him for contempt for failnre to answer.
The Court of Appeals affirmd the sentence on the ground that since the
Smith Act was not enacted until 1940, the witness could not be prosecuted
for membership in the Communist Party in 1937 or 1936. '
_!_i_egy; v. Undeggaff 952! 344 U.S. 163 o
An Oklahoma statute requiring each State officer and employee
to take an oath that he is not, and has not been for the preceding five
years, a nember of any organization listed by the Attorney General of the
United States as "Comunist front" or "Subversive" nas, construed by the
State Court to exclude persons from state employmnt solely on basis of
membership in such organizations, regardless of their knowledge concerning
the activities and purposes of the organizations to which they belong. l
The Supreme Court held that as thus construed, the statute violates the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
hhtional Labor Relations__B4>,ard v.1 pent 953! 344 U.S. 875 S
A union whose officers had not filed non-Comunist affidavits
filed a charge agqnst an employer with the National Labor Relations Board.
~,--
t.I-nunnFnI_un-I_nM-dIIIIIHiIIIiIIIIiiIiIIIIIIIIIIIlIBIIIIHlIII-HIiIHillllllllllhhminmiuahnhm
,145."
LI
0
F92
. _ 92_
_ .
I -- |V v-- 7n
- - 1a - _ -.;n~= =
Thereafter the affidavits were filed and the Board issued n conplaint and,
.92 .-
after the nsnal proceedings, ordered the employer to correct the charged
' ' - I |
unfair labor practices. The Court of Appeals set aside the order on the
ground that the Board could not entertain the charge when the anion had not
92 2
complied with the requirement of non~Conuunist affidavits. the Supreme
Court reversed this decision, holding that the filing of such affidavits
was not s prerequisite to the filing of a charge. '
Grioif 7. iiiioughbj 5.5. 33 l ' =
Petitioner was inducted into the army under the doctori' draft
law, but was not commissioned or given the usual duties of an army doctor
because he refused to state whether he was, or had been, a member of the
Communist Party. Be applied for a writ hf habeas corpus to discharge him
from the army on the ground that personnel inducted under the doctors
draft law should either be commissioned or discharged. The Court concluded
that he was not being held in the army unlawfully and affirmed the dismissal' ' , i ' I. ' 1 ..._ ~i '
of his application for habeas corpus. i "
Heikkila v. Barber 953! 345 U.S. 229 -
An alien nho has been ordered deported on the ground of member-
ship in the Communist Party may not obtain review of the Attorney General:
decision under section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act by a suit
for declaratory Judgment or injunctive relief. Habeas corpus is the only
- .. . »...
1 I
I -4 *-'5
' 92
A
,1.
Q
.2...
2
t
i
-_5. -
t.
,1- 19 _
g1_be__r;L8_o_n v. Iillard 953! as-as u.s. 242 " "-9 '1"--'"
.. ¢
A Five days after the lichigan Communist Control Act was passed,
the Comuuist Party oi Iichigan and its Executive Secretary sued for a
declaratory_judgment that it was unconstitutional and for an injunction
against its enforcement. The District Court found it constitutional but
tenporariiy restrained its enfnreenent pending ippeai. i similar suit ins
brought in a state court but was held in abeyance pending decision in the
Supreme Court. The judgment of the federal district court was vacated
and the case remanded with directions to hold the proceedings in abeyance
a reasonable time pending construction of the statute by the state courts.
In re Isserman 953! 345 U.S. 286
Isserman was one of the defense attorneys in Dennis v. United
States, 341 0.5. 494, who was sentenced for contempt at the conclusion
of the trial. Following aifirmance of the contempt sentence he Ins dis-
barred by the Supreme Court of lee Jersey. .0n the basis of that disbar-
nent, and respondent's failure to show cause why he should be disbarred
an practicing in the
,hA_______--1n_-n-n1in-r~unInIumnunIII-hunu-_u-Inu-nIn1iQ0QI1hIlIIUQI-lIlIIInIIiIIIhh~-A
:-_.-
v- 0-v
up
J.
u-F1»
i
1
0
4V 92
.49"
pridqes v. Dnitedu5tetes 953! 3d6 U.$. 209 _i3:1 h?;,§iv p L :_hi
, Petitioners nere indicted for testifying falsely in Bridges
had not been n naturalization proceeding in 1945 that he was not and
wenber of the Communist Party. Held that the eneral three-year statute
4-
1*!
#-
*2
T.
re
4
"CE"PII
. -*5. _ /
, .P .
92 ' 1
n W!
31 -
.. ..ist .!ef:,'-ee taittee persesnt tea sebptess sf s. tiengressiessl
Yileunaittee; On the basis of thateeaiictieu his licenseto practice as a
physieiain in lbw Iork was suspended for six non-ths. Ihe Suprem Court
upheld this action. -It held that the state did not deprive Barsky of any
constitutional right by making the conviction of any crime e violation ,
of its professional nedieal standards, and leaving it to a qualified board
of doctors to determine initially the measure of discipline to be applied
Q Q Q Q QQ Q QQ QQ Q QQ Q QQ In
_é
5
2
A
;__i>.
K.
-92
i. I I H In i " I ' ,,
l- ,
Q... ye
. .
92 : -gnaw _
Rational Labor Relations Board had no authority to require officers of
anions to affirn truth of their affidavits. or to bar unions for participating
in representation and unfair labor practice proceedings unless officers
should affirn truth of their affidavits. - 92 - _ -
Quinn v. United States 955! 349 U.S. 155 C
Quinn was indicted for contempt of Congress for refusing to say
whether he was or had been a nenber of the Communist Party. He had
nrl nnf arl Q_l92.' Iva-II-wjiu W DIX
cl 1l'n'l'o|-navrl en? n-Inn-lvnslc far rnfvvenl in fnQf"fir_vnrln'I*7 -7" -IE vi - - Y ' . - I - L - DL 1-m " " v
the "First and Fifth Amendments . Held that his reference to the Fifth
Amendment was sufficient to invoke the privilege. Ioreover the conviction
could not stand because the committee did not specifically overrule his
objection and direct him to answer the questions.
gmgspack v. United States 955! 349 U.-S. 190
A conviction for refusal to answer 66 questions asked by a
Congressional Connnittee concerning alleged membership in Communist Party
and Communist front activities was reversed because questions were within
the scope of the Privilege which was properly claimed and not waived, and
because the conmittee did not specifically overrule the claim of privilege
under the Fifth __Amendme_nt and direct the witness to answer. 1*
Petitioner refused to ansner questions put by a Congressional
Conlnittee concerning himself and the identity of certain officials of the
..,.;_Comnunist Party, on the ground of his constitutional privilege against self-I
incrimination. The committee did not specifically overrule his objection .
s92"
sv.
-2
Z
;Q-.
...
L
4
P75 -
_i-*1--»
i-Lo
| ..- 92
- -;"' . _ - - . -' '- .| M '- . _' 'v '-I 5* , - yIT-I - >-
_*. v.1 ' 92
' .33..
492 QG
_ .-. .92 .- V ~. _ =- -- I¢ ._ - >- -.>
192, the District Qourt should have entered .a judpent of acquittal since. , _ _.. . __ - -.-' _ . I ' f-. ' '-'_ __ ':_. _- 92_ . - "
the counnitteep had failed to lay the necessary foundation for n prosecution.V '.K'92]nf .,.- ._ . » .-~ :,.! - - ':" '* _
gm v. E, §. -955! 349 o.s. 219 _ - * . - . .
> . , Sumoued to testify before a congressional eiurestigating i '* I
colnnittee, petitioner refused to answer certain questions. on the ground
of his constitutional privilege against self-incrinination. Ihe con- ~
mittee did not specifically overrule his objection or direct hin to A-
answer. §__1;l_: In his trial for a violation of 2 0.5.0. 192, the District
Court should have entered a judgment of acquittal, because the comittee
had failed to lay the necessary foundation for a prosecution under §l92.
~ Beversedc ' 7
I Fetitioner wasirenored from federal empioyment after the Loyalty
Review Board determined that there was reasonable doubt as to his loyalty.
After petitioner had been cleared by an Agency Board of charges of newbor-
1-
ii»
1?
- - 2':-..'*"
I. Ill I I. In Ill __ |~|l-i li i Illa - 7 i i92
1 .
4 - . 4I - n. ...f p-a
3'..-
92 .
Ir .
IMI 5
P} ! ".' ",~- I .1 1: "._.7- --.-92'! "',- | :7 " - ' '1' 1_! , "" "M
S v. Qocacola Bottli,nL§£o,_ 956! 350 0.5. 264 5 ~ -" -l -a
-. _. -.._.I_ l-- _ - I Illlll ll
an employer with unfair labor practices in violation of .§§B a!h l! and.
4
B a!! sf the Ill! Act. A complaint based an these charges Ins issued.
At the hearing, the employer challenged the Board: jurisdiction on the
ground that the anion had not satisfied the requirements of §9 h!, Ihich
requires the filing of non-Connunist affidavits by all "officers" of the
Union. and of any national or international labor organization of Ihich it
s
is an affiliate, and offered to prove that the iiegionai director of the
0.1.0. for Kentucky, who had not filed such an affidavit, was as "officer"
within the meaning of §9 h!. o v
The Supreme Court held: ! The Board erred in ruling that.
during the course of the nnfair labor practice hearing, the employer
could not show that the labor organization had not complied Iith section
is
It.
2?
-
-1.
;!_ ." ml" "int ,.',m. K . an
. -M .~_ _ _ - J -1- 92- I U.. . ' _ , .- n . I I . I - I - I
I - ' ' . i * I h
I
' I er 92' :__
-5- _ i
Act of 1954 requiring petitioner to testify. fetitioner persisted in his
refusal to ansncr, and nas convicted of contenpt andsentenced to inprison-
_ .. _4 -hr, . _ _ _ .
