Document: 392 U.S. 286 88 S.Ct. 1978. 20 L.Ed.2d 1094 GEORGE CAMPBELL PAINTING CORP., Appellant,v.William REID et al. No. 673. Argued April 30, 1968. Decided June 10, Albert A. Blinder, New York City, for appellant. Paul W. Hessel and Samuel Hirshowitz, appellees. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The Public Authorities Law York, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 43—A, § 2601, provides that a clause must be inserted in all contracts awarded by public authority State work or services to provide upon refusal 'a person' testify before grand jury, answer any relevant question, waive immunity against subsequent criminal prosecution, such person firm corporation which he is member, officer, director shall disqualified five years from contracting with authority, existing may canceled without incurring penalty damages.1 2 During 1964, appellant, closely held family corporation, entered into three painting appellee City Housing Authority. Each these contained standard disqualification clause. were executed appellant's president, George Campbell, Jr., who was also stockholder corporation. 3 Early 1965, appellant became aware District Attorney County conducting an investigation jury alleged bid rigging on contracts, including those Thereafter, resigned as president divested himself his stock. He remained employ 'estimator.' 4 A few weeks thereafter, Campbell subpoenaed appear jury. refused sign waiver immunity. In due course, Authority notified that, pursuant provision its terminated doing business years. 5 After proceedings lower courts Court Appeals denied relief It valid 2601 constitutional, citing Gardner v. Broderick, N.Y.2d 227, 282 N.Y.S.2d 487, 229 N.E.2d 184 (1967) (reversed this day, 273, 1913, 1082). rejected claim it should not have been because called testify.2 We noted probable jurisdiction. 390 918, 848, 19 978 (1968). 6 do consider constitutionality York's validity effect contract provisions incorporating section. Appellant's operated unconstitutionally require benefits privilege self-incrimination. But cannot avail itself point, assuming validity. has long settled federal jurisprudence constitutional self-incrimination 'essentially personal one, applying only natural individuals.' 'cannot utilized behalf organization, corporation.' United States White, 322 694, 698, 699, 64 1248, 1251, 83 L.Ed. 1542 (1944); see Essgee Co. States, 262 151, 43 514, 67 917 (1923); Baltimore & Ohio R. ICC, 221 612, 622, 31 621, 626, 55 878 (1911); Wilson 361, 382—385, 538, 945 946, 771 Hale Henkel, 201 43, 74—75, 26 370, 378—379, 50 652 (1906). If self- incrimination, take advantage claimed invalidity imposed individual, privilege. Since available it, invoke challenge Law. fortiori, assail entered, substance 7 As process rights imposition despite Campbell's purported resignation managerial positions, we reach abstract legal question urged us. no reason disturb finding 'the tendered accepted solely purpose avoiding statutory disqualification,' conclusion court disregarded purposes case. 8 Affirmed. 9 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK concurs, dissenting. 10 Appellant contractor owner 10% stock, invoked protection Self-Incrimination Clause Fifth Amendment when summond All other officers, directors, controlling stockholders appeared indicated willingness waivers testify. Clause, officer agreed sell stock interest, though so far appears sale consummated.1 11 old days culprit, unpopular person, suspect punished bill attainder, often reached own property, but interests family.2 When present law blacklists like impact. 12 I fail how penalty—direct collateral—can anyone invoking guarantee. sure, beneficiary sense it. 1542. Yet placing blacklist disqualifying one way reaching economic interest recalcitrant president.3 If, felt Spevack Klein, 385 511, 87 625, 17 574, disbarment lawyer unconstitutional, monetary businessman same.4 Reducing value putting State's every suffers. provided where invokes forfeit, say, $10,000, would plainly unconstitutional exacting asserting What could directly, indirectly. penalizing man's assertion precisely effect. 13 Supremacy Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 2) gives Amendment, now applicable Fourteenth, over law. Section 2602 same basis reference contractual 2603 Act vests Supreme jurisdiction, stated reasons, remove disqualification. One directors testified consideration paid at time transfer, there yet formal informal agreement payment Moreover, pleadings reveal times here residuary legatee under estate late father. That 50% Thus, possessed substantial additional likely affected increase decrease E.g., Delaware Laws 1778, 29b; Jersey, Dec. 11, N.J.Rev.Laws 40 (Paterson ed. 1800). Compare North Carolina Laws, Session 14, 5, calling confiscation estates certain persons 'inimical States,' specifically providing members their families allowed portion forfeited they might enjoyed had died intestate. See Bayard Singleton, Martin's N.C.Rep. 42 (1878). And Comment, Court's Bill Attainder Doctrine: Need Clarification, 54 Calif.L.Rev. 212, 214, 216 (1966). Damage shareholders results indirectly damage done can, rectified through suit stockholder's derivative action. Paulson Margolis, 234 App.Div. 496, 255 N.Y.S. 568 (Sup.Ct. 1932). generally Ballantine, Corporations 333—339 (1946); Flectcher Cyclopedia, §§ 5908—5911 (1961). There indication remedy inappropriate facts fact petition discretionary does cure defect. For improper, penalized statute. Its limited 2603, construed below grant state discretion afford proper disaqualification application statute cause unnecessary hardship. Indeed, terms even involve review disqualification, apply discontinue disqualification: 'Such form setting forth grounds, cooperation petitioner such, amount degree control financial if any, petitioning firm, partnership partner, will cancel terminate petitioner's continue * *.'

Category: 0