xt7msb3wtd0h_56 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2.dao.xml unknown 166 Cubic Feet 381 document boxes, seven textile items, three map folders, one artwork archival material 72m2 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center. Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Frederick Moore Vinson papers Economic stabilization. Elections -- United States -- Congresses. Judges -- Correspondence. Judges -- United States. Judicial opinions Judicial process -- United States Legislators -- Correspondence. New Deal, 1933-1939. World War, 1914-1918 -- Veterans. World War, 1939-1945. Dennis v. USA - no. 336 text Dennis v. USA - no. 336 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_214/Folder_1/Multipage6891.pdf 1950 1950 1950 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_56 xt7msb3wtd0h SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 336.—OCTOBER TERM, 1950.

Eugene Dennis, John B. “Til—
liamson, Jacob Stachel, Rob—
ert- G. Thompson, Benjamin
J. Davis, Jr., Henry \Vinston,
John Gates, Irving Potash,
Gilbert Green, Carl lVinter
and Gus Hall, Petitioners,

United States of America.

On Motion to Postpone
Argument.

[November —, 1950.]

Memorandum by THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

This is a motion submitted on November 17, 1950, by
petitioners in this case, requesting (a) that a named mem—
ber of the English Bar be permitted to appear and par—
ticipate in the oral argument, and (b) that the oral argu-
ment be postponed from the assigned date of December
4, 1950, until after January 22, 1951, so that. said counsel
would have ample opportunity to prepare and also would
have opportunity to ﬁll a court engagement in India
prior to that time.

Our rules provide that even if the United States had
stipulated its willingness to pass the case, in accordance
with petitioners’ motion, such a stipulation would not be
controlling upon this Court, which has the responsibility

for the order of its own docket. Rule 20 (1). The r

United States has submitted a memorandum in opposi-
tion. In the ordinary course of events proper adminis-
tration would require that the motion be denied.

This is not a case where petitioners do not have access
to counsel competent to present their position. If that
were so, we would consider it our duty to assure their

NOV 241959

336.—MEMO.
2 DENNIS v. UNITED STATES.

adequate representation in this Court. But the ﬁve
lawyers whose names appear on the brief on the merits
representing all the petitioners already submitted (two of
Whom have submitted the present motion), have been in
this case continuously from petitioners’ arraignments in
July, 1948. These lawyers were active participants in the
nine months of trial in the District Court, helping pre—
pare a record of 20 volumes. They participated in the
successful application for bail in the Court of Appeals,
in the prosecution of the appeal in that court, in the
successful application for bail to an Associate Justice of
this Court, in the petition for certiorari, and in the brief on
the merits here. These lawyers have not withdrawn from
the case nor do they ask leave to do so. They are inti-
mately familiar with this case, from the details of the
record to the broad constitutional questions presented.
In their appearances both here and in the Court of Ap—
peals they have made able, concise and lawyerly argu—
ment. Four of their number are members of the Bar of
this Court and several have participated in oral argu-
ments before this Bar. This is not a case which pre—
sents a request to appoint, counsel for a litigant who
cannot obtain competent, professional assistance; it is
rather a case where we are asked to postpone argument
so that a sixth counsel may be permitted to join the ﬁve
lawyers who have conducted this litigation to the present
time."“

'i‘tTwo of the petitioners, Dennis and Davis, at the close of their
trial in the District Court, undertook their own defense. This
pro 30 representation continued through November 17, 1950, when
they joined the instant motion. However, on November 20, 1950,
a brief on the merits, consisting of 280 pages, was ﬁled on behalf
of all the petitioners by the same five lawyers heretofore men—
tioned. \Ye must assume that these members of the bar are repre—
senting Dennis and Davis at this time. Accordingly we treat their
motion as one for additional counsel and postponement of argument.

336.—MEMO.
DENNIS v. UNITED STATES. 3

Petitioners have requested several weeks’ delay to add
British counsel to their staff. They do not propose to
put their case in his hands—the briefs submitted by pres—
ent counsel have already shaped his course. They pro-
pose only that he will appear and participate in oral
argument. We will be glad to hear him in this case.
Whether we will wait for him is another question.

