Court Opinion

ID: 9584406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:47:50.672275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:44.227643
License: Public Domain

Schwellenbach, J.
(concurring)—I concur in the result arrived at by the majority. However, I cannot agree with the assumption of the majority that appellant’s statement that he stood upon his constitutional rights was the lawful equivalent of the statement that he refused to answer the question for the reason that his answer might‘incriminate him; or with this statement: “ . . . we find in the record no basis for holding that an answer to the c[uestion propounded to appellant might have incriminated, him.”
The concurrent resolution authorizing the investigation stated:
“Whereas, These are times of public danger; subversive persons and groups are endangering our domestic unity, so as to leave us unprepared to meet aggression, and under cover of the protection afforded by the bill of rights these persons and groups seek to destroy our liberties and our. freedom by force, threats and sabotage, and to subject us to the domination of foreign powers; and
“Whereas, Recent announcements by responsible officers of the federal government indicate the seriousness of the problem, J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently said: ‘During the past five years American Communists have made their deepest inroads upon our national life. Their propaganda, skillfully designed and adroitly executed has been projected into practically every phase of our national life. The Communist influence has projected itself into some newspapers, books, radio and the screen, some churches, schools, colleges and even *917fraternal orders have been penetrated, not with the approval of the rank and file, but in spite of them’ ...”
The question, “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” was relevant to the issue under investigation, and, in view of the testimony given before the committee concerning the activities of the Communist party, an affirmative answer would have tended to incriminate the witness. Whether we approve or disapprove the manner in which the committee conducted the hearings, is beside the point. Our only inquiry is whether or not the question asked was relevant to the investigation being made. There is no doubt but that it was.
Did the witness refuse to answer the question for the reason that his answer might incriminate him? He answered: “I do not care to answer. ... I stand on my constitutional rights, Mr. Canwell. ... I do not care to answer.” The protection against self-incrimination is not an absolute right, but a privilege which may or may not be invoked by the witness. State v. Jeane, 35 Wn. (2d) 423, 213 P. (2d) 633. It is questionable, from appellant’s answers, whether or not he studiously refrained from invoking the privilege of self-incrimination. It is clear, however, that he did not refuse to answer on the ground that the answer might incriminate him.
Appellant was asked a question which was relevant to the investigation being made by the committee. He refused to answer and did not invoke the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. His refusal to answer constituted contempt.
October 11, 1950. Petition for rehearing denied.