Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board (367 U.S. 1)/Dissent Warren

Mr. Chief Justice WARREN, dissenting.

When this case was here in 1956, the Court refused to pass upon the constitutional issues raised by the parties, and instead remanded to the Board because of the possibility that the record was tainted by perjured testimony. At that time the Court said: 'This non-constitutional issue must be met at the outset, because the case must be decided on a non-constitutional issue, if the record calls for it, without reaching constitutional problems.' Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115, 122, 76 S.Ct. 663, 667, 100 L.Ed. 1003. The Court also noted that a remand was required because the 'fastidious regard for the honor of the administration of justice requires the Court to make certain that the doing of justice be made so manifest that only irrational or perverse claims of its disregard can be asserted.' Id., 351 U.S. at page 124, 76 S.Ct. at page 668. These statements, applicable in 1956, are even more applicable today, for, in my opinion, the record in this case presents four serious errors of a non-constitutional nature, the proper resolution of which would not only avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudications, but would also be consistent with the requirements of a fair administration of justice. To be sure, I, like most of my Brethren, have views on the constitutional questions which are raised by this case. I also recognize that a decision as to these constitutional questions would probably put an end to this already protracted litigation. However, I do not believe that sr ongly felt convictions on constitutional questions or a desire to shorten the course of this litigation justifies the Court in resolving any of the constitutional questions presented so long as the record makes manifest, as I think it does, the existence of non-constitutional questions upon which this phase of the proceedings can and should be adjudicated. After persuasively expounding the reasons which underlie this Court's steadfast reluctance to decide constitutional questions prematurely, 367 U.S. 71-81, 81 S.Ct. 1397-1402, the Court concludes that the resolution of some of the constitutional issues raised by the parties should be left for another day. However, in a surprising turnabout, the Court then proceeds to decide other constitutional questions, and it reaches these questions only by first brushing aside, on the basis of a procedural technicality or a strained analysis, many important non-constitutional issues. I do not think that the Court's action can be justified.

One of the Government's leading witnesses at the initial hearing before the Board was Benjamin Gitlow. Prior to his expulsion from the Communist Party in 1929, Gitlow had been a high official in the Party. His testimony before the Board covered over 1,400 pages in the record, and the Board relied heavily upon his testimony in finding that the Communist International controlled petitioner, subsidized it, and supervised it through foreign representatives in this country. In addition, the Board relied upon Gitlow's testimony to corroborate the testimony of government witness Joseph Kornfeder, whose demeanor led the Board 'to examine his testimony with * *  * caution.' In 1940, Gitlow turned over to the FBI a large quantity of official documents relating to the Party and its past history. He also prepared and gave to the FBI memoranda which explained and interpreted the documents. During his direct examination at the original hearing before the Board, Gitlow identified many of the original documents and explained their contents and significance. On cross-examination, the petitioner, obviously hoping to impeach Gitlow's damaging testimony, moved for the production of the explanatory memoranda which Gitlow had prepared in 1940. The petitioner's motion was denied by the Board. Although in its first petition in the Court of Appeals to review the order of the Board, the petitioner assigned the Board's denial of the motion for production as error, the court failed to decide the question, presumably because the petitioner had not pressed the point either in its brief or during oral argument. Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395, 403, 254 F.2d 314, 322. Nor was the issue raised in the petition for certiorari filed in this Court in 1955. However, after this Court remanded the case in 1956, 351 U.S. 115, 76 S.Ct. 663, 100 L.Ed. 1003, the petitioner again moved the Board to order production of the memoranda. The Board denied the motion, and, on review, the Court of Appeals held that the Board's ruling could not be corrected by a petition to review the Board's order. Relying on Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. Labor Board, 305 U.S. 197, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126, the court said that the petitioner's failure to make a motion in the Court of Appeals for leave to adduce additional evidence under § 14(a) of the Act at the time the Board initially refused to order r oduction of the memoranda constituted a waiver of the objection. After a second remand to the Board by the Court of Appeals, the Party did seek to have the memoranda produced pursuant to § 14(a) of the Act. However, the Court of Appeals denied the motion, later explaining that the petitioner's procedural misstep could not be rectified nunc pro tunc. Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 279. 282, 277 F.2d 78, 81.

Today, the Court refuses to reach this important evidentiary question, and it does so by adopting an argument that was unanimously rejected by the Court of Appeals. 102 U.S.App.D.C. at pages 402-403, 254 F.2d at pages 321-322. The Court holds that petitioner may not now challenge the Board's refusal to order the production of the Gitlow memoranda because it failed to raise the question in its 1955 petition for certiorari. With due respect, I must dissent from this holding, which, to the extent that it transforms Rule 23, subd. 1(c) of our Rules of Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. into an immutable rule of abandonment, is both unorthodox and unwise. The Court's position will not bear analysis.

