Case Name: RUMELY v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1952-04-29
Citations: 197 F.2d 166
Docket Number: No. 11066
Parties: RUMELY v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 197
Pages: 166–187

Head Matter:
RUMELY v. UNITED STATES.
No. 11066.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 5,1951.
Decided April 29, 1952.
Bazelon, C. J., dissented.
Donald R. Richberg, Washington, D. C., with whom Alfons Landa and Delmar W. Holloman, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
William Hitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. G, with whom Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., Washington, D. G, at the time the brief was filed, was on the brief, for ap-pellee.
George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. at the time the record was filed, and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. G, also entered appearances for appellee.
Before PRETTYMAN, PROCTOR and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction upon three counts of an indictment. The three counts read, in pertinent part, as follows:
Count One
"Defendant Edward A. Rumely, by subpoena served upon him on May 26, 1950, was summoned as a witness by the authority of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, through its Select Committee on Lobbying Activities, to produce before the said Committee records upon the matter under inquiry before the said Committee, that is, to produce the records of the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., showing (1) the name and address of each person from whom a total of $1,000 or more has been received by the Committee during the period, January 1, 1947, to May 1, 1950, for any purpose, including, but not limited to (a) receipts from the sale of books, pamphlets, and other literature, (b) contributions, (c) loans; (2) as to each such person the amount, date, and purpose of each payment which formed a part of the total of $1,000 or more. Defendant Rumely appeared before the said Committee on June 6, 1950, in the District of Columbia, but failed and refused to produce the said records, and thereby wilfully did make default."
Count Six
"Defendant Edward A. Rumely, by subpoena served upon him on August 21, 1950, was summoned as a witness by the authority of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, through its Select Committee on Lobbying Activities, to produce before the said Committee records upon the matter under inquiry before the said Committee, that is, to produce the records of the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., showing (a) the name and address of each person from whom a total of $500 or more has been received by the said Committee during the period from January 1, 1947, to August 1, 1950, for any purpose, and (b) as to each such person, the amount, date and purpose of each payment which formed a part of the total of $500 or more, and all correspondence relating to each such payment. Defendant Rumely appeared before the said Committee on August 25, 1950, in the District of Columbia, but failed and refused to produce the said records, and thereby wilfully did make default."
Count Seven
"Defendant Edward A. Rumely appeared as a witness before the said Committee at the place and on the date above stated and refused to answer a question put to him by the Committee, namely, who was the woman from Toledo who gave him $2000 for distribution of 'The Road Ahead,' which question was a question pertinent to the question under inquiry."
The offenses thus charged were alleged to be violations of the statute which reads as follows:
"Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."
The Select Committee on Lobbying Activities, generally known as the Select Committee or the Buchanan Committee, was created on August 12, 1949, by the House of Representatives of the United States by a Resolution which, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
"The committee is authorized and directed to conduct a study and investigation of (1) all lobbying activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation; and (2) all activities of agencies of the Federal Government intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation."
Appellant is the Executive Secretary of an organization known as the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., incorporated in 1941 as a successor to an unincorporated Committee formed in 1937. Under instructions of the Committee's trustees he filed in 1946 with the Clerk of the House of Representatives a report, pursuant to the Regulation of Lobbying Act, accompanied by a letter, and thereafter until early 1951 he filed similar reports and letters. One of these letters, in language like that of the others, read in part:
"I am not employed to support or oppose any legislation whatsoever. For this reason and the reasons set forth in my letters to you under previous dates, I protest that I am not under any legal obligation to file reports under said Act, and again request ruling on this question for future guidance."
The Committee for. Constitutional Government, Inc., publishes and distributes books and pamphlets, usually pertaining to national affairs and issues. The Report of the Buchanan Committee to the House indicates that the concern distributed, among other things, some 750,000 copies of "The Road Ahead", a book by John T. Flynn, 250,000 copies of "Labor Monopolies and Freedom", a book by John W. Scoville, 130,000 copies of "Compulsory Medical Care and the Welfare State" by Melchior Palyi, about 600,000 copies of the "Constitution of the United States" by Thomas James Norton, thousands of "Why the Taft-Hartley Law" by Irving G. McCann, and millions of engrossed copies of the Bill of Rights to schools and colleges. Rumely testified before the Committee that about 85 per cent of the books were sold in lots of from one to twenty copies and the remainder in bulk sales. Bulk sales took three forms: (1) The purchaser bought the books and distributed them; (2) the purchaser furnished a list of people to whom he wished the books sent, and Rumely's office made the distribution; (3) the purchaser designated in general terms the distributees, such, for example, as 15,000 libraries or 15,000 editors, and Rumely's office made the distribution to a list of names in that category in its files.
