TABLE 3.--Number of personnel, salaries, and related costs for public information activities-Continued * Personnel spend only part time replying to inquiries and preparing material for public dissemination. Total does not include 2,041 personnel whose principal duties are in the area of public information operations but who also spend time on other functions. Includes assistants to 15 regional directors who perform both public and congressional information functions. Represents the total number of positions which performed some public information work during the year, Approximately 609 man-years were spent on public information work, Includes 13 people in the National Bureau of Standards who spend 1⁄2 their time on public information. Although located in the Public Information Offices, 69 positions spend only a part of their time on public information: 18 other positions in the Office of Education were transferred or unfilled during fiscal year 1963. About $30,000 of this total was spent for technical films not for public viewing. 10 1 of these personnel also performs congressional information work. 11 Includes salaries and related expenses of information personnel employed by the Jet Propulsion Lab. oratory, a private contractor. 12 Personnel also perform congressional information function. 13 Approximately $47,438 of this amount was paid the State Department for services rendered by that Department's Bureau of Public Affairs. [Relations between Congress and the judicial branch of the Government] REPRESENTATIVE CASES AFFECTING CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS OF CONGRESS WHERE IT WAS NOT REPRESENTED (EXCEPT IN SOME INSTANCES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE) See contempt cases such as— Watkins v. U.S.,1 354 U.S. 178 (1957); Barenblatt v. U.S.,' 360 U.S. 109 (1954); Brewster v. U.S.1 (C.A.D.C.) 255 F. 2d 899 (1958) (dissenting opinion). among others. And Article I, Section 1-Delegation of Legislative Authority Schechter Poultry Co. v. U.S..1 295 U.S. 495 (1935); U.S. v. Butler,1 297 U.S. 1 (1936). Article I, Section 2, Clause 1-Protection of the Right To Vote for Members of Congress Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); U.S. v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915). Article I, Section 2, Clause 3-Apportionment of Seats in the House Wood v. Broome, 287 U.S. 1 (1932); Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946); Wesberry v. Sanders,2 376 U.S. 1 (1964). Article I, Section 4, Clause 1-Federal Legislation Protecting the Electoral Process Ex parte Siebold,' 100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough,1 110 U.S. 661 (1884). Article I, Section 5, Clause 1-Power To Judge Elections of Members Barry v. U.S. ex rel. Cunningham,1 279 U.S. 597 (1929). Article I, Section 5, Clause 2-Power of Each House Over Its Members Burton v. U.S.,1 202 U.S. 344 (1906); In re Chapman,1 166 U.S. 661 (1897). Article I, Section 6, Clause 1-Privilege From Arrest Williamson v. U.S., 207 U.S. 425 (1908); U.S. v. Cooper, 4 Dall. 341 (1800); Long v. Ansell (C.C.A. D.C.) 69 F. 2d 386 (1934), aff'd 293 U.S. 76 (1934); U.S. v. Johnson1 (Sup. Ct.) docket No. 25, October term, 1965; decision, February 24, 1966. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1-Revenue Bills, Origination Twin City National Bank v. Nebecker,1 167 U.S. 196 (1897); Millard v. Roberts,1 202 U.S. 429 (1906). Article I, Section 7, Clause 3-Veto Disapproval Missouri Pacific R.R. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276 (1919). 1 Representation by Department of Justice. 2 Participation by Department of Justice through amicus curiae on leave of Court. Article I, Section 8-Powers of Congress Because of lack of time, cases under article I, section 8, have generally been omitted, except for a few outstanding ones Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) (income taxation); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis,1 301 U.S. 548 (1937) (social security-taxation and spending for public welfare); Gibbons v. Ogden,1 9 Wheat. 1 (1824) (commerce power); Second Employers Liability Cases,* 223 U.S. 1 (1912) (commerce); U.S. v. E. C. Knight Co.,1 156 U.S. 1 (1895) (commerce); N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin,1 301 U.S. 1 (1937) (commerce); U.S. v. Darby,1 312 U.S. 100 (1941) (commerce); Wickard v. Filburn,1 317 U.S. 111 (1942) (commerce); McCulloch v. Maryland,1 4 Wheat. 