The reason offered for delay to bring counsel from
overseas is that twenty-four eminent. American lawyers
have unexpectedly declined to participate in the case.
We assume the implication is that no leading Ameri-
can counsel dare or will take the case of an admitted
Communist to challenge the Smith Act as unconstitu—
tional. This is a grave indictment of the American Bar,
but the papers before us fall far short of establishing this
charge. The request made to each of the twenty-four
attorneys was that he ”associate himself as counsel for
petitioners on this appeal.” It is further stated that
“Several of these [leaders of the Bar] expressed the opin—
ion" that petitioners’ convictions should be reversed. and
“all declined to participate in the argument of the appeal,
some saying they did so out of fear that . . . such par—
ticipation might adversely affect their professional stand—
ing and practice.” It. is one thing to ask a lawyer to take
responsibility for handling a. case, but quite another to
ask him to share time with, and follow the line of other
counsel, who not only have shaped the record, but whose
briefs have necessarily predetermined the course of that
argument. Eminent counsel may not be willing to be—
come associated on a basis where they would either have
to loan their name to a litigation policy and to tactics
which they would disapprove, or break with the counsel
who dominate the case.

The second reason advanced for the requested delay is
that the member of the English Bar petitioners desire
must go to India to ﬁll a court engagement there during

5,
l
r
l
r
l
l
l

336.—MEMO.
4 DENNIS v. UNITED STATES.

December and January. We need not set forth at great
length the problems an unqualiﬁed grant of this motion
would raise, for, from the standpoint of our procedure,
this case presents no different problem than might any
case where a party with a battery of counsel at the last
moment seeks to add to a cause other counsel who is not
prepared or available on the date already set by this
Court for argument of the cause.

Despite the apparent failure of the motion to state a.
substantial ground for the relief requested we recognize
the substantiality of the issues claimed to be involved
in the merits of this case. “Ye therefore treat this mo-
tion so as to afford the maximum to the petitioners con—
sistent with the orderly processes of judicial adminis—
tration. We grant that part of the motion which pertains
to the participation pro hac vice in oral argument by the
designated member of the English Bar. We deny that

part of the motion which requests a postponement.

1152's 30 ordered.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 336.~—OCTOBER TERM, 1950.

Eugene Dennis. John B. “Vil—
liamson, Jacob Stachel, Rob—
ert G. Thompson, Benjamin
J. Davis. Jr.. Henry “Vinston.
John Gates, Irving Potash,
Gilbert Green, Carl “inter
and Gus Hall, Petitioners,

On Motion to Postpone
Argument.

United States of America.
[November —, 1950.]

Memorandum by TH]: CHIEF Jts’rrcn.

This is a motion submitted on Xovember 17, 1950. by
petitioners in this case, requesting (a) that a named mem—
ber of the English Bar be permitted to appear and par-
ticipate in the oral argument, and (b) that the oral argu—
ment be postponed from the assigned date of December
4, 1.9.30, until after January 22, 1951, so that said counsel
would have ample opportunity to prepare and also would
have opportunity to ﬁll a court engagement in India
prior to that time.

Our rules provide that» even if the United States had
stipulated its willingness to pass the case, in accordance
with petitioners’ motion, such a stipulation would not be
controlling upon this Court, which has the responsibility
for the order of its own docket. Rule 20 (1). The
United States has not concurred in this motion, but has
submitted a memorandum in opposition, impugning peti—
tioners' motives. In the ordinary course of events proper
administration would require that the motion be denied.

This is not a case where petitioners do not have access
to able counsel. If that were so, we would consider it

336.—.\IEMO.
2 DENNIS v. UNITED STATES.

our duty to assure their adequate representation in this
Court. But. the ﬁve able lawyers whose names appear 011
the brief on the merits already submitted (two of whom
have submitted the present motion), have been in this
case continuously from petitioners’ arraignments in July,
1948. These lawyers were active participants in the nine
months of trial in the District Court, helping prepare a
record of some 20 volumes. They participated in the
successful application for bail in the Court of Appeals,
in the prosecution of the appeal in that court, in the
successful application for bail to an Associate Justice of
this Court, in the petition for certiorari, in the brief on
the merits here. These lawyers have not withdrawn from
the case nor do they ask leave to do so. They are inti-
mately familiar with this case, from the details of the
record to the broad constitutional questions presented.
In their appearances both here and in the Court of Ap—
peals they have made able, concise and lawyerly argu—
ment. Four of their number are members of the Bar of
this Court and several have participated in oral argu-
ments before this Bar. Whatever else the petitioners’
counsel table may lack, it is not short of talent, zeal or
learning. We emphasize that this is not a case which
presents a request to appoint counsel for a litigant who
cannot obtain competent professional assistance; it is
rather a. case where we are asked to postpone argument
so that a sixth counsel may be permitted to join the five
lawyers who have conducted this litigation to the present
time.

