Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "12090722",
    "label": "Letter, William P. Rogers, Acting Attorney General, to Representative Joseph P. Martin, Jr.",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12090722"
}

{
    "id": "12090722",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12090722",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Letter, William P. Rogers, Acting Attorney General, to Representative Joseph P. Martin, Jr.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12090722",
    "collections": [
        "Records of E. Frederic Morrow, Administrative Officer, Special Projects Group (Eisenhower Administration)",
        "Personal Files of E. Frederic Morrow"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/eisenhower/598780/598780_0008_Page_1.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/eisenhower/598780/598780_0008_Page_1.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/eisenhower/598780/598780_0008_Page_1.jpg",
    "imageCount": 8,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12090722",
    "naId": 12090722,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 4,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/eisenhower/598780/598780_0008_Page_4.jpg",
    "mediaId": "685f7a281ee5abef",
    "ocrText": "more widespread and flagrant disobedience of court orders in the regula-\ntory field. Agencies will be reluctant to become involved in lengthy\nand costly jury litigation. With the threat of criminal contempt\nminimized, a respondent plainly will be more likely to engage in tactics\nwhich are aimed at evading the court's order.'\nB. Department of Labor\n\"A requirement of a jury trial in contempt actions could seriously\nhamper and delay enforcement of the injunction decree in what is an\nordinary business and labor standards situation requiring uniform\nnational compliance. It would place the contempt of court action on\nthe same footing as an original criminal action, with all the delays\nthat can be involved. It is not as though there had not already been a\ntrial of the matter on the merits.\n\"In addition, the new proposed procedures would increase the expense\nand burden of contempt proceedings in the many situations that could not\nhave been looked into thoroughly in connection with the passage of this\namendment. Instead of the relatively small expenditure of time and money\nrequired for a. hearing by courts already versed in this technical statute\ndealing with labor standards and also familiar with the background of\nthe case, the matter would be referred for the first time to a group\nboth unfamiliar with the Act's terms and its concepts of coverage and\nexemptions and without knowledge of the law suit which led the court\nto issue the injunction in the first place. The substitution of a\njury for the judge in such proceedings, granting all the desirable\nelements of a jury trial, would not serve the interests of a fair\ntrial but could seriously impede the proceedings so that in practical\neffect it would foreclose resort to criminal contempt in those situa-\ntions where it has always been considered an appropriate and necessary\n3\nprotection of the court's processes.\"\nC. Securities and Exchange Commission\n9\n\"In the Commission's opinion, a requirement for a jury trial would\nunduly encumber the effectiveness of its enforcement program.\n\"In the experience of the Commission it is not believed that the\nabsence of a jury trial has visited either injustice or hardship on\npersons charged with and convicted of criminal contempt. Under existing\nprocedures the judge who considered the misconduct which led to the\ninjunction initially, and who was responsible for the decree itself, is\nthe arbiter of questions as to the scope of the injunction and whether\nthe decree has been disobeyed. Under the proposed amendment the judge\nwould be replaced by the jury which would assume the function of con-\nstruing the judge's decree. The reassignment of this function would,\nin the Commission's opinion, be warranted only on the basis of a demon-\nstrated need therefor and the existence of abuse by the judiciary in\nthis respect.\nD. Atomic Energy Commission\n\"The possibility of invoking either or both of the foregoing sections\nof the Atomic Energy Act /injunction and subpena power in connection with\n-4- -"
}