" -- ""'Ient. The Snprene Court held the Innity let constitutional and sustained '
the conviction. o C; ' "' A " "
' ennlsgglvauiza v. relsga 956! aso u§s. 491 _ _ - _
o . klson had been convicted of violating the Pennsylvania sedition
act, hut the conviction had been reversed by the state Snprene Court on
the ground that the state lnsv had been superseded -by -the Saith Act passed
by Congress in 1940. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision on the
ground that the scheme of federal regulation is so pervasive as to nake _
reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the states to
supplement it. - - - '
§1o_choIler v. Board of Education 956! 350 0.5. 551 '" _ -
A nitness before a Congressional Comittee refused to ansner
questions concerning nenbcrship -in the Communist Party in 1940 and 1941
on the ground that his ansners night tend to iacrinainate hin. Thereafter I ' u
-he nas smnnarily discharged from his position as a teacher in a college
operated by lien York City, pursuant to provision in Pen York City Charter that
whenever a city employee claims the privilege against self-incriniuation to
avoid answering before a legislative colanittee a question concerning his
official conduct, his employment shall terminate. Held that noinference
of guilt can be drawn fron claim of privilege before the federal colanittee
and sary dismissal violated due process clause of the Fourteenth
lunendmant.
'0: r; _
0:
4;.1
he
i4._'s"' . .-¢ ' .
' J
"'__Jm _ I
hi the I - * " *"" _ * s iugeiej - ~ " Jtict, and
tenants appealed. The Superior Court. Appellate llepartueut held that the
housing authority was without authority ,to exact the signing of a s alas.-.-.:..-».>
certificate of non-membership in certain organizations designed by the -
Attorney General of the United States in an emcntire order, as a e
condition to the right to occupy its premises. -- ' a
_ Reversed and remanded for trial upon the issues.
llnitedZIine_JlQtk,c1sy. Arkansas Qu§_EL>,ariag Co. 956! 351 ILS. 62
-.> .'
_ A state conrgt had issued an order restraining picheting by
employees uho _uere on strike for recognition of their union. The union
held cards fro a majority of the eligible employees authorizing it to -
r>0
,I
mian
éh
0
L
i
lI{FI "-3 1
Q ' f Q an
. ;=2B _
Goonnitt Ports so Sliwersire Activities Qootroi Board £19545! 351 I-J:§% lg
aw" +».-'"~ ---Ihile an appealfrom an order of the Sahreriivelctirities Control
Board requiring petitioner to register as a 'Counuuist-action" orqaniza- _
tion was pending, petitioner asked leave to introduce new evidence - a
which would show that the testimony of three government witnesses was
perjnrious. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of the challenged
witnesses was not inconsequential in relation to the issues decided by
in QAIIIIIQQA§U IFUII-I-IE
original determination in the light of petitioner's challenge. A 4 Qnail J-s l92ICUUHDIUBI I-BI:
.
sf
w
-U
do
92_ - 92_ _". - . J I . _
I -, i--s . P
I: *-i
>n _L_ r . _ ' ,. __+
__ L ._ . _. .__|_-..._ '
* 29 ' '_ -IQ Q_ r. . __ WA! _a .' .. ' 1 " . '. _ _ __ . _ ; _92:_92"_ L; | I - , k_ _ _ ._ , __ ', I. o "
adlinistratiue hearings authorised by regulation of the Attorney-General '
but not expressly required by statute, a special inquiry officer found ""~"- 315>"='=**
that the applicant net the statutory reqnirennts for grant of is- = '
cretionary relief. Ibvertheless, suspension was denied on the basis of .
confidential information not disclosed to the alien. i'he Supreme Csnrt
sustained the denial of the application. Since suspension of deportation
was a natter of grace and not of right, the nsa of confidential information
- ; 1
was pernissihle, at least where the action was reasonable. - e
t so_ .4. . _ -
Cole s. Young 956! 351 U.S. 536 -5
Petitioner: enploynent by the Food and Drug Adninistration was
terninated after he declined to answer charges that he associated with v -
Counsunists and contributed to subversive organizations. Being entitled
to veterans preference he brought an_ action for a declaratory judgment '
that his discharge nas invalid and an order requiring his reinstatement
to his former position. The Court heldlthat since there had been no 4 -
determination that his position affected national security. sunsuary dis-
missal was not authorized by the Act of August 26, 1950, and hence
violates the Veterans! Preference Act. - -
gizer v. Bronn, Cert. denied 351 11.5. 962 956!
Action to enjoin the officers of a local union from disbursing
92 1
and concealing funds and to prevent their use of the property of such
local. A preliminary injunction nos granted and judgment Ins rendered»
for plaintiff in the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, and the defendants
appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that when the International i
"E.
*u
Q
_"-
40%
Ewe., '1 1 ',,. » - .
. ' ._ . - . ' --;;'-"':",'~-:1;-92; -!e~1'¢ "7--' *'~ '~ - > . I _ _ - 1*»; .-" ' ' ' ' 1_ ._. , i - P _ 92 , I "3 |. _ ' 92 g ' _ .. ' r Ir
awe _'- "_ '92 .
. ' =* M - 92 .92 . _- i -- . l., _92 , _ I . . . . _ _ y . _, _; ' ' _- _ - ._ 92 o. . - %_.z .- -I - -
. .- , I
chartered a new 1ocal anion tor the purpose oi absorbing anticaxnist
miners of the old anion and preserving their nership to the International,
. ,_ _ 4 _ . 92 . V _ . r - ,._;_' _ _ ,4: .._f _
there was no breach of contract by the International under the Constitution,
and the International had the better title to the property of a disbanded
anion, that there .was no reversible trial error, -and that the International
did not appear before the trial court with unclean hauls. ~ '
ational Lnuyers Guild I. Brow[n_ell, Cert. deniedldl 0.5. l956!o
Rehearing deniedj351 U.S. 990 956! .
Action by national bar association to enjoin U. S. Attorney
General tron designating association as connnistic and to obtain jndg- -
went declaring executive orders under which__Attor_ney General was acting
and procedures adopted by hin under such orders unconstitutional and
, 'h-. 7 - . .. . _ - -n ring attorney GQIGIII disqualied to rule in such case because or
alleged prejndgnent of the issues. The District Court granted snnaary
jndgpcnt, and association appealed. The Conrt of Appeals held that where
Attorney General posed, asbasic issue, that association nest exhaust its u
adnininistrative remedy before obtaining judicial review, such issue became
one upon the nerits of prayer for permanent iajnnctive relief, and, such,tr
,5?!
Q$5-
gs
§_
gm.
I92. Jr, 92 -
| J I , _ r
-sh,-~..a-_ :1, -- - .
J _' __ "'5-a1- ~_ _-'_1
remanded to the liistrict Court for u deterninatiou of the credibility of __ ll. A'92 92 ,92-. __
the testiuony of ouehofpthe govcrneut Iitnesses at the trial. farts of_ d
the testimony of this Iitness in other proceedings had been shoun to be
-r
-1
Q.
4;,
are
-s»-
-3- ' Q-
E.
H.
Q1sin :1-, -
92
I- t
_ g 92 _ ., .C ' " V ] l . V -u I J' < --. - r'. .. ,, , -1 ?. ="- ..-- _ , .-. _ ' ' ._ 4 n-_ ' .B 92 - = .- .f . -.
.'_ _ . 3|; 92~ ,. u $2 - _, _ .. ' . 1 y - _ 92 -
F.2 -I . . ' » gt-~ I rargrman 1} Bar Association of Bel_timore"Cit1,i6ert. denied 352 0.5,. 830
' ' Disbarmant proceedings were institntedyby theiiiaru Association of
Baltimore _City against attorney who had been convicted in U. . District _
Court of the crime of conspiracy toviolate §2 of the Smithhct. the
I n .
Jndges of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City entered an order disbarring
attorney from practice of law, and he appealed. The Court of Appels held
that attorney was properly disbarred. ' H ' -
nffl 'n-an-I "U _ -ll -Q
. ' - 92
Qws Printing Co, v. _I1!j,._l-gghor Relations _B_o_a_rd, Cert. denied 852 U.S.
.>
Proceeding upon petition for review and upon cross-petition
for enforcement of II..RB's order providing that employer cease and desist
from discouraging membership in any labor organization by discriminatorily
discharging employees. The Court of Appeals held thathevidence was
sufficient to sustain the=findings. _'
Order modified end, as modified enforced. _ .I
92
_~
-4
[Here charges were brought by nine employees. Petitioner contended
that Board lacked jurisdiction to act en the charges because the individnal
charging parties were allegedly"'irontieg" for International typographical
Union and its Local 195 which had failed to meet the filing requirements of
section 9 of the-Act. In the course ofeits opinion, the cenrt said that
enployees, nho act individually, may assert theirewn rights before the
I33 irrespective of requirements of ilk Act that --anion file non-Connnnnisth
affidavit and regardless of whether snch employees are members of n non-
complying anion. I-nrther, a labor anion which was allegedly behind proceedings
under the ILR Act, and which had failed to file non-Connnnnist affidavit,
_'92>
an.
3-"T
-4r--u92<4
1
92
92 .:'e, 5:.3I '5' -92 e >~ > ' X 8- .f,,f.,".".- _
I-'14:, -Q! " 92 1% $_'..4'.
/ 7' I mp 'R. ~. . .1 _ ' _- '. o - -. a I ' ' -. - . -i r 92-. D . >, - - '1' ' 1 ! - . ' o . "J-1"..£,-c .1 A. . _ , ~ -.5 ..A-'....1!-..'. ll .. _ . - - -- '92 -} Y $9.. L ,. i,_ :_. a gr! __ ?___=_.!_|'$ ~._ I? $7 _ _ n l _ 1 :11», -
.. - V _ ., _ ; .-. ¢__. 1» _ »
was not to he pernitted to achieve by indirection what it could not _
_ 92 . .
accomplish directly, and enployer was entitled to-have the notice so ,92_ ' .- - . 1 ' .
, corded as to eliminate all specific references to the non-cowplying
1 : 1
anion and to wake clear that the Board's order sinply protected the §T 92
rights of the individual charging enployees.] K '_ . i .
United Electrical, Badio_andplgchinephorkers of 4nerica,iet al, v. ' -
Goodman Ianufacturing C0,, et nit, Cert. denied 352 U.S. 872 956!
_ Proceeding to review and set aside an order of the NLRB,
Iherein inter alia, the Board found ewployer-petitioner guilty of an
unfair labor practice; The Court of Appeals held that the record dis-
closed that "secretaries" and "trustees" of an international union were
"officers" within the intendnent of the Labor Relations Act respecting
-- ---- - I a .4: a n_ n J oi- I _L___ I92-i_4l_.__ n___J'I_the Ilillq OI I011-Gllllllllt illliilll will I-ll: Llllmr neutrons mourn: _92
regulation, and where such officers had not filed non-communist affidavits,
the employer was not guilty of an_unfair labor practice in refusing to
collectively bargain with the organization. '
Petition to review, set aside and vacate order allowed and the
Board's request for enforcement denied. p
Daninan v. Boa;d:o£,Education of the gity of New York; Appeal diswissed
for want of jurisdiction 352 U.S. 950 956!
