CRS-25

The Opinions of the Court of Claims was printed also in 92 Cong. Record, Appendix, p. A561. Gall's argument in the Supreme Court was printed in summary in 92 Cong. Record, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., at page A 2658.

19. Reavis v. Congress of the United States, 333 U. S. 872 (1948). This is included as a sample of an attempt to sue Congress

directly. Congress of course had not generally consented to such suits, thus the Supreme Court denied the motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus.

20. Wilson, et al. v. Loews, Inc. et al., 355 U.S. 597 (1958)
Plaintiffs, actors and writers in the movie industry who

had refused to answer questions or had refused to appear before the
Un-American Activities Committee, sued the industry members and
employees of the Committee, both in their official and private
capacity for civil damages in the total amount of $51,750,000 for
an alleged conspiracy to black list plaintiffs and prevent their
employment in the industry. The louse authorized the House Judiciary

Committee to provide for the employment of counsel and defense of the
members and employees of the Committee. In the lower court, the
Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, the counsel
succeeded in quashing the summonses and subpoenas against all members
and employees, except 3 members and one employee. In the Superior
Court and in the District Court of Appeals there were judgments of
dismissal on sustaining demurrers to the complaint, see 142 Calif.
App. 2d. 183; 298 P. 2d 152 (1956). On the denial of the petition
for a hearing by the Supreme Court of California, the U. S. Supreme

CRS-26

Court granted certiorari. After argument the U.S. Supreme Court, in

a Per Curiam decision, dismissed the writ as improvidently granted because the judgment rests on an adequate State ground, see case report as cited above. Counsel cmployed by the Ilouse Judiciary Committee were Richard Crump, of Los Angeles with Henry W. Low, of Counsel and the firm of Slate & Sawtelle, also of Los Angeles. For the authority of the llouse Judiciary Committee, a History of the Case, counsel fees, etc., see Ilouse Res. 190 and 306, and Ilouse Report, No. 1083, 83rd Congress, 1st Sess.: Ilouse Res. 481, 04th Congress, 2d Sess,; and Ilouse Report No. 563, 85th Congress, 1st Sess.

21. Mins v. McCarthy, 209 F. 2d 307 (1953)

Plaintiff, Minns appears to have been served with a subpoena ad testificandum to appear before Senator McCarthy's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation, Senate Committee on Government Operations. lle appears to have based his motion for leave to file an application for a stay on the grounds that the Committee had not defined the questions to be asked at the llcaring. The Court of Appeals denied the motion ruling in a PerCuriam opinion that the Judicial Branch should not enjoin in advance the holding of a hearing and that the rights of witnesses in respect to any questions actually asked are subject to determination in appropriate proceedings thereafter. The Senator was represented by Thomas W. LaVenia, of the New York Bar who at the same time was regularly on the Subcommittee staff, see Report of the Secretary of the Senate, Senate Doc. No. 10, 84th Cong., 1st

CRS-27

Sess., 1955, Serial No. 11830, pp. 312, 346, 486, and 130 where he is listed as Asst. Counsel to the Subcommittee. Plaintiff, Mins, appears

to have appeared subsequently before the Committee, Senate Doc. No. 10, supra, p. 560, Voucher No. 2122, where he was paid witness fees. According to the case report, cited above, the U. S. Attorney and his

assistant also appeared for the Senator.

22.

In the Matter of Hearings by the Committee on Banking and
Currency of the United States Senate. Petition of Edward
A. Hintz, 245 F. 2d. 667 (1957)

Habeas Corpus ad testificandum. The Senate Committee

investigating the banking situation in Illinois, petitioned the Court
below for a writ of labeas Corpus ad testificandum to the Warden of
the State Penitentiary to bring the prisoner Edward A. Hintz before
the Committee in Chicago. The Committee was represented by its regular
staff counsel, Mathew Ilale, an Attorney at Law. The writ issued and
the prisoner appeared on October 8, 1956 and for several days thereafter
but refused to testify. On the third day lintz filed a motion to
quash the writ, which the Court below overruled on October 19, 1956
(decision unreported). Hintz thereafter appealed to this Court
(USCA, 7th C). The lintz appeal from the decision to uphold the
writ was decided on June 28, 1957 (the Committee again being repre-
sented by its own counsel, lale), which held the matter then to be moot.
Note further, that lintz was also cited for contempt of the Senate,

S. Res. 124 and S. Report No. 232, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., see also
U.S. v. lintz, 193 F. Supp. 325 (1961).

65-728 - 76-33

CRS-18

noted in the case report as special assistant to the Attorney General, this was merely a formal appellation. He was nevertheless, the private counsel representing the Senate which paid his fees and expenses, sce Senate Doc. No. 40, 71st Congress, ed Sess., p. 160, Serial No. 9198 and Senate Doc. No. 210, 71st Congress, 3rd Sess., p. 161, Serial No. 9333. The matter was also referred to the U.S. Attorney and Cunningham was indicted but died before trial. He also brought actions against the U. S. Marshal, see, also U.S. ex rel Cunningham v. Matheus, 26 F. 2d 272 (1928); same 33 F. 2d 261 (1929) and Fetters v. U. S. ex. rel Cunningham, 203 U.S. 638 (1931). 13. Stewart v. Barry, St.-at-Arms, U. S. Senate, D.C. Supreme Court (unreported, 1928)

Robert W. Stewart was held by the Sergeant-at-Arms of

the Senate, by order thereof, for refusal to answer questions of the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys investigating the relations between the Continental Trading Co. and Harry F. Sinclair of the Mammoth Oil Co. concerning certain Liberty Bonds. While so held Stewart unsuccessfully sought release by Habeas Corpus in the D.C. Surepeme Court. While this matter was on appeal he purged himself and was discharged by the Senate, see 14 Federal Bar Journal, p. 155 (1954). When Stewart first petitioned for Habeas Corpus the Senate authorized employment of counsel to represent it in the case, sce 69 Congressional Record, Part 3, 70th Cong., 1st Sess., pp.2468-9, Feb. 4, 1928. The Senate ordered his release, see 69 Congressional Record, Part 7, 70th Congress, 1st Sess., pp. 7232-9, April 26, 1928. The Counsel employed

CRS-19

and paid by the Senate was George W. Wickersham, see Senate Doc. No.

167, 70th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 271, Serial No. 8981.

14. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 614 (1929)

This case, although brought by the Okanogan Indians against

The docket

the United States, actually constituted a confrontation between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the government. title was The Okanogan, Methoro, San Poelis (or San Poil), Nespelem, Colville and Lake Indian Tribes or Bands of the State of Washington v. U.S. and may be found below in 66 Court of Claims 26 (1928). In the closing days of the First Session of the 69th Congress, the Congress had passed Senate Bill No. 3185 which authorized the Indians to sue on their claims in the Court of Claims. The question at issue was whether under Cl. 2, Sec. 7, Art. I of the Constitution, a bill which passed both louses during the 1st session of Congress and was presented to the President less than 10 days before adjournment of that Session but neither signed by the President nor returned by him to the House of origin, becomes a law in like manner as if he had signed it. The House took the position that the bill would become law, see argument and report of the louse Judiciary Committee with respect to H. R. 5218 of the same Congress in the consideration of H.R. 17291, 68 Cong. Record, Part 2, pp. 1712-15 and Part 5,

pp. 1930-37. In the Court of Claims the Justice Department successfully opposed the Indians' petition. On certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, Attorney General Mitchell again opposed the petition. Mr. Hatton W.