Court Opinion

ID: 9445244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:23:40.488992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:10.891733
License: Public Domain

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) .
In a sworn statement made to the State Department in 1951 Kraus stated, inter alia:
“My last employment was during 1945 when I was engaged in selling the Encyclopedia Britannica. I was then employed by the trade office of *843Encyclopedia Britannica, Palms Building, Woodworth Avenue, Detroit for one year; from then until 1949 I was supported by the Department of Public Welfare of Detroit.
* * * * * *
“A. I have no property or funds at all.
******
“A. I have been supported in the United States of America, by charitable institutions and sympathizers; while I have been abroad I have been supported by government contributions, by statesmen, civic leaders and different churches.
“[Q] Have you made any effort to secure the necessary funds for your return to the United States?
“A. No.
******
“EQ-1 What is the occupation of your brother, Marek Kraus?
“A. He is the owner of a money lending house.
“[Q] Approximately what are his assets?
“A. I would say that he would be worth approximately $500,000.00.
“[Q.] Are your relatives in the United States financially in a position to furnish you the necessary funds with which to return to the United States?
“A. The only one who would be able is this man, Marek Kraus, who is definitely committed not to help me. He financed my studies at Oxford and since then he has refused to furnish me anything.
“[Q.] Is it not possible that some of your other relatives in the United States might be willing to contribute the necessary funds for your return to the United States?
“A. None of the relatives would take any responsibility for me.
“[Q.] In the event that the Department of State at Washington should be in a position to make you a loan of the necessary funds for your return to the United States, would you be in a position to repay such loan?
“A. No, at least not until I have a livelihood because I will have to go on relief when I return to the United States.”
It is also a fact that Kraus became destitute while abroad in 1951 and was returned home at the expense of the Government.
In March, 1954, Kraus made an application (the one now before us) for a passport to travel in all the countries of the free world, listing twenty-eight countries, for the purpose of collecting petitions to the Commission on Human Bights of the United Nations in respect to the “Kraus Case”. That “Case” com cerned Kraus’s removal from the faculty of the City College of New York in 1933.
A State Department official explained to the attorney for Kraus that the sole objections to issuance of a passport were (1) that he (Kraus) had been destitute in Costa Bica (in 1951) and (2) that his method of procuring a living in foreign countries had been embarrassing to the foreign service people. Kraus was advised by letter:
“With reference to the foregoing, the Department desires to make clear that its position with respect to your application for a passport is predicated upon a long-established policy of endeavoring to require that at least a minimum of precaution is observed to insure that American travelers proceeding abroad have taken reasonable measures to conduct their travels without being forced to call upon this government for assistance in ordinary circumstances. As has been pointed out to you, the Department would have no objection to your proceeding abroad for your avowed purpose, but experience has shown that your methods of obtaining financial back*844ing for your cause, and indeed the means for securing the essentials of your livelihood; have proved embarrassing to the United States Foreign Service offices in the countries in which you have traveled.”
And in another letter Kraus was told:
“The Department has previously called to your attention the fact that it is not favorably disposed to issue passport facilities to persons who appear likely to require financial assistance in accomplishing their proposed travels abroad.”
In an affidavit in the record a legal assistant in the Passport Office swore that he informed counsel for Kraus “that it was the long standing requirement of the Department, in the case of an application for a passport 'where there was reason to believe the applicant might become financially destitute abroad, to require assurances that reasonable precautions had been taken to defray his expenses of travel abroad. It was pointed out that the requirement was based upon considerations of the best interests of this Government in the conduct of its affairs abroad.”
The premise for the Secretary’s ruling was not the financial worth of Kraus. The premise was the sum total of the facts concerning Kraus’s manner of supporting himself while abroad, depending upon charitable handouts; his total lack of resources, direct or indirect, whereby he might have some assurance of being able to return home; and the fact that he had lived on relief or on charity for some years. The conclusion of the Secretary was that upon those facts it was not in the best interests of this country to have Kraus traveling abroad. The financial-showing provision was an escape clause, a means whereby Kraus might extricate himself from the predicament in which the whole of his history and circumstances placed him. I see nothing arbitrary or capricious in the Secretary’s determination that to let a man in the condition depicted in Kraus’s affidavit travel abroad under the aegis of a United States passport is not consistent with the best interests of this country. He ruled on this particular case, and I find little to quarrel with in his ruling.
The point can be made clear by reversing, arguendo, the situation. Suppose France, Italy, or some other country knowingly issued passports to panhandlers for the purpose of letting them travel around this country, begging their way. Would such a practice be to the best interests of the country issuing the passport? Obviously not, I think.
A contention is vigorously pressed upon us that affirmance of this case would establish a rule that the Secretary can grant or deny passports upon a measurement of the financial worth of applicants. The Secretary is proposing no such rule. Certainly I would not agree to such a rule. We have one factual situation before us. The Secretary dealt with that one factual situation, and we should deal with the case on that basis.
I am of opinion the Secretary of State has a measure of discretion in the issuance of passports. Foreign relations are involved, and such relations lie largely within the good judgment of the executive branch. In Shachtman v. Dulles we said:
“For reasons thus suggested the issuance of passports throughout our history has been left to the judgment of the Secretary of State under Presidential regulation, and is subject only to constitutional safeguards. And even these must be defined with cautious regard for the responsibility of the Executive in the conduct of foreign affairs.” 1
The ground upon which the Secretary acted in the case at bar seems to me to be both rational and reasonable.
I would affirm the order of the District Court.

. 1955, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 287, 291, 225 F.2d 938, 942.