Proceeding for orders directing the Board of Education and the
Beard of Higher Education of the Gity of he! Iork to annnl disaiasals
of petitioners from their positions as teachers in public schools and
colleges of the City of New York, and to reinstate then without prejudice.
a ' . -
V i_____ i W _ __ __ _ J ii i_ i _ H: _i__T_: _i_______ _ _+__ __*________i______,______,_ .,.....,.,..... .,
»
JF- .k,
5.
'1
I
r.,_
-,~
*3 -la.
in
Sc
v,,.
7 =¥
@it. . @~I
' '. r- * 9 l - '
.~_ 1-. .<,'= 5?.Il~?'92 ., -. --- - ~- 1.-- .92'V I _. ' " _n--* pa
-V Ir: " J '92-_
. _ I _
1. . W .a . . . , -- v - - . V . » . . 1 = ,-' . -- _ 92 ',
. | v- ~~ 1... _ ' _- - .'. . -._ '-'_. ";. ; . *. . 'o I ITIQ SIPIGZ COIN, SPGGIII Till, IIIQS Gilli], IIRIGG C1121! .
denying petitioners applications, and petitioners appealed. " '
W ,_ _ n ; _aru_ Conrt of Appeals urn:-ea the orders, and um rm section 3
903 of the Charter of the City of kw fork providing that the eaploynnt '
92 af any city eaployee refnsing to testify or answer any question regarding
the official conduct of any city officer or employee before any legislative
ccnanittee, on ground that his answer will tend to incrininate bin, shall
terninate, applies to a hearing before a federal legislative conittee,
and that petitioners, being paid their salaries by check signed by cityv I ¢ '.»
trees-are: -' - - -- - ' -asary, in eiployees * * * _-
within the neaning of snch section. l 1 ~
ILRB v. Easterynjaaar Street Railway Cg,_., Cert. denied"852 U.$. 951 956! '. , _ I . ' ' 92
Proceedings npon petitions for enforcement of orders of the
ILBB. Enployer charged -before ll,-BB saith having cesitted aafair labor -
practices cannot show that anion: reports or non-Communist affidavits were
false. ¢ --
d ';l brders enforced.
§o1n'v. United 5;,-M; ms-1'! as: u.s. oas, per enrialn opinion, 2:1 1-. 2a
'1
..
.1;
5*"
-5.-
In
F
¢
. --._ *- .
- 1, .
kl 4.- 92
-.1J U
I
., ---5...2?. _ _ _ V he _
_ ' -I'll
. inquired whether they had received any 'pt0plglIl' literature. The l
Supreme Coart remanded the cases to the District Beat with directions to
. a < " - ' '. -' '4 .
grant a new trial because of official intrusion into the_priracy of the Jam;
_, 4:1o, §, v. Iitkovich 951! ass u.s. 194 " " ' '
Appellec was indicted andtr §242 d! of the Immigration and'
Nationality Act of 1952 on the charge that, as an alien against whom a -
final order of deportation had been outstanding for more than six nonths,
he had willfully failed to give information requested by the Iunigration
~
and Naturalization Service under the purported authority of clause ! '
of that section. The information he was charged with failing to furnish
concerned ! present membership in and activities on behalf of the
Conmnunist Party and other organizations, and ! association with particular
individuals. The Supreme Court held: Coustruinq clause ! of §242 d!
in the context of the entire section and of the scheme of the legislation
as a whole, with due regard to the principle of so construing statutes as
Q-
35,
t;..'**
1
¢1- i I-I I-II ~|"i |- VI I. . I j I III. I III I
, . . . .é_ E,a.,_, ,_.,;__,47 __ _- V. . -
I I W . .. I I - ' - A ; , _ I I -,.| _ . _ ; _ .- V
. I7 _ _ 92 , ' ' . .. ' ~ _' _ . sh 1 ;
. ' . . 2 ' fl "'>
_ W I R I
I . r " 'W 92 . _
-*;,.,-35.. '. . .
. p _ . 4_ 4 _ ;- _-_ I e
other respects. ' Petitioner made a strong shoring of good Ioral character, p
except that itappeared that from 1933 to i937 he had used certain aliases, H... i . . , .». - ..»__,v- J __ _ __, | _ |_ . ,. V _ 1 E I ,
that he had been arrested hut nver tried or convicted! ea several occasions *"
. g ' '
prior to 1940, and that frou 1932 to 1940 he aas a aeaber of the Co-aaist
!?arty. The State Supreme Court sustained the Board. the ll. S. §aprene ._
Court held: On the record in this ease, the State of lbw Ierieo deprived
nntitlnnnr nf shun nrnrnnx in danwlnn Q11 gig nnnggglnlti lg llgglifi Q23!rt - . - . - Q - -- -- f----- -- ---;--' - - wrr ----; - 1 - ,
the practice of lav. ' A92 7|
Reversed and remanded.
onigsberg v. gme an of California 951! ass u.s. 252 "
Ia 1954 the Committee of Bar Exaliaers of California refused to
certify petitioner to practice law in that State, though he had satis-
faetori 1y passed the bar examination, on the qroulnds that he had failed
to prove ! that he was of good In-al character, and ! that he did not
advocate forcible overthrow of the Governeat. Be sought review by the
State Supren Court, contending that the Conitteeis action deprived hia -
of rights secured by the ldth Amendment. The State Supreme Court denied
his petition without opinion. The U. S. Saproae Court held: The evidence '
in the record does not rationally support the only two grounds upon which
the Committee relied in rejecting petitioner: application, and therefore
.1
the State: refusal to admit hin to the bar was a denial of dae process
and equal protection of the laws, in violation of the ldth Anendnent.
- ' That petitioner was a neaber of the Connuist Party in 1941,
1 » 92 | _ 92 '
if true, does not support an inference that he did not have good noral
I.-_-_1.__ _L___Q __-_ __.l .l____ Al.-A. I. l-__ ___-h__J .I_ Q-_ ._ 4-! __ ------5-JGIIIIIUICIQ IDIBIIF III, U'1UUlUU HID IIG BUUI §I I- BU ll III I Ell II IHPPUIBBU
t
1'1-
4..
Q-
.-
-113-.A . . ' 1I . m . _ _ _ _L 1|. - 92.
._. Q -
O
, _ g._-"-s1-"-
_ A 92
am unlawful or hmuoral activities. {_ g , , ,a..,-.. 92
-Reversed and remanded,92_. .92 or "1.- _ ,_.,., ,'_;, . _ 92 ; ._,_ .1..1
' encks v. o, §,i-uoso! ssa u.s.*ss-: P ."a~.-.*£- *3 "":" *
Petitioner was convicted in a Federal District Court of violating
1o u.s.c. .1001 by filing, under 590! of nu: Act, as president of 1'
labor anion, an affidavit stating falsely that he was not a member of the
Co-auuist Party or affiliated with such party. Crucial testimony against
him was given by two paid undercover agents hr the FBI, who stated on
cross-examination that they had made regular oral or written reports to
the FBI on the matters about which they had testified. Petitioner moved
for the production of these reports in court for inspection by the Judge
with a view to their possible use by petitioner in impeaching such testimony
Bis motions were denied. The U. S. Supreme Court held: Denial of the
motions was erroneous, and the conviction is reversed. 9 3
§eptt v. BKO Radio Bictnres, cert. denied 353 U.S. 939 957!
lotion picture director's refusal to answer congressional A
committee's questions concerning his Communist affiliations which
resulted in his contempt conrictio, constituted moral turpitude as matter
of lau, Jastifying his discharge under employment contract permitting
discharge for commission of offense tending to offend public morals or
,dccency. ' , -
The District Court entered Judgment for company, and director
appealed. -
Judgment affirmed by Court of Appeals. ' *
5»
F
~T
.
55
it.
Ia.
1-=92
f
$5
1?
I
-J»
:
t
i
il..9,-Q ;;*"
92.J.,~- " 1: _,
J 7"Fl
[ 5
V , ..
' . . - , - - ,, - .
jatiins v._ . '_ ._ - ... '. . x'!#'1-Pi :>"!a?~;:¢: 12¢.Um. I-[U ~ . - _'_.-,_ ; q '
u - _ r__ y
_ retitioner was convicted af a violation of 2 0.5.6. $192, which s
lakes it a misdemeanor for any person s1oned as I witness by either :i5?--* " W
lloase of Congress or any coaaittee thereof to refuse to nasner any _ A _
question "pertinent to the question ander inquiry". -Snnoned to testify
before a Sabcoanittee of the House of Representatives Comnittee an Un-
Anerican Activities, petitioner testified freely about his on activities
and essociations; but he refused to aasner questions as to ubether he had
knon certain other persons to have been nenbers of the Counnnnist Party. la
a
E
-1
1%-
3.
i
1l"j
-2
K
I
iF y ,
u "' l
I e
recommend
questions
to answer
delivered! 9292A
. - " ,'e_-_;;;,;_. i'¢';_~; , .,%-,.,;g_!*-,'_u'§*§;-A-_";. *-e 1
iv
. _4 _ ,1
further legislation on thut.subject, appellant answered most " I
asked hiu, including whether he nus a Communist; but he refused
questions related to ! the contents of I lecture he had he
at the State University, and ! his knowledge of the Pre- - ;
'gressive Party of the State and its members. -Be did not plead his
privilege
questions-_-.I_-4 -II_.I___.I_.l_-.|m..I4.... I.....A. l.___.I l_l_ __I_4._I Q _..-.._._. -_-.LIQHIIISF I811. IIGIIIIIIGI-IUII. BIB DISCO H15 IBIISIJ. I-U IIIXI IIGI
on the grounds that they uere not pertinent to the inquiry and
violated his rights under the First Amendcut. Persisting in his refusal
Ihen holed into a State Court and directed to answer he was adjudged guilty-
of contempt. This judgment was affirmed by the State Supreme Court, which
construed the term "subversive persons" broadly enough to include persons
engaged in conduct only remotely related to actual subversion and done
completely apart from any conscious intent to be a part of such activity.
