power against what the Framers feared would be the overweening power of legislators. As Hamilton said, the veto power was to provide a defense against the legislative department's intrusion on the rights and powers of other departments; without such power, "the legislative and executive powers might speedily come to be blended in the same hands." 31

I would be much more concerned if Congress purported to usurp the functions of law enforcement, to control the outcome of particular adjudications, or to pre-empt the President's appointment power; but in the light of history and modern reality, the provision for congressional disapproval of agency regulations does not appear to transgress the constitutional design, at least where the President has agreed to legislation establishing the disapproval procedure or the legislation has been passed over his veto. It would be considerably different if Congress itself purported to adopt and propound regulations by the action of both Houses. But here no action of either House is required for the agency rule to go into effect and the veto power of the President does not appear to be implicated.

31 The Federalist No. 73, at 468 469 (Wright ed. 1961).

Exhibit 10

(H. Res. 1306, Hentoff v. Ichord)

HOUSE RESOLUTION 1306

Whereas, the Constitution of the United States vests all legislative powers in a Congress of the United States, consisting of a Senate and House of Representatives (Article I, Section 1);

And whereas, the said Constitution authorizes the House to determine the rules of its proceedings (Article I, Section 5);

And whereas, pursuant thereto the House enacted H. Res. 7 of January 3, 1969, as amended by H. Res. 89 of February 18, 1969, thus adopting the rules of the House, including Rule X establishing the Committee on Internal Security as a standing commitee of the House, to consist of nine members to be selected by the House; and by agreement to H. Res. 251 of February 18, 1969, elected to the standing Committee on Internal Security Richard H. Ichord (chairman), Claude Pepper of Florida, Edwin W. Edwards of Louisiana, Richardson Preyer of North Carolina, Louis Stokes of Ohio, John M. Ashbrook of Ohio, Richard L. Roudebush of Indiana, Albert W. Watson of South Carolina, and William J. Scherle of Iowa;

And whereas, House Rule XI, enacted as aforesaid, names and defines the powers and duties of standing committees of the House, which includes the reference of all proposed legislation, constitutional amendments, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the subject listed under the standing committees therein named; and commits particularly the following subject to the Committee on Internal Security, in part, as follows:

11. COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL SECURITY

(a) Communist and other subversive activities affecting the internal security of the United States.

(b) The Committee on Internal Security, acting as a whole or by subcommittee, is authorized to make investigations from time to time of (1) the extent, character, objectives, and activities within the United States of organizations or groups, whether of foreign or domestic origin, their members, agents, and affiliates, which seek to establish, or assist in the establishment of, a totalitarian dictatorship within the United States, or to overthrow or alter, or assist in the overthrow or alteration of, the form of government of the United States or of any State thereof, by force, violence, treachery, espionage, sabatoge, insurrection, or any unlawful means, (2) the extent, character, objectives, and activities within the United States of organizations or groups, their members, agents, and affiliates, which incite or employ acts of force, violence, terrorism, or any unlawful means, to obstruct or oppose the lawful authority of the Government of the United States in the execution of any law or policy affecting the internal security of the United States, and (3) all other questions, including the administration and execution of any law of the United States, or any portion of law, relating to the foregoing that would aid the Congress or any committee of the House in any necessary remedial legislation. The Committee on Internal Security shall report to the House (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) the results of any such investigation, together with such recommendation as it deems advisable.

And whereas, acting pursuant to the powers and duties, the legislative purpose, and upon the subject committeed to it by the aforesaid resolutions of the House, the committee met in session duly called and held on February 20, 1969, at which a quorum of the committee was in attendance, and considered a proposal submitted to the members of the committee by the said chairman as follows:

I desire hereby to lay before the Committee a proposal for study and investigation in depth of revolutionary violence within this Nation.

It is becoming increasingly evident that one of the gravest threats to our internal security and to the free functioning of our democratic institutions is

posed by the activities of certain organizations which would effect changes in our government or its administration by other than constitutional processes. Recent investigations of this Committee, the statements of responsible officials, Federal and State, and daily press reports, appear to me to sustain this conclusion.

In this respect, moreover, we are faced with ever-mounting demands from the Members of the House and the public for legislative action, both for additional legislation and with respect to the examination and appraisal of the administration and enforcement of existing law, including proposals for constitutional amendment as well.