Rumely testified, according to the Report of the Committee, that he and his associates do not come down to Congress, that "Our lobbying consists of going out with a viewpoint to the country, and informing people and letting the people talk to their Members of the Congress." Upon occasion copies of a book or pamphlet are distributed to all members of Congress. For example, Rum-ely said that a purchaser of "Labor Monopolies or Freedom" directed distribution to "every newspaperman" in the United States and also to all Congressmen. The record before us contains no contradiction of that testimony or any different description of the activities of the organization.
In the course of its investigations the Buchanan Committee served upon appellant two subpoenas, one on May 26, 1950, and the other on August 21, 1950. The nature and extent of the subpoenas are indicated in the first and sixth counts of the indictment, quoted in pertinent part above. Sometime in May investigators for the Buchanan Committee appeared at Rum-ely's office and submitted to him a list of material, in twenty-six items, concerning which the Buchanan Committee desired information. The twenty-sixth item called for the names of all purchasers of books or pamphlets. After some discussion Rum-ely gave the investigators access to all records, etc., for all purposes except the twenty-sixth item. Pursuant to the first subpoena Rumely appeared before the Committee on June 6, 27, 28 and 29, 1950. On June 28th Rumely told the Committee, "I am perfectly willing to give everything except one thing. I haven't withheld anything, except the names of the buyers of our books. Those, you can't have." He repeated many times in the course of those hearings that he declined to give any names of people who bought books from his company. On June 29th he told the Committee:
"*1 certainly refuse to disclose those names — not contemptuously, but respectfully, because I feel it is my duty to uphold the fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights. I think that there is no power to require of a publisher the names of the people who buy his products, and that you are exceeding your right."
The August 21st subpoena, reflected in Count Six of the indictment, called for more material than did the May 26th one, and it required Rumely to appear on August 25th. He appeared, and stated that he had brought the material "As far as it was physically possible." He insisted that full compliance was "an impossible thing." He stated, for example, that the investigator had asked for each of the returned checks drawn on the National City Bank in 37 months, that he had put four men to work on that item, and that in 431/2 hours they had been able to assemble the checks for only one month. On this appearance Rumely repeated his refusal to give the names of the purchasers of books.
Concerning the transaction which was the basis for Count Seven of the indictment, Rumely testified both before the Buchanan Committee and upon the trial that his Committee had outstanding a general offer to sell copies of the book "The Road Ahead" in bulk at fifty cents a copy. A "woman from Toledo" sent a check for $2,000 and requested that 4,000 copies of the book be distributed to school teachers and clergymen in Toledo, as shown on a list which she furnished. Rumely refused to tell the Buchanan Committee the name of this woman.
In its Report to the House the Buchanan Committee said:
"Our study of this organization indicates very clearly that its most important function is the distribution of books and pamphlets in order to influence legislation directly and indirectly. It attempts to influence legislation directly by sending copies of books, pamphlets, and other printed materials to Members of Congress. It attempts to influence legislation indirectly by distributing hundreds of thousands of copies of these printed materials to people throughout the United States.
*♦
"The distribution of printed material to influence legislation indirectly by influencing public opinion is the basic function of the Committee for Constitutional Government. "
And again the Committee said:
"These leaflets and memoranda, coupled with the books themselves, are evidence that their distribution by the Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., constitutes an attempt by that organization to influence legislation, directly or indirectly."
The following colloquy occurred between Rumely and counsel for the Committee and typifies the nature of the hearing:
"Mr. Rumely. The Road Ahead, I have told you all along, we put out 600,000. I am not going to give you the names of the people who bought it.
"Mr. Fitzgerald. Don't you feel The Road Ahead deals with specific legislation ?
"Mr. Rumely. The Road Ahead deals with stopping the march into socialism and the destruction of our form of government.