It also held that the needlof the Legislature to he informed on the subject.
of self-preservation oi government outweighed the deprivation oi oonstitutio
rights that occurun in the process. The U. S. Supreme Court held: on the
record in this case, appellant's rights under the Due Process Clause of
the 14th Amendment were violated, and the judgment is reversed.
. 92 V
r
The 14 petitioners, leaders of the Conmunist Party in California,
uere convicted of conspiring to commit crimes with specific intent of '
causing overthrow of the Government of the U. S. by force and violence as
speedily as circumstances uould permit. The U. S. District Court entered
r
judgments of conviction an defendants appealed. The Court-of Appealsnal
held that evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction of each of defendants
1'.
1
%
L
~92_
¢¢.- 1."| ' " u - ' Mm il I . y I I i
I
I. . . » '=
92. ' 4
. -_- , 0
... _a -. - -
and affirmed judgment of district court. ~!he U.P. Supreme Court reversed
this judgment and remanded the case to the District Court with directions
to enter judgments of acquittal as to five of the petitioners and to grant
a new trial as to the others. ,- ,; A . .1 ;: -
Service v. Dulles 957! 354 D.S. 363 '
l l Action against Secretary of State and others for a judgment f
declaring plaintiff's discharge from position of Foreign Service Officer
by a former Secretary of State, invalid, reinstatement to position and
_
salary from date of discharge, and other relief. From a summary judgment
of the District Court for defendants, plaintiff appealed. The Court of -
Appeals held that plaintiff was validly discharged under statute
authorizing Secretary of State, in his absolute discretion, to terminate
employment of any Foreign'Service officer whenever Secretary deems such
termination necessary or advisable in interests of United States, though
procedures prescribed by Executive Order for removal of State Department
employees on grounds of disloyalty uere not followed.
Judgment affirmed. _ . . S.
The U. S. Supreme Court held that petitioner's discharge uas
invalid, because it violated Regulations of the Department of State
which mere binding on the Secretary.
< Judgment reversed, and remanded.
Flaxer v. U, S, 957! 354 U.5. 929
Defendant was convicted of contempt in that he refused to comply
with subpoena duces tecum requiring him to produce certain records of
union of which he mas president, before senate subcommittee on internal
....__ in --by Hr, r-I-..~..___,..._. ..__..._._. .- .._.._ ._ ... .,,._.... ..., .... ,.___. ....._.. i__._ _ V ,,__,,,, ,,,i,,_._,__,_.,,,_ .,,,_ ..,_H_,,_,__ _ _,_,,,_. __
A
$7 7
~.=n.
1
FlI In --I illllllll I . -| iiiiit-Ii E1. I -' ll I .' _
1
. _ _ _!- _ __ . , . '1"; _ 1' - __ . . a . _ _ F .
4' | *0 "A . -
V .,_.
q>;'~_'fr-..r. .¢- -»
' I
~f+ 41 -
security subcommittee hearing on certain date and president attended w»;
-hearing but failed to produce records, stating to subcommittee that he
- we -I Qt $013-54 awn. I-unnu-snuuagc Q1-4| I'll, nun-mlunq Q "'1'__ . .$ I. 92vIIIlIlilll92I IIGD II ml '1 '
subcommittee conducting hearings stated that president was directed to
produce records according to terms of subpoena, president was properly
directed to produce records in accordance with subpoena, and his failure
to do so was willful and he was guilty of contempt. " - - Y
. Judgment affirmed.
The U. S. Supreme Court, per curiam vacated judgment of Court
of Appeals, and remanded case for consideration in light of Iatkins v. ,»"
U, S, - "
Barenblatt v. u, s, 951! 354 u.s. aao r » %~- *~ s -» » ~
5
1:7.
an.
in1
v~
1.
v. - 1 -.
92 a Q ;
_-t , 0I
-1-42- 92
§acher v. U, S, 957! 354 U.S. 930 a. - Pu 1n%j: f E %%¥;?aT %*-5-=t
Prosecution for refusal to answer questions concerning Communist
Party membership asked by Senate Subconnittee investigating recantatioa
of testimony by other witnesses who had given evidence before Subcommittee
to erpose Communist conspiracy, in view of hearsay information linking
witness with Communist Party, the latter with conspiracy to bring about
ged conspiracy. " C"
_ a _ _ _ _---Tuiitau, isui vviisscaa
dudgment affirmed. C '
The U. S. Supreme Court, per curiam: The judgment of the Court
of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded for consideration in light
of Watkins v. U, S. 354 U.S. 178.
Ba_ley_et:a_,1,_ v. 9111» 951! 354 o.s. 929 ' A '
" Y Iitnesses before'0hio Un-American Activities Commission were
found guilty of contempt for refusal to answer questions. '1'-he Ohio
Supreme Court held that where statutory immunity granted witness before
the Ohio UnAmerican Activities Commission afforded witness as much
protection against self-incrimination as that to which witness was ~ *
entitled by the oonstitotional provision against self-inoriaination, nit-
r
ness had a clear duty to give her testimony free of a refusal to answer
based on rule of privilege arising from constitutional provision.
Judgment affirmed. ' " --
. The U. S. Supreme Court, per curiam: The judgment of the
Supreme Court of Ohio is vacated and the case.k remanded for consideration
¢
4-
1.» e
e .1 -ac
.-8! sF92.~ 92
- h in II - _ wn .--i- I I---|.-; e -" 4 . I -I in. . "ah our
. I a- . .
r l 92
-4.
I I
u
4
24:-
92..,- 43 -* is _ .
§_eales v. ll" In
ted 5:1-_e=_= men ass us 1 » . A. H '1-A . '_" .A'.w{-"'<.t,1' »"-.f<=='-"--*~~
- _ . _ _ Qreseentien an indict-gent charging nenher-ship in Coxnnist C-L »
Party, a group uhich allegedly advocated overthrow of qover-ent hy force
and violence, by one who knew of such crininal purposes, and who intended
to hrinq about such overthrou as speedily as circnstasnses would pernit.
The U. S. District Court rendered judgment of conviction, and defendant
appealed. The Court of Appeals held that evidence sustaind conviction.
Reversed, by U. 5. Suprewe Court per curiae, an authority of
_, .
1'4_n,I-- _ I1 C:I II' Q U §
g, s, v_. Lightfggt 951! ass u.s. 2 ' "
Defendant was convicted under ilelhership ciluse of Smith Act.
The District Court rendered judgment, and defendant appealed. The Court
of Appeals held, inter alia, that_"neubership" clause was not unconsti-
_, .
tutional; also, that defendant was not entitled to production of prosecu-
tion witness' report to I-B1, absent showing that such report was inconsistent '
with witness trial testimony. ' y o A
the Supreme Court, per curian, said: "Ilpon consideration of tb
entire record and the, confession of error by the Solicitor General, the
judgment oi the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
is rerersede genera 1. United States, 353 LLS. Q51. X
Simpson v. Q, S, 957! 355 U.S. 7 '
I92_Q___j__L ____ _ -__.1-4J _l ___.n.____4 _.I _________ Zn. w92l;_ 1-
A
'1"
-in
1-.~ -
IéI., 1| _"_' "I _ -' ' .
...i.=.~,JJ,_. _ 1 _ __ - - 5 ,u.
T '4A V I ..v!
U
s. _ '
"2. 44 -
_¢11=m-g-m place of residence was Pdqniut self-
incrinination, in absence of suggestion by defendant -or his connsel daring
interrogation er daring subsequent crininal cent-enpt prcsecatian hen facts
Ordinarily not incriminating might reasonably .tend to he incriminating in
their specialsettinq. ' s ' ' _' _ "A a .
1 Judgment affirmed. l - J
The U. S. Supreme Court. per cnriu: Upon consideration of the
entire record and the confession of error by the Solicitor General, the
judgments of the Court of Appeals are reversed. Hoffman v. D, S, .351 U.S.
479, 1
92 .
Qphaus V. Iygan 957! 355 0.5. 16 ' ' '
Froceedinq by Stateis ltty. enerai for order to compel
compliance by defendant with two subpoenas duces tecun served upon him
in course of legislative investigation of subversive activities. The
court adjudged defendant in costenpt ail transferred Iithont rnlinq the
question of law raised by case and defendant also reserved exceptions
which nere transferred. I-he State Supreme Court held that ander the
circnstances the legislature was entitled to have disclosed to it
quest registration at {summer resort as well as correspondence of defendant
with persons presenting speeches and discussions at resort, and compelling
dis-closers did :ct e - -
I
35
Q-
,.
4
-w.
.92.
-s
__:i _em-~-1nann-an--unnnnnnnunnnnnnanin nos nnnnunannn-aaaane.a..n.a
av .' 5_ s. _
0
. -45..c ' -. 92y _».. - .
Ls-l;_q;v.g;_11'§_s3_9s11sssu.s.lls_.' _ I. y l -. ,- . -- 1 » -~ _ .._" -,-.-I . . _' I - V ' '
V _ liabcas corpns proceeding to test deportation order. The U. S._. . .- v 92_ '_ . 92 . .
District Court denied petition, and petitioner appealed. The Conrt of -c
Appeals held that evidence in deportation proceeding supported finding
that alien had had, after his admission to United States, more than nominal
membership in Colnnnnist Party, and affirmed order. u
an
This ees reverses! by J. 5. Sepreee Qeert. E.-id: £1! Frg
petitioner: testimony, the doninating inpnlse of his "affiliation"
with the Party may well have been Iholly devoid of any "political"
implications. ! The record is too insubstantial to establish that '
petitioner: membership was the kind of meaningful association required by
Q22, as amended by the Act of larch 28, 1951, to nnpport an order of
deportnt ion.
gal_:gr_Board v. !ine I_orkers 956! 355 0.5. 63
The ILRB found that an employer had committed an nnfair labor
practice by assisting a anion to defeat the effort: of a rival anion to
organize the employer: workers. hat that the assisted nnion was not
dominated by the employer. It ordered the employer to post certain notices
and to withdraw and withhold recognition from the assisted anion sntil
it received the Board: certification as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees. The assisted anion was not eligible for
such certification, because it was not in compliance Iith §9 b!, g! and
h! of the ILR Act as amended. The Court of Appeals modified the Board":
Order so that the employer would be free to recognize the assisted anion
F-"
¥
t~
4-
T
-v-
a
1-to -
Jo
I.oI ,
9
v. --
, I i I _ I I il-I I. I. 92i I I
0I _ __ ~. V -. I .. - | ~_ 0" 1-1
-
|
-46 - _ _, do '
. - __'~_ 5'-;-.1"-: ' - ._ '. .-';.- ' -._; _ .
been freely chosen as [their representative] hy a majority of the eaployees. - . .'~..- .. ._ ' ..__ - I D _ 7- . - _ . _ _ ' _.- ~- - --_ - '5
after all effects of aafair lahor practices have heea eliminated". -
_ - the U. S. Supreme Court held: In the circumstances 5: this ease,
th Board's order is not appropriate or adapted to the situation calling
y 4
for redress, and it constitutes an abuse of power under §l0 c!.Inrlhnsaf ' I I . I I. Inf i
?
