Uphaus v. Wyman

LOCATION: Fargo, North Dakota

DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)

CITATION: 360 US 72 (1959)
ARGUED: Nov 17, 1958 / Nov 18, 1958
DECIDED: Jun 08, 1959

Facts of the case


Media for Uphaus v. Wyman

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 17, 1958 in Uphaus v. Wyman

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 18, 1958 in Uphaus v. Wyman

Earl Warren:

Number 34, Willard Uphaus, Appellant, versus Louis C. Wyman, Attorney General, State of New Hampshire.

Royal W. France:

May it please the Court.

Earl Warren:

Mr. France.

Royal W. France:

On page 99 of the record, the opinion of the Supreme Court of State of New Hampshire, they state -- it appears that the witness, while he does not claim contention here, has pleaded the Fifth Amendment when questioned about Communist matters at Congressional Committee and he was a supporter of numerous organizations on the subversive list prepared by the House Committee and so forth.

The -- when we pointed out to the Court that there was no evidence in the record that the appellant had ever taken the Fifth Amendment anywhere and that if he had taken it, it was improper to draw any such inferences from it.

The matter was deleted from the opinion of the state court on motion for rehearing.

However, I think it's significant that the Attorney General here again relies upon it as a basis for some implication about Willard Uphaus as an indication of how thin the case is upon which he is seeking to rely on and indicating a dangerous tendency to waterdown a recognized constitutional right.

The -- in the matter of the sheriff's list, the right of the sheriff to get names of guests is perfectly obvious that that has no application here.

A sheriff would not go to get the names of guests for the purpose of publicizing name in an invidious manner in relation to subversive activities or alleged subversive activities.

It's inconceivable that he can use them for such purpose and I'm trying to think he could be restrained if he tried to do it for any such purposes.

They're being used here in connection with territory involving First Amendment rights.

The -- Mr. Justice Frankfurter yesterday was interested in the reference on page 42 of appellee's brief to a name of Julio Curry.

This list, which the Attorney General presents to this Court, some of the known off-sided guests and speakers at World Fellowship is a curious list.

So far as I know, Julio Curry was never in this country.

And if he was, he certainly was never at World Fellowship camp.

Neither was the liberal journalist I.F. Stone who is disrespectfully referred to here as Busy Stone.

And if there is anything -- he is a severe critic of the Soviet Union and Louie Strong was never there nor wasn't at Nathaniel Mills and some of the other people on here I'm sure.

Charles E. Whittaker:

I would like to ask you, sir, how one could determine the truth of the statements you've made without being permitted to make an investigation to find out if it was so?

Royal W. France:

I -- I think, Your Honor, that I am merely referring to it because the Attorney General says they were there.

Charles E. Whittaker:

Are you saying from --

Royal W. France:

I think it's not important whether they were there or not.

Charles E. Whittaker:

But you say they were not.

He says he wants to investigate to find out if so.

Royal W. France:

I think it would be quite irrelevant if Julio Curry were there, Your Honor.

I think that --

Charles E. Whittaker:

I see.

Royal W. France:

-- if I have no doubt and I don't want the appellant's position misunderstood.

I have no doubt that if Julio Curry had come to the World Fellowship to have him and asked to be registered, he would have been tediously received and that nobody had feared that the foundations of Government in the State of New Hampshire were endangered by his presence.

But the fact is that he wasn't there and Justice Frankfurter was -- seemed to be --

Felix Frankfurter:

I -- I quite agree with everything you said about Julio Curry or anybody else being there or not endangering the foundations of New Hampshire or anything else, but does that answer all the constitutional questions, the mere fact that I think that?