I need not state that the legislative problems we face on the subject of subversion are of the utmost complexity and difficulty not solely from the constitutional standpoint, but equally so from the standpoint of developing practical and effective legislation. We must find the answers to certain basic questions, among which are the following: Is additional Federal legislation necessary? What form should such legislation take? Should these statutes be essentially regulatory or penal? Can we profitably amend existing statutes in this area? What is the Federal role, as contrasted with the State role, in the exercise of the police power on this subject?

In addition, a number of bills have already been referred to the Committee. Undoubtedly additional legislation will also be referred to it from time to time. Such legislation involves a number of subjects vital to the protection and maintenance of our internal security, including such subjects as the protection of defense facilities, the security of classified information released to industry, Federal employment security, vessel, ports, and harbor security, the protection of our armed forces during periods of undeclared war, passport security, proposals with respect to the Emergency Detention Act of 1950, etc.

The answer to the foregoing questions, and the disposition of such legislation, will obviously require the most painstaking and thorough inquiry and understanding of the extent, character and objectives, the organizational forms, financing, and other facts, with respect to those organizations and individuals engaged in revolutionary violence, sedition, and breach of peace and law, as are proper subjects of investigation as mandated by the House. Obviously, we cannot legislate in a vacuum.

I therefore submit for your approval my proposal that, under my direction, the staff be authorized to undertake preliminary studies and inquiries, the results of which I shall, from time to time, report to the full Committee with a view toward the subsequent authorization of such full scale investigations and public hearings as to the Committee may seem desirable and necessary. And whereas, at said meeting a resolution was adopted as follows: Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to cause staff studies and preliminary inquries to be made with respect to the organizations and subjects herein proposed, and to report on same from time to time, with his recommendations, with a view toward determining whether full-scale investigations and public hearings shall be authorized and conducted by the Committee with respect to any such organization or subject.

And whereas, pursuant to the authority hereinbefore mentioned and resolutions of the committee for such purposes duly adopted, studies, inquiries, reports, and investigations were made and hearings conducted from time to time by the committee upon the subject committed to it;

And whereas, pursuant to the authority conferred by House Rule XI, and committee resolution of February 20, 1969, aforesaid, the chairman directed staff studies to be made with respect to the financing of revolutionary violence, including for such purposes a survey to be made of colleges and universities with regard to honoraria paid to guest speakrs of which the committee was advised in a memorandum delivered to its members on May 18, 1970, as follows: RE: SURVEY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES WITH REGARD TO HONORAIUMS PAID TO GUEST SPEAKERS

I have become increasingly concerned over the past months with the financing of revolutionary groups through speaking engagements on our college and uni

versity campuses. Accordingly, I have asked the staff to prepare a list from public source material to determine the extent of speaking engagements by those persons who we know to be associated with revolutionary groups.

Though the extent of honorariums paid to college & university speakers is not always reported in the newspapers, the limited information that is available suggests to me that honorariums may well be of significance in funding the activities of revolutionary groups. In March of this year, J. Edgar Hoover, in his testimony before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations, discussed financing and furnished the names of Black Panther speakers who appeared before secondary schools, colleges and universities during the year 1969. Attached is an excerpt from Mr. Hoover's testimony for your consideration.

I have requested the staff to prepare, in the form of a survey, a letter to be sent to selected colleges and universities in the 50 states, requesting the voluntary participation of these schools in providing to us information with regard to speakers they have had on campus, group identification and sponsorship of speaker, the amount of honorarium paid (check or cash), to whom this money was paid and the source of funds involved.

It appears to me that this is a logical inquiry in connection with the Committee fufilling its mandate and I would be most appreciative of your suggestions and comments with regard to this proposed survey and its implementation.

And whereas, at a session of the committee duly called and held on June 16, 1970, at which a quorum was in attendance, the aforesaid memorandum was called for discussion, and it was duly moved and agreed that an inquiry on this subject be undertaken.