Y
=._.
1.
-1-»4:...
-1 _.
i '|'- I
' 4*: .' , - _, .1 . JL *3. " 1 no _, I .
w-"O - .£$¥f£l.f *
. 92_ . 1».-'41 -
92 ' 1
gyson v. II, 8,," ae denied, 355 0.8. Bl? 951!; Rehearing denied,E QQD I:15 HQIIQ DI? 92 F '
- . , . " 4 '1
. Defendant was convicted in District Court oi filing false non-
Iioununist affidavit with gum and he appealed. __rs= Court of lppeals held
that evidence supported conviction. ' A '1, ' " l ' '-
Mfirned. . C
v. l.annomjl,fg. Co,_, cert. denied, 355 U.S. B22 957! 1 /
Proceeding by the IIJIB for enforcement of an a_nfair_ labor
practice order issued against the employer. _0_n notion of the respondent
to reaand the cause to the ILRB. The Court of Appeals held that gen-
forceaent of unfair labor practice order was not barred on ground that
charging anion was not in compliance with the statute requiring the filing
of non-Counist affidavits by union officers.
lotion to reuand and alternate motion to dismiss overruled.
gimigz v. Barber, cert. denied, 355 U.S,. 903 957!
Alien: action for declaratory judwent to contest holding of
Attorney General that he was not eligible for suspension of deportation.
District Court entered judgment adverse to plaintiff and he appealed.
Court of Appeals held that under statute providing that Attorney General
may, within his discretion, suspend deportation of certain deportahle
aliens who have proved good moral character within preceediug 5 years,
where such an alien was granted hearing, after warrant was issued for his
deportation, questions proponnded to him as to his affiliation with certain
organizations, including the Coinaunist. farty, were within legitimate area
_J .
1-I.
vI
~"%' -!'i;:F---92 if-92,.
92, r . . ' ' -
. ,.§_ -_- .._. e ._ .- - ' - ,7 ._ - '12, .» ,_ __ _k _- -_ .' r_'_, _ _- .__ 4» ; -I - . - ..- - ~ -1 -- . E oe. ";_ - t VD~. -i I I
I , " V .
92 " "
a "¢ ' 1'ye . H I8 ¢ . *
- . ,V ' . - ' '1 .>' " -_ ._'o" _
of inquiry, and his rafasal.te ansner than jastiiied raiIsalte treat f_ _ .. _¢ _ __ _.. - _ - -.
hia as deserving oi discretionary relief. i-~~?3*° 5~**-7 *5-ii' * ""
:e'¬,.§- , ;- s - . . - _-.. . * :4 Q, .s-.' . 1-;&.'~ =1» -"?-"P-- *- ' " JIGQEII IIIIIDG. . _ p
- . . 1? ., 1 . .
Iiukkanen v. Bggd, cert._denied, 355.U.S, 906 957! _ *I , . .
' The Court oi Appeals, pgr curiae: -this appeal is tron an order of
the District Court disnissing appellant's petition for a nrit oi haheas
ecrpus a er eerprr '92
earlier issued, and renanding appellant to the Immigration Service for
sdtpltlill to Finland. _0n the grounds and {or the reasons stated in
. the District Court's opinion, D. C., 146 F. Suppk 106, the order appealed
. from is affirled. i '1. e a
. h _ ,.92__ ,!._ , .. .1-_..; ._ .- . -
Rystad vBoid, cert. denied,.355 n.s. 912L95BJ: rsheeriaq denied 355 B-8-
Alien's suit, challenging legality of deportation order,
1-r
ii.... 1?? It u '-"~77 * _92
_. IN ll __-V _ --f_'3_ - e ,W_ -**- . -' ' "- -'*'$$~¢-.><?>92 7 '. _ q rs_ '.» - U
5-I9-. 1
. '=_1 , ~ - -. - . . ' _,. ' / " . - - _ ' a ' Y ; w~ I: __
denying the application, applicant appealed. ihe Conn at Appeals -held -
- -92. " ... -
that applicant's testimony at hearings in deportati.on_preeeedings as to _;
his active nenhershlp in Connaist Party and a .snhv'e_rsive organisation C
M r_ 3...-*1. _ ' . . f_ -. e I .- , -_*' ... ~ - ' " __.' __'_::;?_" " 7. 'l ".z "nu: ..-_ under Comaaist domination placed hia in class e.t.a1i.e.ns.aahje_ct to
. ' _-u ..
arrest and deportation under statute, on Attorney Cenerallswarraat and
order. '
Order aftiraed.
< - ' '
[1, S, .I._S.ilver|nan, cert. denied 355 0.8. 942 958! A" '
- l .. Prosecutions for conspiracy to violate the .Saith. Act. The
0
District Court entered judgment of conviction and.de£endaat.s appealed.
The Court oi Appeals held that evidence was inefficient to sastain - - ~
convictions for conspiracy to use language reasonably calculated to incite
the audience to ase violence against the Gover|nnent..ot.ths United States,
either innediately or in the iatare, in violation of the act. '
Reversed with directions for dismissal of indictwent.
_llg-1.. Qowaell, 956! 26 L.I. 3241 -
_ Action by alien against U. S. Attorney General tolehtain
declaratory relief from a deportation order. The U. S. District Court '
entered judgment adverse to alien, and alien appealed. The Court oi
Appeals held that alien's past nenbership in the Connnunist Party of
Canada was sufficient to sustain his deportation; and affirmed jndgaent.
The I1. S. Supreme Court, gr curiam: Upon suggestion of aootness
7 by all of the parties, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and
the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to diswiss the
cause as Iloot .
, .
- ' s . 925 _ -. V - = 925°
__ , .. 1. 7- - _ * .~ -- _ pi
. .
w .3- "~a-?- e-------V .. ' 92
3- ' _ .~ ' . -e
-'-~
-n
9
a
.,,..
. r
,_t
E~'L'- - - - . ~' '
' 92-Ti-I asiq-,i4.,.-P111112 42¢. [x..Z.
]Q_r_g I. §g1958!% l..I. 4509 __ ! _
_ .3 .;! .._ _" ;3t ,,|_. ,'q-"92.{8>1_ _'-_ ff.
.' y -_. ' Proceeding for an order conpelliag city transit. authority to '
. _ F v 3.! 1_»_. __ - y . _ _.; V,_ _,92reinstate petitioner in position of conductorlin the.city's subway systeu.
The Suprone Cenrt,_Speciu1 Tern, Kings County, 'hw Yorh, granted the i
authorityis notion for disuissai and petitioner appeaiedhfne iiupreue
Court, Appal-late Division, Second Judicial Depart.lont,..u'i1ireed by a
dirided court, and petitioner appealed. "'!he_Ceort oijppeals held that o
under Security Risk Law, transit authority was authorised to dischargei y
on enployee occupying positienoef suhway conductor i.u its. egency which had, , ,
been designated o "security ogency' under such 1an;..nere1y.npea o showing
I
that when asked if he was "then" a uenbcr oi the Coaanunist Party, he
refused to answer, and gave ua a reason for so roiusingshnt his-answer| E . A
night tend to incriminate hiu within the mooning oi the Fifth Amendment
to the federal Qenstitntion. . ' - E - 1--. r- _-.;~. g '
itho IJ. S. Suprenc Court, in affirming the state court decision,
said in the coarse of its opinion: . o -= Q 1- -~
The issue then reduces to the narrow qnostionmhether the -. . f :,_ _. -. . __ .. _, , -
eonelnsiop -which -could otherwise he reached iron appellant's refusal to
answer is;consti_tutionally barred because his refusal was ecconpeuied by
the sssortion .0! o 5th auendnent privilege. Io thiah it does sot. A-the
Federal privilege against sol!-incriuiuetion was uetavailabie to ap-, . . .
pellant throaglr the 14th oneudment in this state investigation. hm
v. Schweitzer 958! 26 L.I. 4528; ld;l_l§_QI I. California 947! 33211.5.
46. _A_nd we -see no uerit in appellant's suggestion that, despite the
teachings oir_tI;e_§c cases, the plea wosgyeileble tehin in th_i_s_iustaece_ . y . -
~1_
1.
?
92T__
E
b
a
- _ _92_.__3_. .
i
.¢:0"- 92 a ' - . a , . Ml, -_ A,
H so -a - '"
1
9
,...Ti92- -so , t '~ -' l _ - - ._
~ J
. , a I
_ -,:-5l- __
becanse the State ans acting as agent for, or in collaboration niti,
the Faderal~Gevernnens. ,Ihis-centention finds no support in the record.
ience no-are not iere concerned niti tie protection, as a nntter of H-
lpolioy er eenstitntional reqnirenent, to he accorded persons nho nnder .
similar-eirennstanoes, in a Federal inquiry, validly insole ts; Federal
privilege. -l8<U.S.C. §34Bl; Iiison V. U, 5,, 149 U.S. 60;.S1ochoner I.
Qgard oi Higher Bducation,.350 0.5. 551, Grnnenald I. U, 5,, 33 0.5. 391.
Under these cironnstaaoes, ne.eannot say that appellantls explanation for
his silence precluded Hen Iork from concluding that his failure to respond
to relevant inquiry engendered reasonable doubt as to his trustnorthiness and
reliability. .. . . .f
Ie hold that appellant; discharge ens not in violation oi
. ;_ _ . ,_'__ » 1,_ - /"W" I
rights assured him by the Federal Constitution.