316 (1819) (fiscal and monetary); Ex parte Milligan,1 4 Wall. 2 (1866) (war power); Bowles v. Willingham,1 321 U.S. 503 (1944) (war power). Article I, Section 9, Clause 3-Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto Laws Cases v. U.S.1 (C.C.A., 1st) 131 F. 2d 916 (1942), cert. denied 319 U.S. 770. Article II, Section 2, Clause 3-Reprieves and Pardons Ex parte Garland,1 71 U.S. 333 (1867); Yelvington v. Presidential Pardon and Parole Attorneys,1 (C.A.D.C.) 211 F. 2d 642 (1954). Article II, Section 2, Clause 2-Appointing and Removal Power Kendall v. U.S.,1 12 Pet. 524 (1828); U.S. v. Smith,1 286 U.S. 6 (1932); Humphrey's Executor v. U.S.,1 295 U.S. 602 (1935); Morgan v. Tennessee Valley Authority, (C.C.A. Tenn.) 115 F. 2d 990, cert. den. 312 U.S. 701 (1940). Article II, Section 3-Powers and Duties of the President Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer,1 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Article III, Section 1-Judicial Power Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816); Cary v. Curtis,1 44 U.S. 236 (1845); Lockerty v. Phillips,1 319 U.S. 182 (1943); Yakus v. U.S.,' 321 U.S. 414 (1944). Article III, Section 2, Clause 2-Supreme Court, Original and Appellate Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803); Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868). Article III, Section 2, Clause 3-Treason U.S. v. Greathouse (C.C. Cal.) 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,254 (1863). Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1-Admission of New States Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911). Article IV, Section 4-Guarantee of Republican Form of Government Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849). 1 Representation by Department of Justice. Participation by Department of Justice through amicus curiae on leave of Court. 1 Representation by Department of Justice. 2 Participation by Department of Justice through amicus curiae on leave of Court. SOME CASES IN WHICH COURT HAS MADE SOME REFERENCE TO SIGNIFICANCE OF DECISION TO CONGRESSIONAL POWER Sacher v. U.S., 356 U.S. 576 (1958): Reversal of conviction under 2 U.S.C. 192 for failing to answer three questions put by a subcommittee of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. Supreme Court held that witness' refusal to answer related to questions not clearly pertinent to the subject on which the two-member subcommittee conducting the hearing had been authorized to take testimony. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Clark (with whom Justice Whittaker concurred) stated, page 580: In any event the Government should be given a chance to present oral argument on the pertinency of the question under the third count before petitioner is freed. Opportunity for a hearing is particularly important here because the issue is one that confronts the committees of the Congress day after day. (Italic supplied.) In re Motion to Quash Subpenas and Vacate Service (D.C. Pa.), 146 F. Supp. 792 (1956): Denial of motion to quash subpena duces tecum requiring secretaries of certain organizations to appear before HUAC and bring with them evidence of organizations' efforts to repeal the Smith Act, the Internal Security Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and sedition statutes of various States. Court denied motion on grounds of noninterference with conduct of legislative branch so long as the bounds of power and pertinency are not abused. It also denied motion because "The committee was not served with a copy of the motion, nor were they present, or represented in court" (p. 794). Thus the Court had no jurisdiction over the parties sought to be enjoined. U.S. v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953): Affirming a decision by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia reversing a conviction under 2 U.S.C. 192, for refusal to disclose to the House Select Committee on Lobbying Activities the names of persons who made bulk purchases of books of a political nature from an organization of which witness was secretary. Lobbying Act held to extend to efforts to influence Congress directly and not to attempts to send literature relating to congressional activities throughout the community. Held. special committee had no power to exact such information from the witness. Court, on p. 44 referred to its responsibility of judicial notice and to fact that *** there is wide concern, both in and out of Congress, over some aspects of the exercise of the congressional power of investigation." (No representation of Congress.) Watkins v. U.S., 354 U.S. 178 (1957): Page 182: "Petitioner was prosecuted for refusing to make certain disclosures which he asserted to be beyond the authority of the committee to demand. The controversy thus rests upon fundamental principles of the power of Congress and the limitations upon that pawer." (Italic supplied.) (No representation of Congress.) Barenblatt v. U.S., 360 U.S. 109 (1959): Conviction under 2 U.S.C. 192 for refusal to answer questions by HUAC, on grounds of freedom of speech, sustained. The Supreme Court, on page 111, stated-"Once more the Court is required to resolve the conflicting constitutional claims of congressional power and of an individual's right to resist its exercise." Plus discussion of congressional practice pursuant to House Rule XI and HUAC as indication of congressional intent thereof. (No representation of Congress.) Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420 (1960): Court sustained rules of procedure of Civil Rights Commission as adopted pursuant to authorization by Congressdiscussed existence and extent of authorization by Congress. Court stated, page 423: "The specific questions which we must decide are (1) whether the Commission was authorized by Congress to adopt the rules of procedure challenged by the respondents, and (2) if so, whether those procedures violate the due process clause of the fifth amendment." (No representation of Congress.) Brewster v. U.S. (C.A.D.C.) 255 F. 2d 899 (1958): Conviction under 2 U.S.C. 192 reversed on grounds that Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 did not give power to Senate Committee on Government Operations to seek information from a union official as to whether there was misuse of union funds and concealment of such misuse in financial and other reports required under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, with sufficient clarity and certainty to invoke aid of the Federal judicial system in protecting itself against contumacious conduct, and therefore, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations had no such power. In his dissenting opinion, retired Associate Justice Reed stated, page 902: "Appellant's objection is that Congress had not authorized this committee to investigate the efficiency of the Government processes **. Such judicial supervision of legislative procedure as this decision imposes, is, in my opinion, not only an invasion of legislative prerogatives but hampers congressional investigations." (No representation of Congress.) See also, U.S. v. Kamin (D.C. Mass.) 136 F. Supp. 791 (1956). CASES RELATING TO INTERNAL PROCEDURES (a) Television hearings U.S. v. Kleinman (D.C. D.C.), 107 F. Supp. 407 (1952): Defendants discharged in prosecution for refusing to answer questions by Senate committee investigating organized crime in interstate commerce, on grounds their constitutional rights would be violated since they were compelled to testify while being subjected to television and newsreel cameras, and other apparatus; refusal to testify in such circumstances deemed not arbitrary or capricious. (No representation of Congress; no allegation thereto.) But see U.S. v. Hintz (D.C. Ill.), 193 F. Supp. 325 (1961) where the court expresses a different conclusion from Kleinman. (No representation of Congress in Hintz case.) Hartman v. U.S. (C.A. 9th) 290 F. 2d 460 (1961): Conviction under 2 U.S.C. 192, affirmed. Witness had refused to answer certain questions by a subcommittee of House Un-American Activities Committee. Witness raised issue that House rules prohibited the televising of the hearings and that when they were so televised the proceedings were invalidated. Court found no violation of any House rule or directive during the 85th Congress. Witness also sought permission to have subpena duces tecums issued against Clerk of the House and clerk of House Un-American Activities Committee to secure documents allegedly relating to charges against witness. Court determined material sought was not at issue in the contempt proceedings and was irrelevant. Supreme Court reversed (370 U.S. 724). (No representation of Congress.) (b) Issuance of warrant for detention Ex parte Frankfeld, Ex Parte O'Dea (D.C.D.C.), 32 F. Supp. 915 (1940): Petitions for habeas corpus sustained where petitioners had been apprehended under a warrant for charges of violations of 2 U.S.C. 192 (refusal to testify), |