"Mr. Fitzgerald. I think that the true significance of the Road Ahead can be obtained only by reading it in its entirety, and I respectfully suggest that the committee read it. It condemns practically all of the social legislation which has been passed by the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, and opposes practically all of the present legislative program of President Truman. However, it does deal with specific legislation from time to time.
"For example, it deals with the war powers. On page 158 it states: 'We must curb the grasping hand of the Federal Government. We must restrain the grasping hand of the Executive. And our very first step must be to make a list of the emergency powers granted to the Executive for war purposes and then repeal every one of them.' " i
In its Report the Committee also suggested that refusal to submit pertinent financial records might cover subterfuges to evade the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, i. e., to mask contributions as purchases. We shall discuss that suggestion in a moment.
The trial of Rumely was a comparatively simple proceeding. The prosecutor presented evidence that Rumely had registered under the Lobbying Act, that the Committee had been created by Resolution, and that the subpoenas had been served. He verified certain extracts (from pages 17, 18, 19, 20, 126, 166, 271, 272 and 273) from the transcript of the Committee hearings, which showed that Rumely refused to give the names and addresses of purchasers of books. He presented a certified copy of the Report of the Committee to the House. The defense presented Rumely and four character witnesses. Rumely described his efforts to comply with the subpoenas and verified his refusal to give the names of the purchasers of the books. Counsel for the defense made a detailed and extensive proffer of evidence, which was excluded from the jury by the court but accepted in part for the court itself on the question of per-tinency. On cross examination Rumely asserted some half dozen times that he refused to give the names of purchasers of books.
The theory of the prosecution, adopted as correct by the court, was that, so long as Rumely refused to give a part o'f the subpoenaed data, all else was immaterial. The court instructed the jury that the Buchanan Committee was validly consti tuted and had jurisdiction over the matters under consideration; that the records subpoenaed were pertinent; that the Committee had a reasonable basis for issuing the subpoenas; that the subpoenas were validly issued; and that it made no difference what records were supplied so long as some were not supplied.
We turn first to that portion of the Buchanan Committee's Report which suggests that the Committee was seeking to ascertain whether subterfuges were being used to evade the Lobbying Act. It is clear to us that the point is not in the case as it was tried and as it is here. The statement of the Committee was that "Because of the refusal of the 'Committee for Constitutional Government, Inc., to produce pertinent financial records, this committee was unable to determine" whether the Lobbying Act requires amendment to prevent subterfuges. But, as the case comes to us, there was no refusal to produce financial records. Over and over again Rumely asserted before the Committee that he had given, and was willing to give, all records except the names and addresses of the purchasers of the books. No contention was made at those hearings that he refused to give anything else. Upon the trial the prosecutor did not say that anything else was refused. On the contrary, he urged a different view. He insisted, and the court sustained his view, that, so long as the names of purchasers of books were not given, financial records on contributions and loans were immaterial to the issues in the case. But they could not be immaterial if the issue was the inability of the Committee to probe subterfuges "Because of the refusal of [Rumely] to produce pertinent financial records". The Government did not rest this case upon that premise. The pertinency of the question which Rumely refused to answer was a contested issue upon the trial. The prosecutor's contention was that pertinency was established when it was -shown that Rumely had registered as a lobbyist. Certainly, if the perti-nency of the question rested even in part upon the Committee's desire to probe into possible subterfuges, the- financial records would have been relevant and material. The prosecutor urged and the court held that the -financial data was inadmissible.
It is now said that contributions might be disguised by being made in the form of purchases of books. It is difficult to see how the purchase of a book at a dollar could be a contribution if it cost a dollar to produce the book. If the sales prices of the books exceeded the production costs in such amounts as to result in. sizable profits, that fact would show in the financial records; the names of the purchasers would shed no light on that problem. No suggestion of this sort was made upon the trial or in the briefs before us.
It is said that the names of the purchasers of the books were pertinent, since the Committee might wish to question those persons as to possible subterfuges. That pertinency was too remote on this record to sustain an abridgment of the freedoms of speech and press. Subterfuges would appear, as the Committee itself evidently thought, upon examination of the financial records. Those records were not even admitted in evidence. Had they been admitted, and 'had they been suspected of being false, some further inquiry might have been in order. But no such issue was raised in this case. On a record such as this, so slim a semblance of pertinency is not enough to justify inquisition violative of the First Amendment. We are also of opinion that, even if the purchases were really contributions but were merely in furtherance of an effort to influence public opinion, they were beyond the power of the Congress and of the Committee under its Resolution, a subject which we'shall discuss in a moment. . No mention of a purpose to probe disguised contributions appears in the Government's brief before us.