*.
E
.-i-
1-
LI
8-.
A.
guiI z
92 S-we_r - p. _u_ » . _ .." . = ,.r92 r -,_. , - ~ - 92 J1 4 ._ '_ d -._ . - ' 92 . Ix * 1 I-_. ,- . .p-- .
- - .-t92 .
. 1 7....
-52-"_._.__, . _ . . y . .
» _- ' - .-J - *- '_
denying. passpu-ts,..i'iTeffect,. to C1vnist_s end to persons nhon nvidnnce
. . - r"
shonnd -_Il- going abroad to farther Gmnnistueaaseyior regalntion"
giving antherity._to denaad a non-Conuist affidavit fru eitinen
applyiagfer-pnasport.;.-- < ' ' ' '
- leverned. e _
Qonetti v. Qgggg 95%! 356 11.5. 691 ~
92 . ' _
~Aetion to set aside order of deportation. .1'he.U..S.. District
Court for -the District ..0I.C01_bil disnissed the coaplaint. The alien
appealed. -The u. s. Court of Appeals n.c.! 99 u.s. App. n.c. aaa,
240 F. 2d 624, affirned, and the alien bronqht eertiorari. The
Supreme Court, -Ir. Justice Ihittaker, held that nhere alien nae. ad-
_ . _ . -_r.'.;_..'9292.- ',, I Q
Iitted to U. S. for pernanent residence on Ilovenber 1, 1923, and.n1ien
became member oi Counaunist Party in 1932 and remained nenber to end
of 1936 when he left party and never rejoined it, and in 1937 he
voluntarily 1¢rz.n..s. to q» to Spain 1» fight in Spanish Republican
Arny, -and on October 8, 1936 he was admitted to U. S. for permanent
residence as a quota immigrant and he thereafter oontinnonslyrnsided
in U. S. except fo:-a ene.day visit to Iexieo in September 1939,- alien!
"tine of entering United States", within Sections of Internal Security
Act of 1950 providing in effect for deportation of any alien who nas at
tine of etoring U. 5., or who has been at any tine thereafter, a nenber
ef Connnnnist party, nns.0otober B, 1936, as affected, if at all, by his
returning entry from Iexice in September 1939, and iaasnnoh as alien was
not on October 6, 193B,_.or at any time thereafter, including September
1939, a nenber of Comnnist Party, he was not deportable under the Act.
Reversed.I
'4
2
-J
3»
§_
.'q,n,4
:-I' I= - Hr 92"- .-
01 ~" 1- if . i ._ "wk V 1 __ 92
II
. ' -9;, ~ -4 »' one 53 In M -- y. _ .¢r,: -we l'92- LPN "' J - P ,-. _ *3;-_ __ _,_. '. ,1 -, - 92__ , -.5, -. ,... - . _ .
' ' . . ',.' e ¢
_ ----1 Pahllo-_§Q!mi9a tvzwzr» L_-I- 451? l %A ,- -' . - - "~11?" -- _ -.E;92.. "-5 - :3 l- 5
* , _ Proceedings for reneval of_ teacher. The Court of Cxan _
. 5-an,
*__. :- .,92. _ . _ , : ,_,o". _ U
Pleas, Io.'6 of the County of lhiladelphia reversed the Superintendent
oi Public lnstruction's-order discharging the teacher and the Board <
,_ _.
oi Education appealod.-.Ihe State Soprano Court held,that nhore the
local superintendent of schools, in 1952, ashod teacher if teacher had
been press director oi professional section oi Conanist political
association in 1944, and teacher utter consulting counsel refused to
ansner that question or sinilar questions, the deliberate and ia-I I ' I - ' . 92 .. .
sibordiaito,rofnsa1 stanped teacher with incompetence nithin statute
asking inconpotonce ground for disnissal oi teacher. Court's order
reversed and Superintendent's order atfirning dislissdl sustained.
The U. S. Suprene Court, in an opinion by Ir. Justice.Burton
stated, in substance: -The question beioro as is nhothor the Board of
Public Education for the School District of Philadelphia, Pennsylrania,
violated the Due Process Clause oi the ldth Anendnent nhen the Board,
pnrporting:to act under the Qonnsylvania Public School Code, discharged _
_;, _ .. _ -.- _,*- - ._.l ~ .-7., - . ,
a public school teacher on tho ground of 'inconpetency", evidenced by
the teacher's.ne!eeal oi his Superintendent; reqeest to eon!ire.erare!nte
infornation-as to the.teacher"s loyalty and his activities in certain
allegedly subversive organizations. Ie hold that it did not. Ie.tind
no requirement in the Federal Constitution that a teacher's classroom
conduct ho=the sole basis.£or determining his iitaess.' Fitness tor
teaching dopends;on a broad.range oi factors. Thc.Pcansy1vania tensre
povision specifies several disqualifying grounds one of nhich is ~
36
1:.
N.
J-
-2"_._,_
>w , ll ; _ ___ 1 -- _
I _
'-H '-. :' '
l ._V ._' - i . - ,
_. . _ , -_,rJ"inconpetency". In the instant eese, the Pennsylvania Snprene Ceart has
-g .held that Qincowpetency" iwclnies petition:-'s bliherate Ill insnhordinate
' refusal to nnsnr the questions ef. his edniaiitrative snperier in e' - "
vitally inportant-natterhpertaininq te his fitness. 886 Pa.. at 91, 92
125 A 211..-at 831 .Said. Ir. Jastice Barton: "this interpretation is .
not inconsistent with the Federal Constitution. .- ' .
The petitioner complained that he was denied dae process hecaase
he was not sniciently warned e! the consequences e! his retasal to
answer his Superintendent. The Conrt was of opinion that petitioner
had snfficient Inning, and "there was no elenent of surprise.
Jndpent of Snprene Ceart of Pennsylvania eirned. '
A [riedpnn v. Internntionnl Association or Ie_chi,nis_ts, cert. denied no
*L.I. 3368 l95B! i
Action presenting question
iron nenbership in anion in a nannerwhether anion naenhcr was expelled
which entitled hin to jndicial
redress. I-ron adverse jndqnsnt of the II. S. District Court for the
District of Colnnbin, .147 F. Supp. 1, the defendants appealed... The
Court of Appeals D.C.! held that nhere anion nenber, following his
_-. I -4-ilqsiniii by international pie
!
snpporting Comnnisn in violation oi
to prepare and file ahriei, through
of anion, which sustained president,
hearing before appeals and grievance-4-Inngnnen-Ian;-n Qnnlnwnrneulenns Qnnnl
union constitution, was given tile
Council, with executive ohnnsel
and anion nenber was granted nu oral
committee, which also recomended his__ -l"'F'
I: -92l"I$QDl" FlIU92P-I-Qujnq C-I Y
¥
._-_ 92
1
92!
_|
IM 92
92 I
1
. .|_,92
W ,
- _ if 5 _ F 1- . . .,. ' ;.. '1 |=_ -
- Mi: '5 _ osasrsmmam-mzsnnmcan _
§nl_n_I:_1g_}_1 I. §_,__$_,_, 26 L.I. 958; nnrt. IIIIIOI 26 L.I. 3291' 958!!
Qnostions pnnolt-sd in this cnss nsn: I! Bid Ccqrcss
nntinrinn Icnsn Cnnittcn u us-up-non Activities tn imniqm
Oknnist nctivitics in uid at ndncntioni ! Arc stntntn nli
rnnclnticn ostnhlisling Cxittcc void for s-ngnsnn, and do tiny
nbridqn inscdon oi spoccl nnd political and ncndsnic nssnnintion, Inii
to ilfsrn Iitnsts st nntnnc nnll cnuc oi nccnsntion ngninst tin, nnd
ipndn pours rcscrvnd to psopln, in Irislnticn oi lit, 6th, hi, and
10th Ansnhssts. £3! Did Cc-ittco inil ts cppriss nitnnss do snhjcct
nnttor oi invsstigntion and pnrtinsncy of inscstignticn. and I'll its
' inquiry for nnllwhl pl:-pono of nxposinp Iitnnsn, thsrcby ritinting
n ccntcnpt conviction. p
§ghEiol| V. Qnttngfig 956! .56 ILS. 971
- llicn brongllt nctinn ngninnt tho District Dirnctcr cf
Inigrntion nnd htnnlizntlon to ruin n iinnl oz-do: of doportntion.
u ll. S. District Court .0. lick.! 146 I. Supp. 44, sntsrod story
11..-;lg-_.-at in tow: e! tho. District Llizeeter an-I. eliea npg.-o:!e'.!. ta
Curt of Apponis hold that idcncc Int lnicinnt to lstnblish "Inning-
fnl nssccinticn" by nlion lit]: Cnnuoist Party Ind to slow tint In joined
tho cournnist Party, nnnrc that to suns joining on organisation known ns
tic Connlist Party, which opsrntcd ns s distinct nnd nctivs political
organization, and that is did so ct his nun fnso will. so no to Justify
Ra92
- 92
92 92 _
'92
Ivr . -i..H~.
..- . > ' ,_92,
* .. ..
,-56- k
' . . l 92
Petition for oortiornri Iilod Iith II. 5. Bnproln Zonrt lo!
ontorod this orbr: r " ' ' '
On patition tor nrit of oartiorarl to tho ll. 8. Conn of
Appooln for tho Sixth Cironit. Ila lotion to rolona ndliniatrotino
rooordn to tho Bonrd of 1-1;]-rntion Appeal: io grnntod. -In thn onont
ot_na advarao ruling by tho Boa.rd.o!.I-igratian Appeals the tin: for
0
filing the roapondona briot is extended for a poriod of 80 day:
thoroaitar. .
Iitnrolli I. gang, potition for art. tiled Juno l2, H56; 26 L.I. 3360
hling holon Gilli, I I-.I. 2396!: " - ' 92 d
llootrino of gig v. Lug. :51 u.s. 5:6. dool an innlidato
Into:-ior' Dapartnanth star; nocnrity-risk diacharga at onployae tron
nontonoitino ponitiu oxooptod {rm oinalifiod oiril norvioo; nnch opployoo
I'll loqally diacl|argod,rnnn though proooodiaqa against hin are improperly
inhaled" on icing brongllt nlior nnthority oi Story Snnponnion Act of
August as, 1950 and 2.0. Io. 10450.