It is undoubtedly true that piecemeal appeals should be avoided and that claims not preserved throughout a litigation will not generally be entertained at some subsequent, and perhaps terminal, stage of the proceedings. However, this general rule is not an absolute dogma, and has on numerous occasions yielded to subordinating policy considerations. In fact, the United States Reports are replete with instances wherein the Court decided issues which were never even mentioned in the petition for certiorari. See, e.g., Boynton v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 364 U.S. 454, 81 S.Ct. 182, 5 L.Ed.2d 206; Mackey v. Mendoza-Martinez, 362 U.S. 384, 80 S.Ct. 875, 4 L.Ed.2d 812; Neese v. Southern R. Co., 350 U.S. 77, 76 S.Ct. 131, 100 L.Ed. 60; Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., 329 U.S. 129, 67 S.Ct. 231, 91 L.Ed. 128; Marshall v. Pletz, 317 U.S. 383, 63 S.Ct. 284, 87 L.Ed. 348; Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188. One of the policy considerations which has always led the Court to forsake the general rules of waiver is the admonition that 'we ought not to pass on questions of constitutionality * *  * unless such adjudication is unavoidable.' Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 323 U.S. 101, 105, 65 S.Ct. 152, 154, 89 L.Ed. 101. Thus, in Neese v. Southern R. Co., supra, the Court refused to pass upon the constitutional question which had been tendered by the petition for certiorari, and instead rested its decision upon the adjudication of an evidentiary question which had not been raised in the petition for certiorari. In so doing, the Court said: 'We need not considr respondent's contention that only the jurisdictional question was presented by the petition for certiorari, for in reversing on the above ground we follow the traditional practice of this Court of refusing to decide constitutional questions when the record discloses other grounds of decision, whether or not they have been properly raised before us by the parties.' Id., 350 U.S. at page 78, 76 S.Ct. at page 132. (Emphasis added.) And in Alma Motor Co. v. Timken-Detroit Axle Co., supra, the Court avoided a difficult constitutional adjudication by resting its decision on a non-constitutional ground which, as the Court noted, 'was neither considered nor decided by the court below, nor argued here.' Id., 329 U.S. at page 132, 67 S.Ct. at page 232. Only last Term in Mackey v. Mendoza-Martinez, supra, the Court, in an effort to avoid an unnecessary constitutional decision, remanded the case to the District Court for consideration by that court of a non-constitutional issue which had not been raised by either party in any court, but which this Court, sua sponte, had discovered lurking in the record. This action was taken even though the case had had a lengthy history and had been before this Court on a previous occasion. See also Boynton v. Commonwealth of Virginia, supra. Thus, if the Court, in order to avoid the adjudication of constitutional questions, has in the past rested its decisions on issues not raised by a petition for certiorari, there certainly should be no objection to avoiding a difficult constitutional decision in this case by resolving a non-constitutional issue which was decided by the Court of Appeals, explicitly raised in the instant petition for certiorari, and thoroughly briefed by counsel for both sides.

Since the petitioner should not be deemed to have waived the Gitlow question if a resolution of that question will make it unnecessary for the Court to reach the constitutional issues presented by this case, the next question which must be considered is whether a determination of the Gitlow question, on the merits, would require a reversal of the judgment below. I think it would. As indicated, the Court of Appeals, relying on the Consolidated Edison case, based its decision on the ground that the petitioner waived its objection by the having made a timely motion for leave to adduce additional evidence pursuant to § 14(a) of the Act. However, the lower court's reliance upon Consolidated Edison is misplaced. In that case, an examiner for the Labor Board refused to permit one of the parties to a proceeding to offer the testimony of two witnesses who had not been scheduled to appear. Instead of invoking § 10(e) and (f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 160(e, f) (which is very similar to § 14(a) of the Subversive Activities Control Act) and seeking leave of the Court of Appeals to adduce the testimony of the two witnesses, the offering party objected to the examiner's action in a petition to have the Board's final order set aside. The Court of Appeals rejected the claim. This Court recognized that the examiner's action was arbitrary, but, nevertheless, t held that the party's sole remedy in such a situation was to make a motion for leave to adduce the additional testimony of the proffered witnesses, and that by having failed to pursue that remedy, the party waived its objection.