The view of the Buchanan Committee, as reflected in such portions of its hearings as are before us, and that of the prosecutor, the trial court, and the Government in its brief and argument here, is that the publication of books upon national issues is indirect lobbying, that sending books and bulletins to Congressmen is direct lobbying, and that the Buchanan Committee had authority to investigate lobbying, direct and indirect. That is the controversy before us, as we see it.
Appellant presents two principal contentions. He insists that the Buchanan Committee had no power to require him to produce or to reveal the names of purchasers of books, on two grounds, (1) that the Congress had no constitutional power to make that inquiry and (2) that the House had not by its Resolution empowered the Committee to make that inquiry. Both contentions were available to him.
We begin this consideration with basic premises. To attempt to influence public opinion upon national affairs by books, pamphlets and other writings is one of the fundamental freedoms of speech and press. Congress has no power to abridge those freedoms unless urgent necessities in the public interest require it to do so. We examined this matter at length in Bar-sky v. United States. In thati case it was shown that the President and other responsible Government officials had, with supporting evidentiary data, represented to the Congress that Communism and the Communists are, in the current world situation, potential threats to the security of this country. For that reason, and for that reason alone, we held that Congress had the power, and a duty, to inquire into Communism and the Communists. The doctrine has since (been clarified and sharpened by the Supreme Court. At the same time, the Supreme Court, by numerous expressions, both before and after the Barsky decision, has made clear the inviolability of the fundamental freedoms in the absence of some such public necessity.
That Congress has no power in respect to efforts to influence public opinion rests upon two bases. First, Congress is a representative body. It represents the people, and its power comes from the people. It is not a source or a generator of power; it is a recipient and user of power. As a representative it has no inherent authority to interfere with the thought or wishes of its principal, and the people have not conferred that authority upon their representative, the Congress. So that, even if there were no prohibition such as the First Amendment in the Constitution, Congress would lack authority to abridge either public opinion or efforts to influence that opinion. Second, the First Amendment is a direct prohibition upon the Congress. It reads: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Congress cannot legislate concerning "all activities intended to influence, encourage, promote, or retard legislation", or activities designed, in the language of the Buchanan Committee, "to influence legislation indirectly by influencing public opinion". If Congress had authorized its Committee to inquire generally into attempts to influence public opinion upon national affairs by books, pamphlets, and other writings, its authorization would have been void.
To publicize or to report to the Congress the names and addresses of purchasers of books, pamphlets and periodicals is a realistic interference with the publication and sale of those writings. This is another problem which we examined in the Barsky case, supra, and we there held that the public inquiry there involved was an impingement upon free speech. We are of the same view here. There can be no doubt, in that case or in this one, that the realistic effect of public embarrassment is a powerful interference with the free expression of views. In that case the tenets of Communism and the apparent nature of the Communist Party created a public necessity for congressional inquiry. In the case at bar no such dangerous factors are represented to us. There is no suggestion that the publication or distribution of these books and documents constitutes any public danger, clear or otherwise, present or otherwise.
In support of the power of Congress it is argued that lobbying is within the regulatory power of Congress; that influence upon public opinion is indirect lobbying, since public opinion affects legislation; and that therefore attempts to influence public opinion are subject to regulation by the Congress. Lobbying, properly defined, is subject to control by the Congress, a matter we shall discuss in a moment. But the term cannot be expanded by mere definition so as to include forbidden subjects. Neither semantics nor syllogisms can break down the barrier which protects the freedom of people to attempt to influence other people by books and other public writings. Such logic as the contention possesses falls before the realities of the protected freedoms.
