Summary

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Deutch v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The chairman of the subcommittee ruled that it was the petitioner's duty nevertheless to answer the questions:
'That decision does not rest with you as to whether or not the scope of this inquiry-as to whether or not certain individuals are important now or not. That is the responsibility of we Representatives to determine. That determination cannot rest with you. It may be very true that the individual to whom you have referred is no longer a member of the Communist Party. However, that is a supposition on your part-and a supposition which the committee cannot accept.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Deutch v. United States — Opinion of the Court

It is true that the transcript of the testimony of two witnesses at the Albany hearings established that, in addition to testifying about Communist infiltration into labor unions in the Albany area, they had been willingly led into some testimony about Communist activities by the petitioner and others at Cornell. But that excursion can hardly justify a disregard of the Government's careful proof at the petitioner's trial of what the subject under inquiry actually was. The pertinence of the interrogation of those two witnesses is not before us.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Potter Stewart Potter Stewart Deutch v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Petitioner had been specifically told that the particular subject upon which he was to be interrogated was 'the existence of a Communist Party group or cell operating among undergraduates * * * (and) graduates at Cornell and in the city of Ithaca,' and 'matters relating to (his) activity there.' Surely the questions involved in Counts One, Two and Five of the Indictment were, on their face, clearly pertinent to that subject. One cannot profitably elaborate a truth so plain.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature