Opinion ID: 1474108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: The Act and the Regulations are Sufficiently Definite.

Text: We have discussed the more fundamental aspects of the case. The next contention made by defendant concerns the definiteness of the Act and its authorized regulations in view of the fact that a new crime is created. This proposition is related to the authorization issue, i. e., is it clear that the defendant had to disclose this kind of activity, and if so, to what extent. There is, in addition, another question. Since the crime of failing to disclose is limited to a material fact, is the standard of materiality objective enough for a criminal law. In respect to the first part of the problem, the issue might be stated: was defendant notified that this type of activity, the type in which he was engaged but did not mention, must be revealed in some detail. It is considered a healthy aspect of our legal system that no person who sees a sign, Danger! Thin Ice, is supposed to skate around until he finds the exact breaking point. [16] There cannot be the slightest doubt that this defendant knew that the warning to disclose had been given. He also knew that he was skirting the line of demarcation in leaving unrevealed many of the things he did. Under such circumstances, one would be giving the outlaw more than the famous American sporting chance, if all possible doubts were to be resolved in favor of the defendant. It is true that the 1942 Act is more definite. It states, in section 2 sub. (a) (6), A detailed statement of every activity which the registrant is performing or is assuming or purporting or has agreed to perform for himself or any other person other than a foreign principal and which requires his registration hereunder. [17] The defendant stresses this 1942 Act, and argues that the fact that the 1938 Act as amended in 1939, fails to make this point or fails to make it so definitely and explicitly, is conclusive proof that such a point was not within the intendment of the earlier Act. In fact this argument is made so often and so fervently that one wonders what defendant would have done if there had been no 1942 Act. While there is some force in subsequent legislative history to show what earlier Acts covered, a certain amount of wariness must prevail. There is a chance that a later Act merely provided the same as an earlier in better language, or as may be the case here, the later statute may have directed that a detailed statement of activities in the registrant's own behalf be made, whereas the earlier Act authorized the Secretary to make the requirement. The fact that a certain provision is better said or is changed to a requirement rather than an authorization is not conclusive proof that it was never in the first Act, as defendant in practical substance contends. In this particular instance of statutory history, the Report of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate accompanying the bill [18] which became the 1942 Act, in effect contradicts defendant's line of reasoning, based on this last Act. It shows that it was thought that the 1942 Act made no change in what a registrant had to disclose concerning the nature of his business. Four major and some minor changes are discussed, but this is not one of them. In fact, the Report incorporates a letter from the Attorney General which mentions this matter expressly. The registration statement of an agent of a foreign principal engaged in the dissemination of political propaganda would require full information as to his relationships, status, activities, and financial transactions (sec. 2(a)). [Section 2(a) includes § 2(a) (6) quoted above.] This provision of the bill is merely declaratory with respect to the requirements of the registration statement of foreign agents as now prescribed or may be prescribed by the Secretary of State under section 2 of the existing statute. [19] [Italics supplied] If Section 2, dealing with the original registration, gives the authorization, obviously it is within Section 3 and its supplemental statement, which brings the material in the original registration up to date. We have already discussed our conclusions that the Statute authorized, and the Secretary required, a statement in some detail of registrant's activities, including those which might be technically or even actually on his own. We conclude that the Act, the authorized forms and regulations, were sufficiently definite to notify the defendant and to be the basis of a criminal charge. As to the argument that the term material fact in Section 5 of the Act is an inadequate standard, we need only point out that such a phrasal criterion has long been an accepted part of our system of laws. There have been many convictions of false swearing on a fact material to the issue. The self-same material fact idea and phraseology are used. After a layman has read this Act and these regulations, as he swears he has when he registers, the chances are he would have a far better idea of what facts are sought through the registration than an ordinary witness would have about what fact is material to a certain issue in a trial. Moreover, the registrant has far more time to select, reject, and frame his answer when filling out a registration statement than does a witness before a grand or petit jury. We conclude that the Act and the regulations are not too indefinite for supporting the criminal provisions.