It is said that lobbying itself is an evil and a danger. We agree that lobbying by personal contact may be an evil and a potential danger to the best in legislative processes. It is said that indirect lobbying by the pressure of public opinion on the Congress is an evil and a danger. That is not an evil; it is a good, the healthy essence of the democratic process. It is said that the financing of extensive efforts to influence public opinion is an evil and a danger. As to that, generalities are inaccurate. If influences upon public opinion were being bought and prostituted, an evil might arise. But the case before us concerns the public distribution of books and the formation of public opinion through the processes of information and persuasion. There is no evil or danger in that process. To fail to recognize the difference between that which threatens the national security and that which is, or may be, merely evil is to fail to recognize realities.
With these considerations in mind we turn to the House Resolution which was the authority of the Buchanan Committee. The House of Representatives did not purport to confer upon the Buchanan Committee power to investigate all activities intended to influence, encourage, promote or retard legislation. The Resolution of authority limited the Committee's inquiries to "lobbying" activities. "Lobbying" is a word of common meaning. The verb "lobby" means, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, "To influence (members of a house of legislature) in the exercise of their legislative functions by frequenting the lobby. Also, to procure the passing of (a measure) through Congress by means of such influence." Other dictionaries give similar meanings. The Supreme Court discussed a contract for "lobby service" in Trist v. Child and used the term "personal solicitation" as descriptive of it. "A lobbyist", said the Circuit Court in Burke v. Wood, "is defined to be one who frequents the lobby or the precincts of a Legislature or other deliberative assembly with the view of influencing the views of its members." In the past a difference between lobbying and "purely professional services" in acquainting a legislature with the merits or demerits of measures was recognized at the law. The Supreme Court discussed it in Trist v. Child, supra, and in Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R., both of which cases it discussed in Oscanyan v. W. R. Arms Co. Similar discussion appears in Lucas v. Wofford, Ewing v. National Airport Corporation, and Noonan v. Gilbert. It may be that the line between lobbying in its pristine sense and proper professional service is too shadowy to serve as a limiting barrier to the regulatory power of the Congress. We do not have that question here, and, however that may be, Congress was certainly aware of the common meaning of the words "lobbying activities" when it used them in conferring authority upon the Buchanan Committee. At the most, the words depict no more than representations made directly to the Congress, its members, or its committees.
Lobbying, as thus or similarly defined, is within the regulatory power of the Congress and the terms of the Resolution. The influencing of legislative processes by contacts with legislators is potentially, although by no means necessarily or universally, a danger to the free and proper exercise of the legislators' functions. As such it is subject to inquiry by the legislature and to protective restrictions. Congress has a duty to protect the free flow from the people of influence, encouragement, promotion and retardation of legislative matters. So Congress has the right to restrict "lobbying" as properly defined, since such lobbying may, unless controlled, impede the effectual exercise of the people's power. But Congress has no authority to impede the exercise of those functions of and by the people.
There is some justification for the argument that the House intended the words "lobbying activities" in its Resolution to encompass the full scope of the Regulation of Lobbying Act. The terms of that Act apply to any person who receives money to be used for either of two purposes, the second purpose being "To influence, directly or indirectly, the passage or defeat of any legislation by the Congress ofr the United States." We do not have before us in this case either the meaning or the validity of the Lobbying Act and so are neither called upon nor empowered to decide those questions as such. A three-judge statutory court in this jurisdiction, composed of Circuit Judge Wilbur K. Miller and District Judges Schweinhaut and Holtzoff, has unanimously declared Sections 303 to 307 of the Lobbying Act to be unconstitutional. We have already said enough to indicate that at least a serious constitutional question would arise if the House Resolution were to be interpreted to include'the broad powers claimed for it by the Committee. The Resolution should be interpreted to avoid that doubt.
We are of opinion that the term "lobbying activities" in the House Resolution must be held to mean lobbying in its commonly accepted sense, and did not purport to convey power to investigate efforts to influence public opinion.
We are of opinion that the demand made upon appellant for the names of purchasers of books from his concern was outside the terms of the authority of the Buchanan Committee, since the public sale of books and documents is not "lobbying".
It may or may not be that, if members of the Congress were receiving gratuitously and anonymously copies of books or documents dealing with matters pending before them but also circulated generally in the public market, the Congress would be en titled to inquire as to the identity of the donors. The question presented by such a situation might be a difficult one, but the controversy ¡before us is not drawn along those lines. Had Rumely been asked merely for the names of persons who anonymously financed the presentation of books or pamphlets to members of Congress, a different problem would be here. But he was not asked that question; he was asked and refused to give all the names of purchasers of books in amounts of $500 or more.
In this connection we are inclined to observe further that anonymous donations of printed material to Congressmen appear to be a danger too insignificant to support abridgment of freedoms of speech, press and religion. Members of Congress need read only that which they want to read. The force behind the writing is the author, not the donor. And, moreover, the wastebasket is an invincible protector against harm by such means. "¡Lobbying" by personal contact is a different and more dangerous activity.
It is clear that authority over a subject matter does not import authority over all activities of persons concerned in that subject matter. Especially is it true that power over a subject matter involving speech, press, religion, assembly and petition does not go beyond the power to do that which is essential to be done in protection against a public danger. Many lawyers, businessmen, and others are required, and properly, to be in contact with legislators concerning legislation. And so they may be subject to regulation and open to inquiry concerning that activity. But the power of inquiry which arises from that reason does not strip from all other activities of those persons the rights which inhere in them and which are protected in terms by the First Amendment.
The scope of the power of legislatures to compel testimony in the course of investigation has been the subject more of comment by legal writers than of interpretation by federal courts. The Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the existence of such a power until 1881, in Kilbourn v. Thompson, and then the decision rested upon the view that the inquiry was not in aid of any law-making function, the Court expressly reserving the question whether the power to inquire existed. Meanwhile, however, two well-considered state court opinions were rendered: one a Massachusetts case, Burnham v. Morrissey, in which, on the facts of the case, the assertion of the existence of the power may be said to Ibe dictum; and the other a New York case, Keeler v. McDonald, in which the decision rested squarely upon the existence of the power. Both of those cases and other state cases were considered by the Supreme Court when in 1927 it was faced with the question in McGrain v. Daugherty. They were adopted as the rationale of that decision. The principles developed in the foregoing cases were matured in. Sinclair v. United States. Explicit in that decision is recognition of "the purpose of the courts well to uphold the right of privacy". The Court, illustrating its concern in that respect, referred to cases involving the power of Congress-created agencies to examine into private affairs, and quoted approvingly from a number of those opinions to show its care lest governmental inquiries abridge fundamental freedoms. The gist of the decision in the Sinclair case was that, since Congress had plenary power over federal property, it could ask questions about naval oil reserves.
Of course the publishers of 'books are not immune from law. This is the purport of the cases holding publishers and news agencies subject to laws of various sorts. That is not the problem before us. Here the power claimed by the Committee is a power to inquire into the sale of books because those books attempt to influence public opinion. In its opinions dealing with regulations imposed upon the press, the Supreme Court has been most careful to point out that the regulations upheld did not bear upon the freedom of publication except to the extent that ordinary business burdens bear upon the publishing business.
Our attention is directed in alarm to the vast operations of Rumely's organization. We are referred to "indirect lobbying techniques" and to modern methods of lobbying. We are told that modern media for mass communication have made established concepts of lobbying archaic. We are told that there should be a reference source where full material concerning those who would influence public opinion could be had, and that organized groups who attempt to influence public opinion must be dealt with by Congress. None of these flourishes withstands scrutiny. Rumely's vast operations turn out to be the quantities of books and pamphlets which his organization distributes to the public. What is called a new lobbying technique turns out to ;be aroused public opinion. The new features are new mechanics of communication and new mass interest in the minutiae of congressional activities. But speech and press by these new means — on the radio, on television, and in the movies — are freedoms protected by the First Amendment. And the public policy which prohibits any current congressional membership from abridging the impact of public opinion upon the Congress is as sound today as it was when it was first formulated. If it be true that those who today would influence legislation turn from the buttonholes of the legislators to the forum of public opinion for support, a great good in the cause of representative government has been done. The evil to be dealt with is at the buttonhole, not in the arena of public discussion, whether that discussion be oral or written, over the air or on printed pages. These are basic principles of our concept of government. If we ever agree that modern mechanical devices and modem mass interest in public affairs have destroyed the validity of those principles, we will have lost parts of the foundation of the Constitution.
The Government says that pertinency in this case was sufficiently shown by the fact that appellant had registered under the Federal Lobbying Act, even though under protest. The claim is startlingly broad. If valid, it would mean that all the affairs of any person who represented another in respect of legislation would be open to inquiry. But, as we have indicated, "pertinent", as used to describe a requisite for valid congressional inquiry, means pertinent to a subject matter properly under inquiry, not generally pertinent to the person under interrogation. Moreover, this appellant registered under protest. Surely those cautious souls who register rather than risk the severe penalties of the Lobbying Act do not by that mechanical act waive all rights protected by the First and Fourth Amendments. We think this position of the Government not tenable.
The Government cites cases under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 2 U.S.C.A. § 241 et seq. That subject must be considered in the light of the opinions in United States v. C.I.O. We need not here repeat or attempt to summarize those opinions. They are pertinent in full text , to this contention of the Government.
It is our view that the Resolution of the House which created the Buchanan Committee and gave it power to investigate "lobbying activities" did not confer the power which the Committee claimed in its demand upon appellant and which the Government upon this appeal claims for it, relating to the identity of the purchasers of books from his company. Appellant Rumely was within his rights when he refused to supply the information involved in the trial upon the indictment.
We think our dissenting judge discusses a case which is not before us — issues not presented in the trial court or here, and facts not in evidence in this record. The transcript of the hearings and' the exhibits, including letters, etc., before the Buchanan Committee was neither offered nor admitted in evidence, except in so far as portions were reproduced in the Report to the House and in so far as a few excerpts were read to the jury. The agreement between counsel at the opening of the trial that the transcript was a correct transcript and that neither the reporter nor his shorthand notes need be resorted to, was no substitute for the presentation of evidence, and it did not purport to be. When the prosecutor wanted a portion of the hearings in evidence he said so. Thus he said, " I should like to offer so much of it in evidence as is contained on pages 17, 18, 19 and a third of the way down on page 20, and read it to the jury at this time." And again he said, "At this time, Your Honor, I would like to offer in evidence almost a complete page of testimony of the hearings commencing on page 271 Certainly, in a criminal case we cannot take judicial notice of things the defendant is alleged to- have said or done,' not shown or offered to be shown in evidence; in fact, no request for such notice was made either in the trial court or 'before us. Nor can mere conclusions of the Committee serve in the place of such evidence. We repeat that the controversy before us is whether the sale of a book, such, for example, as "The Road Ahead", is "indirect lobbying" because it deals with national issues, and, if so, whether the sale is within the scope of the investigative power of the Committee or of the Congress.
Appellant raises other questions respecting rulings of the trial judge during the course of the trial. We find it unnecessary to consider them.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case will be remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment. Reversed and remanded.
. 52 Stat. 942 (1938), 2 TT.S.C.A. § 192.
. H.R.Res. 298, 81st. Cong., 1st Sess.
. 60 Stat. 839 (1946), 2 U.S.C.A. § 261-270.
. H.R.Rep.No.3024, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950). The transcript of the hearings before the Buchanan Committee is not in this record, except in so far as excerpts were included in the Report to the House (Gov't Ex. 4) or read to the jury. H.R. Rep.No.3239, another report of the Buchanan Committee, is not in this record.
. McGrain v. Daugherty, 1927, 273 U.S. 135, 47 S.Ct. 319, 71 L.Ed. 580.
. 1948, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 127, 167 F.2d 241, certiorari denied, 1948, 334 U.S. 843, 68 S.Ct. 1511, 92 L.Ed. 1767.
. The decisions of this court in Dennis v. United States, 1948, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 31, 171 F.2d 986, affirmed, 1950, 339 U.S. 162, 70 S.Ct. 519, 94 L.Ed. 734; Lawson v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 187, 176 F.2d 49, certiorari denied, 1950, 339 U.S. 934, 70 S.Ct. 663, 94 L.Ed. 1352; Morford v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 172, 176 F.2d 54, reversed on other grounds, 1950, 339 U.S. 258, 70 S.Ct. 586, 94 L.Ed. 815, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 256, 184 F.2d 864, certiorari denied, 1950, 340 U.S. 878, 71 S.Ct. 120, 95 L.Ed. 638; and Marshall v. United States, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 184, 176 F.2d 473, certiorari denied, 1950, 339 U.S. 933, 70 S.Ct. 663, 94 L.Ed. 1352, rested upon the same necessities of national security.
