◆ SpookStack

©) v7, ~%- honorable George Cochran Dout April 23, 1g 0 1. Watkins. I don't think you can possibly read Watkins without seeing that while the Chief Justice in his opinion free-wheeled over the whole field and his dicta are far reaching, the decision itself was narrowly placed on the ground of delegation by Congress of its powers to the Judiciary by 2 U.S.C. $192. Justice Frankfurter's concurrence made this even clearer, What the Court would say if §192 is amended as proposed nobody can possibly anticipate. But one thing 1s clear - Congress is a coordinate legislative branch, and to perform its funcvicns must have the power to investigate. Ii had, and still has, the right, if 1t wants, to punish at tne bar of the House for contempt without any deiegation to the Judiciary, and that is recognized in the opinion. The congres- sional power to legisiate in this fied depends on its investi- “gatory power, Certainiy, vongress has @ right to see what the limits are of the Supreme Court decisions, and tue best way to do it is to amend tne delegation of power to the Judiciary and see what nappens then. It has the right to know. It may have to, and could of course, recapture the entire power over con- tempt. The effort to take back &@ part of the power is at least a@ rational approach, which should, I submit, be treated with due respect by the administration. i] 3 roobed nA maadt nat Ka sl al iia ao ae 41 Gee noe wo discussed in this - context. I hope some day, as I sugrested to the Judiciary Committee, that a special court can be set up to handie quicnly, in the interest of the 7,0vU0,000 employees, employment questions. The iong delays between nearings or var- jous district courts, Circuit Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, etc. is, 1 think, unnecessary and very uniair and miiitates against tne .oyalty program, but since the second section of the Bill nas been dropped entirely vhere ‘is no use in discuss- ing anything about it. w f 3. Neison. I hope and believe that the Bridges Bill will be supstituted for the Smith-McClellan approach contained ‘in the present Committee draft. If this is done, as I believe it will be, surely 1t should greatly affect tne attitude of your Department. The Bridges Bill is the same one,under a aifferent number, that was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee favorably before - I thins unanimously - shortly after the Nelson case, but never reached the floor. I have been urging Senator Butler to seek such &@ substitution, It would avoid substantially all objections to that section. I pointed out as vigorously as I could in my article in the January, 1950, A.B.A. Journal the errors in the Nelson case and how it brought the Supreme Court in conflict with the Legislative and Executive Departments of the Federal Government,