COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA. No. 719. Decided April 27, 1959. Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Frederick M. Rowe for appellants. J. Thomason Phelps for the Public Utilities Commission of California, and Arthur T. George, Eugene M. Prince and Francis R. Kirkham for the Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., appellees. PER CURIAM. The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. COMMERCIAL BARGE LINES, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. No. 721. Decided April 27, 1959. 166 F. Supp. 867, affirmed. Dudley B. Tenney and Nuel D. Belnap for appellants. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Robert W. Ginnane and Charlie H. Johns for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission, appellees. Stuart B. Bradley, Carl Helmetag, Jr., J. D. Feeney, Harry C. Ames, R. Granville Curry, Frederick M. Dolan, Donald Macleay and Russell S. Bernhard for Carı.er Appellees. PER CUKIAM. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed. DON MCCULLAGH, INC., v. MICHIGAN, APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. No. 756. Decided April 27, 1959. Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Anthony A. Vermeulen for appellant. Paul L. Adams, Attorney General of Michigan, Samuel J. Torina, Solicitor General, and William D. Dexter, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. 359 U.S. Opinion of the Court. SCULL v. VIRGINIA EX REL. COMMITTEE ON LAW REFORM AND RACIAL ACTIVITIES. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF No. 51. Argued November 18, 1958.-Decided May 4, 1959 Petitioner was convicted in a State Court of contempt and sentenced to fine and imprisonment for refusing to obey an order of that Court to answer certain questions put to him by an Investigating Committee of the State Legislature. The events leading to his subpoena, as well as the questions asked him, made it clear that the Committee's investigation touched the area of free speech, press and association; and the record showed that the purposes of the inquiry, as announced by the Chairman of the Committee, were so unclear and conflicting that petitioner did not have a fair opportunity of understanding the basis of the questions or any justification on the Committee's part for seeking the information he refused to give. Held: His conviction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since he was not given a fair opportunity, at the peril of contempt, to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer. He cannot be sent to jail for a crime he could not with reasonable certainty know he was committing. Pp. 344-353. Reversed. Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were John Silard and Karl Sorg. Leslie Hall argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent. Opinion of the Court by MR. JUSTICE BLACK, announced by MR. JUSTICE HARLAN. David H. Scull was convicted of contempt in the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia, for refusing to obey a decision of that court ordering him to answer a number of questions put to him by a Legislative Investigative Committee of the Virginia General Assembly. On 344 Opinion of the Court. appeal the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. Scull contended at the Committee hearings, in the courts below, and in this Court that the Virginia statute authorizing the investigation, both on its face and as applied, violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He claimed, among other things, that: (1) The Committee was "established and given investigative authority, as part of a legislative program of 'massive resistance' to the United States Constitution and the Supreme Court's desegregation decisions, in order to harass, vilify, and publicly embarrass members of the NAACP and others who are attempting to secure integrated public schooling in Virginia." (2) The questions asked him violated his rights of free speech, assembly and petition by constituting an unjustified restraint upon his associations with others in "legal and laudable political and humanitarian causes." (3) "The information sought from [him] was neither intended to, nor could reasonably be expected to, assist the Legislature in any proper legislative, function." (4) Despite his requests, repeated at every stage of the proceedings, the Committee failed to inform him "in what respect its questions were pertinent to the subject under inquiry We granted certiorari to consider these constitutional challenges to the validity of petitioner's contempt conviction. 357 U. S. 903. After careful consideration, we find it unnecessary to pass on any of these constitutional questions except the last one because we think the record discloses an unmistakable cloudiness in the testimony of the Committee Chairman as to what was sought of Scull, as well as why it was sought. Scull was therefore not given a fair opportunity, at the peril of contempt, to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer and consequently his conviction must fall under the procedural requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. |