Qacatioaa praaoatod: ! In anployaa oaaatititiaaal rights
Iiolntod: ! did lntorlor 5lGlIIlI1'I finding of "nntrnatIorthinna"
yorportodly undo nndor his Doplrtnantal Sooarity lognlntionl, onrviro
Intorior Doportlonl Ind Civil Sorrioc CoI|iulon'| lnbsoquont voluntary
oxpaaging of all rooorda oi "any advaraa atatanant nith rupaot to
onployaa as aoearity rial. no as to inralah rational huil tar his
discharge; ! on ooonrity-rink dlnnilaal of oonoododly loyal onployee -
1: * '
I -.
6
fun louusitln psitiu in noat-id ulnly u bah of Inc:-at
tnprts after baring 6 LI $0!
I
Ilgl P. Prion
laqll hllylt
Inn-lcu Lin million
lqut T; 1958
Flu? Lula Inlay: Inna of luck I5 1%! utilised-
92
-.
4
_F I ..' _. - s-92~.r
A.._ ...
5 *1. - '»'C92 "' ' 1
II. I ._ -.r'=:." - -.
IGOR!!!
- I
L - Q. 1-b '*"-.1 -P "J4" _ 'n:'°?,.,?},'$"?.-*&*§'@¢- "--- j ~'*"~acnurxb
mu-'n: an -ndrouim azsrctIECLIIIIIG to arnzu nu vntu or
narxrnlggggp inn: OILOIIIIDS nu:' ' tn-LA: mu "nu:
"F =°3_' P'_"" 9?
01.1: 'r|ii:'tuacoau111it1: -la
'r=am ; 11, »~- -.1. Q
-LI'I_$n-uqir-;-New
IIIFIISII T0
*' '0-"P
, - -.2. - f_
. ¬.*=:-"' ;' VII éus n1-on m-1 aoscoa ma rnii
IIIRINC UNI
AND PRIBI.1
$151-non tom g
PICKETIIC
01 IORK BY
RS III! ,
CARRY ON THEnztauéz son: u " ' A
II AN on-xcn
to our can soURI REFUSING T0 CROSSmg asm nu: srnmmsTINT RH JHTES IIGIT ,3;r1' ;" xnvonvzn nu rm: ogrurz. , _- .--10:80 nus 11:: s xzsrmu sun mm nus ,~masons wnxzuc on Aamr nmninz - »1nn;v_nuA1.s, rno_q_s-nun: on turn =i*3§3>= =';5i"_. é . ' " -1-.=~;-.;":." "'~".';.~A1 "' ~"»1";»_ .1&;_*r- . " ' $ 5' ifczszsrzn 0/: I .----3 -.#A -- 92 4-495' .- , . ..~ j y_ .smonu rm. *.1¢§"*};>_~ '-
: __-.._Yv;:.
§92*A I
.""" __3 I
' ~ ~ ~ _ - . _ _ Beptenber 16, 1958
:. "' &l_'l
-er
:
5_:.
fr. .,.,.-_
1
k
e<
*
u_.4 L92'. ,
? -_|_; _ . ' 1' -. ._ l_ 9-; . 1- ' . "' >-
, QQEma
1
*4. , -
-1;
Tuloan __....._.
Boardmun
Bclmont
Mohr
NIGI
Patton:
Rotin
Tdmm
Trotter i
Clayton
Tale. Boo
Hollomcn
GlldyI .- in forw rdin t n th entitl d -5 ; ' e 2 Cout gas: R:ln£¥nh1£I' mu e -~ *3 _ _ 1% _ I _
4,3 ;z75P_5'-/:15/_n e
_ __ _ -..., 92 r ->.,,_' m--' 1.
Mr. Lauren: llivan Q
ationEnited-Statescnuan ves 1 '§'
Iashington 25, D, C,_ :3 _
Dear Ir. Sullivan: §5L
Your letter of September 10 1958,with its enclosures, has been received.
.-li Your thoughtfulness and courtesy
_._-1.
- 11vr=m_l_. i-Qilny = at as to £.9i..sm.-1.1.=.§ Ed Subver§ives"aTe Ippreciated. L ~
%J Q pp ;; Sincerely yours, tr. U. -.¢»- _
S -1 ...._ - l-,--' 92 " -'1 "" '1'. T7? ' _, , 92""'!* * _ J E~ ., ' ' Lays; dgl HOOYGE "
"7 "§10o-:s14sss- .
92-
.§§!.ZEL
2'1-
__ l 1 V.
I _ Q R pp?
_l" f 1*I John Edgar Hoover? 92 s; ~;: _' g; Director i. F
62359527-34 a2 "" .,w A
_. -__ T2 - Coées of gzmphlet mentioned aboveretained b{ ssrs.92 'lmont' Baumgardnerlbnd _ £§j7 ;Sullivan a sobenclosed Washington Wire Service re easesrelating to HCUA hearlng in Newark CyrusEaton and astrike at Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama._
Bufiles reflect cordial correspondence with Sullivan ~in past. lttis believed a brief general reply as above
e. -.____92 J
-I
it
-¢»
1
J-¢
enddI9loymlito:IIBIA.gente,veIui1dnot ¢toeey. Withreepect '
,- 535;? 18 92~>~=*l§_ t . .. -t l . .
inn
an , : -u '
Q k" '
Y=~'§
1--».-_ ~* ' "'f'I_:fF*92<""""' -"'~.:§Y""f"" '_§I E
_92uv' A Tenn '_noeu1>1unu: oounr Jhmczs -f 3@"- <=~»»=i¢§=t*a:=~=4 <-~; ,c»r»<> 1;, /5" ? *I
roses at 2:20 p.m. today §; "' "'., who in very .....
ncierltood that aeveraictggmhere cl the
rning this mo to hear thefdecieion
mvmny-men-we-mrii
that Justice! of thejupreme Court had
an e remit orl their deciaipnand um their homes may he guarded by the FBI
tonight. He asked for confirmation and comment
ACTION "menu: _ t MI 57¢ c - 92*
Alter checking, Wick advised that ae for the location
to the Justices receiving threats, Wick told Mathis that we had received no such
iniormetitm all that an a iactdtnding, {act-gathering agency we do not do gmrd pk i
duty and this would appear to he a Local matter for the Metropolitan police or '7'
other appropriate law enforcement agency covering the residence d h Justiceandhemaywiehtoinquireotthoaeagenciee. i "
,-..1-l r.I.oem '
1-_Ir.__JonelH;l In a/ Q i ~ . Y. -
:::w:"§/ h "am 92 t
A .&;-i'92/0,,,,,, TM /5,?" Q14 #5/Ats 1--~ "i not ng Q fH7 SEP 195. ,- t k » d _;I Sf? Q5195 -kg- = - -
_ r
. |-ip. nan-Q-e---1-4-.-M...-c.., ,.._ ,...._t.......~ _ ---i - ...-.-- .._....._ .. t. .-------- - - >~ *-
_ FD 92._.!,_ *'- 4, ,_ 4n Q t 1, fr. 1,: I ,_, 1' 1 ,_. N, , _,. _ ., . - .. ,, _ ., - - -»-*' , '-.:~=-- - -I 1;,7- j L » wag" ~14-@»~ Q?~.¥-~;§w:-*-§w"*w~;. v .~*».~ =*v- =*»»;#*i-- to 'u "1; 4 ?!-an E 7' -5 ' r"-"* ' -"nian;'v-'. ' ~ "__ |,_ __ Q 1: _ _ _ J __,_92a_:j_ _92 _ ;_ ?I V =4. 1.1 .2 1., _ 7 5»; l URI 1;rt" . 1 , "1'? -' . "7%_H: -5 -"92 KP; " .' _§- - J -*3 "i "'-*- 4-, ' " ' - 1 . . ....- L»: r »<H__ 92 7- _ 92 "~-92 ; -V ___ -_ _ , .% _ 1 _ _-__'__--3 .. v, _ _ Uh _,____.
- '4 I . -*0, L '% .111: "3-¢»'¢"_? {P ~ - 92 " -#7~.*- Wk '-*< "if? - ;,|.wnZ
I _ ' ' -LL. L4-___ 19 R .. -1.}: ;i Q 5 "T ~..| ' J -A ;. 1 E * L ' " ' I1 nruu-=r=,+:1;£1'111m:i'1_p:ii|;1>1;_._p;:1|;|: goua'1-nlmll %
@ 1.1 f,Z';, -I _. ; . -V? , . ,..= .. . ~ L ,,||'_ .. 5, I D
raprdtoyour Illjgenbltthe _.;,., 7.@y,m.mm buthyldarhymdtoday ' '1I hearranged!ortwu8pec1a1A.¢nntsdtheWuh1ngtml'hl:!0Bice,Henry . HQ!
DoBuckandW1iamR.L1ntnn,tobo1natta1d1ncc!ou'|opu11:oaeafeov'e
theproceedingamdreportlngbnckpromptlytothnln-um. ' _ - _.
t Itil,dcourlo,nobu|1nuldt.h0pru|tHtwI!hl§dlnymepmlen. _ f ' .0 5-x». .M-1:-1* f -v/I ,- w/3 V ' '/,-'7//A-I: Y!-E't ', /:5-K- I1-llr.Rolon SJ.-Q--#92T¢'e "*'A'* .
92.|t-ma -. - A L Q R 4&4-lj-4! ;, Aii 9292 ; , d-5,45;/uar~"'"" .__- _» -Par 1 ' ""I l 5 ;92 ' 4*?" 1-".=:*-"*-5'"
$718854; - :4 = _
I-
IN
%§% §KZ j J % My I r
W SEP 1.751% l
1 Y4-/4/1
9 .
§
2
i
L!
EL.-u .
-me.
_?
