◆ SpookStack

a aes eon AN. CIVIL. LIBERTIES UNION, 170 FIFT ERNEST ANGELL ARTHUR GARFIELD HAYS |“ H AVENUE, NEW YORK 10, N. Y. ; PATRICK MURPHY MALIN | Exective Director ” soceR N. BALDWIN. Chma., Nat'l Comm. . Chmn., B'd of Directors MORRIS L. ERNST - ~: > OY a : Counsel ORegon 5-5990 i . : To, - ran 5 a - _ Alan Reitman, Pablie Relations Director 4 Weekly Bulletin #1587 0 Ne a March 30, 1953 - NTEMPT_OF CONGRESS CITATION Boonie ha that Edward A. Rumely was ‘. Vs SUPREME COURT. REVERSES _RUMELY CO “In a 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court has held - 4mproperly convicted of contempt of Congress because he refused to provide a com— - mittee investigating Lobbying activities with the names and addresses of persons \ ¢ yO pia who had bought literature from him. Rumely was an official of the Committee for \. Constitutional Government, and the literature was distributed by that organizations Contributions of $500 or over to an organization engaged in lobbying activities mst” t such contributions, insisting instead that oe terature for distribution as 4" . be reported; Rumely did not accep persons who wanted to donate larger amounts must buy 1i the buyer saw fit. - In an opinion written by Justice Frankfurter, the Court ruled that 4 delicate constitutional issue would arise if it were held that the authority of the investi=- gating committee extended into an inquiry as to private persons to whom Rumely sold? books. Therefore, it construed the authorization of the investigation to mean... investigation only into representations made directly to the Congress, its members or its committees. Thus, the inquiry directed to Rumely was in excess of the com- mittec's authority and the contempt citation must fall. Justices Burton and Minton: took no part in the consideration or decision of the casee.7 Be ge er ee a “ Justice Douglas wrote a concurring opinion, joined in by Justice Black. ‘The s contended that the inquiry made of Rumely was indeed authorized by law, but that itis was a violation of the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech to require..that : a publisher disclose the identity of those who buy his books. This requirement, they said, "is indecd the beginning of surveillance of tho presSe.sthe purchase of xs pook or pamphict today may result in a subpoena tomorrow. «ethrough the harrassmen of hearings» .egovernment will hold a club over specch and over the press." as the case of at the samo time Patterson Tho ACLU had considered the Rumely case William Patterson, head of the Communist—dominated Civil Rights CongresSe had been cited for contompt of Congress on the same day as Rumely for disclose mombership records of his organizations Tho ACLU did not 3 these cascsS, pelicving in the Rumely case that the Committee's inquiry, in to determine whether the lobbying Jaws had been circumvented, did not v. Liberties, and in the Patterson case that prior court, decisions upheld the Commi tee!s right to make the inquirye . - NEW YORK ACLU SUPPORTS BILL FOR EDUCATIONAL TV: Libertics Union announced last wook it sur f£ three pilot stations for non-commercial pt : The New York Civil authorizing construction © tolevision operations = ; nWe believe that the principles underlying out constitutional provisions regarding frecdom of specch will be enhanced by taking advantage of at Least 5 the Federal Communications Commission in the state = the civil libertic: the channels allocated by York for non-commercial educational television purposes"; ‘chairman, and Georg said in a letter sent to Albany by the Reve John Paul Jones, Rundquist, executive director, of the NYCLU. It was addressed to Senator Walte irman of the State Senate Finance Committee »_ and Assemblyman William fahoney, chal facKenzic, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Those Bro ons the Brydges-Olliffe bill which would provide fer the pilot stationse > ~ : , - The NYCLU has joined with 23 other groups comprising the Mctropolitan Now, . Coordinating Council for Educational TV in ur i support. of the measures Bot th : New York Civil Libortics Union alone and the Coordinating Council, of which 4 ,,member, condemned the majority report of a New York state commission apy n 7 consider cducationey, ‘TV. The report oppescd stato spo ho groups registorod theix support of the minority rej MG APRIL? 1953 gy. _ . (A REGULAR WEEKLY SERVICE. FURTHE 3 es