. Compare Dennis v. United States, 1951, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137; Communications Ass'n v. Douds, 1950, 339 U.S. 382, 70 S.Ct. 674, 94 L.Ed. 925, and Adler v. Board of Education, 1952, 342 U.S. 485, 72 S.Ct. 380, with Schneiderman v. United States, 1943, 320 U.S. 118, 63 S.Ct. 1333, 87 L.Ed. 1796.
. Stromberg v. California, 1931, 283 U.S. 359, 51 S.Ct. 532, 75 L.Ed. 1117; Near v. Minnesota, 1931, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 1936, 297 U.S. 233, 56 S.Ct. 444, 80 L.Ed. 660; De Jonge v. Oregon, 1937, 299 U.S. 353, 57 S.Ct. 255, 81 L.Ed. 278; Schneider v. State, 1939, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155; Niemotko v. Maryland, 1951, 340 U.S. 268, 71 S.Ct. 325, 328, 95 L.Ed. 267, 280, and Kunz v. New York, 1951, 340 U.S. 290, 71 S.Ct. 312, 95 L.Ed. 280, and eases cited therein.
. 1875, 21 Wall. 441, 88 U.S. 441, 22 L.Ed. 623.
. C.C.S.D.Ala.1908, 162 E. 533, 537.
. 1853, 16 How. 314, 57 U.S. 314, 14 L.Ed. 953.
. 1881, 103 U.S. 261, 26 L.Ed. 539.
. 5 Cir.1931, 49 E.2d 1027.
. 4 Cir.1940, 115 F.2d 859, certiorari denied, 1941, 312 U.S. 705, 61 S.Ct. 828, 85 L.Ed. 1138.
. 1934, 63 App.D.C. 30, 68 F.2d 775.
. Supra note 3.
. Sec. 307(b) of the Act, 60 Stat. 841, 2 U.S.C.A. § 266(b)-
. National Association of Manufacturers v. McGrath, D.C.1952, 103 F.Supp. 510.
. See, e. g., Dimock, Congressional Investigating Committees, 47 Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies in Hist. and Political Science No. 1 (1929); Eberling, Congressional Investigations (1928); 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 4k (3d ed.1940); 8 id. § 2195; Landis, Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 Harv.L.Rev. 153 (1926); Hamilton, The Inquisitorial Power of Congress, 23 A.B.A.J. 511 (1937); Cousens, The Purposes and Scope of Investigations Under Legislative Authority, 26 Geo.L. J. 905 (1938); Herwitz and Mulligan, The Legislative Investigating Committee, 33 Col.L.Rev. 1 (1933); Potts, Power of Legislative Bodies to Punish for Contempt, 74 U. of Pa.L.Rev. 691, 780 (1926); 40 Geo.L.J. 137 (1951).
. Cases involving the question come before the courts in a variety of ways: in prosecutions under 2 U.S.G.A § 192, as here; in habeas corpus proceedings; in tort actions for false imprisonment.
. 103 U.S. 168, 26 L.Ed. 377.
. 1859, 14 Gray 226.
. 1885, 99 N.Y. 463, 2 N.E. 615.
. 273 U.S. 135, 47 S.Ct. 319, 71 L.Ed. 580.
. 1929, 279 U.S. 263, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692.
. Id., 279 U.S. at page 292, 49 S.Ct. 268.
. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 1894, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047; Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 1908, 211 U.S. 407, 29 S.Ct. 115, 53 L.Ed. 253; United States v. Louisville & N. R. R., 1915, 236 U.S. 318, 35 S.Ct. 363, 59 L.Ed. 598; Federal Trade Comm. v. American Tobacco Co., 1924, 264 U.S. 298, 44 S.Ct. 336, 68 L.Ed. 696; In re Pacific Ry. Comm., C.C.N.D.Cal.1887, 32 F. 241.
. Associated Press v. Labor Board, 1937, 301 U.S. 103, 57 S.Ct. 650, 81 L.Ed. 953; Associated Press v. United States, 1945, 326 U.S. 1, 65 S.Ct. 1410, 89 L.Ed. 2013; Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 1946, 327 U.S. 186, 66 S.Ct. 494, 90 L.Ed. 614.
. B. g., cases cited ibid.
. 1948, 335 U.S. 106, 68 S.Ct. 1349, 92 L.Ed. 1849.