-- *4-_.-
1- i ~_, vs ? ~.1-r?.- - _ .- _ Lu. _§F_;_.'Q;1 92_-I T 1%.: .',_.rJ=,|;_.»,. 9; I. K Ha
r-I
%
' the onlainal of a memorandum captioned and dated alabove,the Conqrenlonal.-¢__,__, _ . I-. -I
I ._ J _b -_ _ _ . " 3-,_-W --..§__,,__i-t-"" ..-_ _ hi J; 1 p.,,=.:-3:. H__i::_:-,.-'3-_~:-l;_;;__-_;'.3_';:?,_;- 2 :_T,~.,,£._,t;,§ 5
Oice Memorandum - UNITED sums eovnnumnnr pp
. F _,..,-.,,._-, I ~ , .,.._=¢,,.;.:.;-,-" - - "'r yo woman * ~I'~i1-F---» "2:-1 -*-:.-i~@£ "=?@. inn» I/I021 " 55 c
" *7 hon 1="r.P.'u§m.,: I:-_ 1 -. =. , .. _, ___.:. ,.,,:_ ~,4,_.>,
an»-_;*,.-,__ _ _ . _ . _ 9 _ _ - _fff"'=§:._.-5% _ ,- it .-1: _ -. , . _ .7?1-er .i5-;»¢-_A'r , -, »_ Q? , ' ..- _'-- ~;:' ... .»92_.._.,- 1-? ,;. I ' . , W . .7 . '1 ;.4-»"*_. ""* x -" " g '- -'1»-'1-p;-'~~"*:ag"?_-1-6~gr 1 _: . ow. ,- 4. ~ -Q ; 1 ' - _ -f nil, - _ H _92 I'§1'-fguit» " 5:9-~3; 1" _L Q5; .i'92-iw . -1-- -* -> --~.. ---. 2 -; u - 'r--M _¢
~L ' * -' "=1 ~f4= t. -"1! *5 1.;"~.tT é1;".? I t -.. »-.-»';rF-we =- -1. .n ' .é r ». =-"""-' ., ., e -1-1 =~»<~~:- r__:_. _ .__ .3 ; -Q -3 .5 -'V F," v{;":.:.t rj _ .7; ji, ' *
92. ;
t '77-- w__' *'_' _ '_v " "7' ' _ D/_ 5'9 'l'¢u¬u4iI¢lli°lle.l-ll! tfdzprene Eonrt ee':.tte attitude QeerdWWI W: Oeqrele. Ir.lheehen tecieded two erttclee nakioiumg ad dectetoeeQ A .. -1..-L l.__ __..i 4...e' .-,
J.
é
Ta
i
Z
_ .
§
g.
_, , _--.-e-HQ:
If-Z
er-v
,. .
Fe]
¢.__;
92
If:ljob and I sincerely hope that you will be able to_ ii V -
r. 'I'oIl0nzLJ - Belmo
- L Hr. Hohr
Mr.
Septulber 1.3, 1953 H; _"*
._ .. mW d_ I _ V , _|L,;:M_92_|_w I Hr. .._._.....-- ' ' ' ' . Mr. Trotter.._.._
, * ~ .- _ - --.51 , ._ .¢ 2 ' -' -. Mr. W.C.BuJ1lvsn
Ir. J. ldgar Hoover r - ' - - T° " B"; ""Federal Bureau of Investigation _;_,_ :;,H¬il,,d,___Washington, 13.0. - "
Dee:-Hr. Hoover: "_ ' ~ - Qt" . 92
0 Recent decisions by the U. 8. W
Supreme Court lead me to believe that there must
Be so"me' 'U5mmuniste or at least Gonmunist sympathise
amongst the Justices. How else could they render '1
these decisions? ihey well know that FORCED immediate
integration would lead to strife end unrest, just
what the Gomnnmists want. s
Houlditnotbe egoodideato
vestigate ALL the Justices 7 Perhaps this is
sing done already. It anything detrimental is
found, I hope Oongness will take prompt appropriate
action.
' 1 ' The F. B. I. has been doing s good
expose ALL Oommmists in our Government.
H»
b7¢*o '4
0-asa:"g.'5
er"
5| -I Q3
SE; s
#
it
qpeyu-vi
u_ -
___ 1'4-I
---fie-.r
1;» ~=
-4::
. -e .1.» ---¢. *_,>
4-'1.1 ¢.I
s
.4
.1.
-.='
if-ii-1-even:-_ --menu:-1 ~--..----- -- #___oi! if . mm. = . » . -_- to ~ '~-~~w%~- A - ~"---"» !;.;.;1';@ ,_::j* " * Z5? :;"~ 1 Q81
. M . . 92_
~~ '1 d 7:85-/§5.,.» .
v-
-9!-.__ .=.92_ ' .. . -- -
* -vs
. ~,-.*19s:,;]1-a.;a;= . ~..»*@ e,@<¢~~¢n, ;»92 I. I 4 i I - - -. . a - ' _ ' ; _ ' it,,, A . ~- = _;_ _ . -- !§-_.92. I . _ r _ .'4"'.-,- __ _': _
*'1.:-. - A 1 , 1. -. '. 1 q ** - r .__, .. _ .. . . _ _ . .!_*. _ _.. _ _. -. - _ 1 -, - _ _'I - - - __>,, q, _ . V, _r _». W ' - - 1.~ ., . 1- - - - KB I ' - "" 7 :1 .' "*3 . 1. .",'a " I - . I ~ Q - T -- -5 I . . o r < - .92 - . ' -1 . ,3 _ ' '1' ' , ,. u . _ .'- -¢.- »in ,, __. - _ _ J -e, -. -- , _ t; _ - I H ?.] _! U u LA: .. H._,Tea , -
k ' r ,.
,._.r 5,3 ye 923;,;_
§-
_;.».Il'
:._ IA _ gt. Q;Fl - -.;'. l-1 ,~- L3-em-;1'.:. . M .received 1&5,» letter dated September 18,-l'-'1'-3%;..1-ow.»-s who n»-we 1.-'9. :=:1;»'@¬*Ii1~.§;"_ ='.=-.; *~=
an nu'g;11-find eon-eat eoncernleg the III ll j
1% . ~%fr.-'- *='.'~.i%" Sincerely yore, , *_-7: 7 ; '5 '. E .1 '- '_;,"... ' :f__.f ._';1T';.a A_ l_ e . : ;é I" ' ._;_ ,. *_..»e'-E V 2' _-.__, ._ r,.;_ __" ~. ' . =@§ . ;: ~"__ A
.-" "'55 _@-
.-Y . .
. . . 3, Y . A
- - . k ., ;_~",92~ -_1a'-. -ln-__ ., _ »'-.""'7.--'-'_-1 _,.~.-ii-:>:. "' Ill km- ' to ~ ' ' »%@$%% 1
ii;--_-Q21.
~-..."~:.-."?-~'*'?~ _ . -_ . . .. *e.. r. ' - -:;~r?.
_"§-, -_:V
" .'., ' - """e ,»F . -rIL -be -
es '5 "'*..--' 0 . '
..e..1;-*'92 _ :4. 's,'S* ,g' "- " ¢- -
l_.-¢f"¢"; . . -;._- ._._l. __-.-it 5,; _ co J1;?§V__;_;r.Q "V£§f_V_ _ _r - ' _' ' - 3; 7-» -i--J92";.Z__'V;- '.. _ '=_ I. _;:§_.'v f .- H-QC" 5}; . ¥ -_~92
1, . - . .
§
_ _. 3§..§§k§h=di$nrrm iioun no hi: to believe aqua '?.j~...-..;~.-eI;;==.'§ . . tone conmaiats or cohzmiet sylpethlzere ino? ' -~*
Mlle": It it le not already bei *5._,.°l_°,__ the Justices of the 51?:-ene Fowpspulng be luv l§§|'t'ed._,' ' Bocrdnum H to J! l ' "3 " L '- .13-.3
-
.5 92.. _f'- #7, "
:92;%:A-92?'Ik--._0- =r.=§ ?,- 5!" an- 1» -°
5~e".=-r__§ka EP3 John Bdger Yer '.;'A'.'..
- - 1- - . -.- -. -0' 92"- 92 "". - -- . " - e ~' -- 1-.1. :» 4/4-
'* *' 1 - ' -- - .-"M; I/I - '... . '92' -92.'-
-. L-_ 3.-$3 .'; .'§_qi.-»§'.:;'
- '1"-;'j":!r§' -
' " Correspondent advised that "recent d'e'e"i
muzieee. lie believe; the Court her-thet lnedlete "-.11-=1 -'4?""'f;.*r ed 1 t :1 uld 1» "1 Ht I o12:2. .,: ' ..:':.-:2 ., t£.=:.*....* ,:..:':!. arm H 3
1-~ c <0-1'3, t.~e~533° " "* -9'4! S" * B1.92|Lf1ie3F contain no identifiable date clltinng 1: '=J"N--=---__ correspondent. This is .t41rni|_shed~tor your into uson ,. , .§;f;",;,""-_-1 in the went;porres§ond:5:t'_eoatects'your officew s " _ 9
15
Q,
.1
I
-0-1.F
' -.
1;-It _ 92' I-T. ml '_' l - I-P _vV*_ L: _._: 1 ;___ .. 3
_' : wt cs _ lo . ' -Ir .' 1. '- -4*' 92_ .
<-_-~
I i~"" " 0 t ' 0 A
Oce Memorandum - UNITED sures GOVERNMENT
ro , Mr. 4.11. soimoozlwéi rt m'rs= 1, use
Tbllon _Ioardgun
Iolnonl
, _ . _ _ ,_ . » we 7' A ~ ' 9
E1>cusJsc-r= CRHTCEMO §}IQ_QQURT , j " %u:'nwromexno 0oNcE1u|mo'""" . fa I 5 -g;;;=;,; __i CENTRAL RESEARCH MATTER i :::l.;_n;..._
92
1
, is
ti that 1957 was a year "dominated by decisions in which the guilty criminal was 'A @ Following a string of headline-raising decisions by the
States rrerne Conrt an oiiicer of the American Bar Associationtel-moi 1957 's_E"b ck year in law enforcement." on C'rimde1-:- 10/1/sa!
"Milk and song" ,1 A, .1-, t ' M0! 5??
. Sylvester c. Smith .n-., of Newark, Iew Jersey, chairman of the *-American Bar '.Ass0c1ati0n's House of Delegates, in Omaha to address the Ff
Nebraska State Bar Association, charged on October 2, 1958, that the Buprepie
¢onrt "is forgetting the pnbiic right to the administration of justice. i He declared
often the fond object oi the Court's doting tenderness. "Criminals, "* he added,
"especially ii they were Oommtmists, found Court decisions owing with milksndhoney." I? _ ~ 73- 5* . ' v _' '- 92 7}.-4' 4, r , _ _ ., , __92=Breakdown of_I.aw and order i - _ , -
.1 C.!
…[truncated]