336.—MEMO.
DENNIS v. UNITED STATES. 3

parent Bar in this case. Whether we will wait for him
is another question.

The reason offered for delay to bring counsel from
overseas is that twenty—four eminent American lawyers
have unexpectedly declined to participate in the case.
The implication sought to be created is that no leading
American counsel dare or will take the case of an admitted
Communist to challenge the Smith Act as unconstitu-
tional. This is a grave indictment of the American Bar,
but the papers before us fall far short of establishing this
charge. The request made to each of the twenty—four
attorneys was that he “associate himself as counsel for
petitioners on this appeal.” It is further stated that
“Several of these [leaders of the Bar] expressed the opin-
ion” that petitioners’ convictions should be reversed, and
“all declined to participate in the argument of the appeal,
some saying they did so out of fear that . . . such par—
ticipation might adversely affect their professional stand—
ing and practice.” It is one thing to ask a lawyer to take
responsibility for handling a case, but quite another to
ask him to share time with, and follow the line of other
counsel, who not only have shaped the record, but whose _ p
briefs have necessarily predetermined the ‘cousE‘Of that Hf"‘""'"’¢’<--
argumentﬁ‘ if
,x'Tlicﬂseeond reason advanced for the requested delay is
that the member of the English Bar petitioners desire
must go to India to ﬁll a court engagement there during
December and January. We need not set forth at great

‘. length the problems an unqualified grant of this motion
‘. would cause, for, from the standpoint of our procedure,

\this case presents no different problem than might any
3—_

\*Eminent counsel may not be willing to become associated on a
basis where they would either have to loan their name to a litigation
policy and to tactics which they would disapprove, or break with
the counsel who dominate the case.

336.—MEMO.
4 DENNIS v. UNITED STATES.

case where a party with a battery of counsel seeks to addwm { ,. ~. \ 5 ‘
to a cause other counsel [pre’pafe‘d’or“available on the date I
already set by this Court for argument of the cause.
Despite this apparent failure of the motion to state a
substantial ground for the relief requested, and the aura.
of dilatory tactics pervading it, we recognize the substan—
tial issues involved in the merits of this case and will take
no action which might lend color to the claim that these
petitioners are being deprived of an opportunity to present
their case properly in this Court. We therefore treat this
motion so as to afford the maximum to the petitioners
consistent with the orderly processes of judicial adminis—
tration. “'6 grant that part of the motion which pertains
to the participation pro hac vice in oral argument by the
designated member of the English Bar. We deny that
part of the motion which requests a postponement.

It is so ordered.

.11..1 ‘
4, arm,

3&1“,

_/V\va\_/-d

_/ v \J \./

United

ﬁenorandnm

(b) that the 0‘31 arguneit

Jeccmbey h, 1950,

wmnld have ammla onwartdn,'; ” _.x‘ ‘g a 11‘ T :_H;': obﬁortunity

M)£W1L a 31mm

mubwch . c atlwulftlon ” ,-. f”* 3- V ’. , " unop'hqlg Conrt_

owu docket.

not coxcurred in this

bat has submitted a memorandum,in onncsition, impug1ing petitioners!

curs: of ev=nts Dr

oper admirisiration

would require that the metion denied.

getitioners do not have a0““‘

L 5,3

5"“

c-0957 17 OH

months of

nor do

the details

, 1
5‘ 1/ ‘ -. ,4
ml 85 9F u Ru -

‘ances goth here and in the Court of Apneals they have made

am) (3?:
and lawyerly argument. Four of their number are

Lhis Court anﬁ

couns
emnbagm

.t counsel for

argument so

counsel to 5:, K";~. "‘ = do not pIOUO‘

hands—Hi
7‘
V,

n . . . . (I.
(301111363; r: alt TON @T‘S ELEV-3 ,

of our

brim? con :61 from overseas

that tnenby~four eminent Lia a lawye‘s havg uneynectedly

rTI

Lie imblicatiOH sought

created ' 1 ~‘ ~; American counsel dare or will take the

r1 . .:,_;'. . - ;. , .,‘. 1
Eu VommanLgu .7 a h nlth Act 35

‘n. \n «r;
5;) 4:19

so:ia*e F F counsel

r\ w .3
, ‘-,.' ; )(w

mraebice.'

. ,
0711533" '1‘.