And whereas, a proposed report to the House on the results of the aforesaid inquiry, titled "Limited Survey of Honoraria Given Guest Speakers for Engagements at Colleges and Universities," was considered at a meeting of the committee duly called and held on October 7, 1970, a quorum being in attendance, at which amendments were made to the said report and, as thus amended, the committee agreed that the report be made to the House;

And whereas, in accordance with the rules of the House and at the direction of the committee, at a session of the House on October 14, 1970, the said report was filed with the House by the chairman of the committee designated House of Representatives Report No. 91-1607, which was referred to the Union Calendar;

And whereas, thereafter the House on October 14, 1970, agreed to recess and went into recess from thence until November 16, 1970;

And whereas, on October 13, 1970, one day before the filing of said report and recess of the House, a complaint (Civil Action No. 3028-70) was filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by Lawrence Speiser, director of Washington, District of Columbia, office of the American Civil Liberties Union, in which Nat Hentoff, John Doe, and Richard Roe were named as plaintiffs in a suit against the chairman and members of the Committee on Internal Security of the House of Representatives, the chief counsel of said committee, the Superintendent of Documents and the Public Printer, in which it was alleged that the filing and publication of the report with respect to honoraria paid to the plaintiffs and the class of persons they allegedly represented had no legitimate legislative purpose, but was being carried out by the defendants with the purpose and effect of (1) deterring colleges and universities from permitting plaintiffs to appear on their campuses as speakers (2) punishing plaintiffs for their views by exposing them to the harassment normally associated with "blacklisting"; and the court was asked to declare the action of the defendant committee members in preparing and seeking to publish the report to be unconstitutional, and to enjoin the defendants from filing, printing, publishing, or disseminating the report and from disclosing any material or information contained in it;

And whereas, on the same day, to wit, October 13, 1970, the Honorable Gerhard A. Gesell, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, acting upon the application of the said Lawrence Speiser for a

Temporary Restraining Order, set the matter for hearing at 2 p.m. of that day and, without the service of notice on the defendant parties in interest, proceeded ex parte to enter a Temporary Restraining Order as follows:

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

It appearing to the Court from the verified Complaint and the application for Temporary Restraining Order and accompanying affidavit that a Temporary Restraining Order, pending hearing and determination of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction should issue, because, unless defendants (except the named Members of Congress) are restrained from printing, publishing and distributing the Report on Honoraria Paid Guest Speakers for Engagements at Colleges (a copy of which has been filed and impounded as the Court's Exhibit) which contains any list of names of individuals who have had speaking engagements at colleges or universities, plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, damage and infringement of constitutional rights before a hearing can be had on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; And the Court having concluded from the materials before the Court that the printing, publication and distribution of any such lists of names as part of said Report may be unlawful, unauthorized by Congress, serves no proper legislative purpose and infringes upon the constitutional rights of those so named;

Now, therefore, it is ordered, that defendants (except the named Members of Congress) and their agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and any persons acting in active concert or participation with them (except the named Members of Congress), be and they are hereby restrained until the determination of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction from directly or indirectly seeking to print, publish or distribute any list of names of individuals who have had speaking engagements at colleges or universities as part of a proposed Report on Honoraria Paid Guest Speakers for Engagements at Colleges and Universities.

It is further ordered, that the 23rd day of October 1970 at 9:30 o'clock a.m., at the United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C., is fixed for the time and place of hearing plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

It is further ordered, pursuant to Rule 65 (c) that plaintiffs post a bond in the sum of one dollar ($1.00).

And whereas, copies of the aforesaid complaint having been served the following day upon the parties defendant, an appearance was entered by the Department of Justice on behalf of Representatives Ichord, Pepper, Edwards, Ashbrook, Roudebush, Watson, and Scherle; Donald G. Sanders, chief counsel of the said committee; Rolland Darling (Acting Superintendent of Documents); and A.N. Spence (Public Printer), and on October 20, 1970, a motion to dismiss was field with the court on behalf of said defendants, together with supporting affidavits and a memorandum of law, from which it will appear by reference thereto that the court was fully apprised of the facts with respect to the issuance and filing of said report herein before set forth, as well as points of applicable law;

And whereas, pursuant to its order of October 13, 1970, the said court sat on October 23, 1970, to hear arguments on plaintiffs, motion for a preliminary injunction, and after argument entered the following order;

ORDER

This cause came on for hearing on the 23rd day of October, 1970 upon plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and defendants* opposition thereto and during the argument on the motion, the parties to the action through their counsel having agreed that the Court could consider this matter on defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiffs' complaint for permanent injunction and the record and counsel for defendants' having deferred to the Court's

No appearance has been entered in this action in behalf of Congressmen Louis Stokes and Richard Preyer. They are not represented in this action by counsel.