The wisdom of the Court's holding in Consolidated Edison, insofar as the waiver question is concerned, is certainly subject to criticism. Not only did not decision permit a clearly arbitrary ruling of an examiner to stand uncorrected, but it also established a cumbersome procedure whereby resort to the Court of Appeals was required every time the Board excluded evidence which the offering party thought should have been admitted. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Courts of Appeals have consistently sought ways to avoid the impact of this Court's decision in Consolidated Edison. Thus, one Court of Appeals adopted the fiction of treating the petition for review as including, sub silentio, an application by the party for leave to adduce additional evidence. Mississippi Valley Structural Steel Co. v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 145 F.2d 664, 667. On another occasions, the same court limited the Consolidated Edison holding 'to evidence going to the merits of the charge and not to the question of the regularity or fairness of the hearing as conducted by the Board.' Cupples Company Manufacturers v. N.L.R.B., 8 Cir., 103 F.2d 953, 956. In fact, even the Court of Appeals whose judgment we are now reviewing applied the Consolidated Edison rule with great reluctance. However, it is not necessary to re-evaluate the holding of Consolidated Edison, for, in my opinion, that holding is not applicable to the type of situation presented by this case. The statute construed in Consolidated Edison, like § 14(a) of this Act, deals only with a situation wherein a party to a proceeding wishes to introduce additional evidence which he has acquired independently and which will bolster his own case. The statute, by its terms, clearly does not apply to a situation in which a party requests the production of documents for the sole purpose of impeaching his opponent's witnesses. The party making such a request is not attempting 'to adduce additional evidence'; he is merely seeking to use documents in the possession of his adversary to impeach testimony which has already been adduced by his adversary. It is thus interesting to note that of all the cases which I have found involving an application of the Consolidated Edison principle, not one has dealt with the production of documents for purposes of impeachment. In fact, the most recent decision which involved such a situation properly ignored Consolidated Edison and held, on a petition to enforce the Labor Board's order, that the Board's failure to require the production of a possibly impeaching document required a remand to the Board. This action was taken even though the complaining party had not made a motion in the Court of Appeals for leave to adduce additional evidence. N.L.R.B. v. Adhesive Products Corp., 2 Cir., 258 F.2d 403.

Since the Court of Appeals erred in resting its decision on Consolidated Edison, in next becomes necessary to consider the Government's contention that, even if the Board should have ordered the production of the memoranda, its failure to do so was merely harmless error. In my judgment, the error committed by the Board was anything but harmless. There can be little doubt that the Board should have ordered the production of the Gitlow memoranda. Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103; 18 U.S.C. § 3500, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3500. It is certainly possible that the petitioner, armed with these memoranda, may have been able to impeach significantly the testimony of Gitlow, who, as has already been indicated, was a key witness for the Government, and whose expulsion from the Party in 1929 undoubtedly made him hostile toward the petitioner. It would be contrary to our traditional scrupulous protection of the right to have potentially impeaching documents produced for the Court to say that the Board's failure to order the production of this important witness' prior memoranda was merely harmless error. See Jencks v. United States, supra; Campbell v. United States, 365 U.S. 85, 81 S.Ct. 421, 5 L.Ed.2d 428. Accordingly, since the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in refusing to remand the case for the production of the Gitlow memoranda, I think the Court should abandon its reliance upon an unorthodox procedural technicality, remand the case to the Board for the production of the memoranda and the further cross-examination of Gitlow, and thereby, consistently with its own admonition, avoid the premature adjudication of complex and difficult constitutional issues.

Another of the Government's major witnesses at the hearing before the Board was Louis Budenz. As the Court's opinion indicates, Budenz' testimony filled some 700 pages in the record and was used by the Board to support many of its findings, including the crucial finding that petitioner received financial aid from the Soviet Union after petitioner's disaffiliation from the Communist International. During his direct examination, Budenz made repeated references to the so-called Starobin letter and to the Childs-Weiner conversation. Budenz admitted that he had given reports to the FBI concerning these matters, but, on the Government's objection, the Board erroneously denied the petitioner's motion for the production of all such prior statements. After this Court remanded the case in 1956, the petitioner renewed its motion. On the Government's objection, the motion was again denied by the Board. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's action on the ground that the FBI seemingly did not have in its possession any statements made by Budenz concerning the Starobin and Weiner matters. However, in response to a petition for rehearing filed by the petitioner in the Court of Appeals, the Government disclosed for the first time that the FBI did have in its possession disc recordings of a five-day interview with Budenz in 1945, and that these discs contained statements pertinent to the Starobin letter and the Childs-Weiner conversation. Accori ngly, the Court of Appeals ordered the Government to produce all statements made by Budenz relating to the matters in question. During the Board proceedings that followed, statements made by Budenz relating to the Starobin letter and the Weiner conversation were excerpted from the recorded interview and the FBI memoranda of later interviews and these extracts were furnished to the petitioner. Based on the apparent inconsistency between the statements produced and the testimony given by Budenz before the Board, the petitioner moved that Budenz be recalled for cross-examination in the light of the produced documents. As it turned out, however, Budenz was severely ill, and, as stipulated by both parties, was unavailable for further examination. The petitioner then moved to have all of Budenz' testimony stricken on the basis of the inconsistencies referred, to, and on the further ground that Budenz' unavailability for cross-examination made it impossible for the petitioner to demonstrate exactly how unreliable all of Budenz' testimony had been. The Board agreed to strike Budenz' testimony on the Starobin and Weiner matters, but it refused to strike any other portion of his testimony. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's rulings.

This Court now affirms the lower court's holding, saying that great weight must be given to those whose primary responsibility it is to consider the credibility or witnesses. However, the problem is not as simple as the Court would have us believe. A distinction must be drawn between those situations in which the unavailability of a witness is due to the fault of neither party, and those situations in which the witness' unavailability is directly attributable to the conduct of one of the parties. The rule to be applied in each of these cases has been succinctly stated by Professor Wigmore:

'Where the witness' death or lasting illness would not have     intervened to prevent cross-examination but for the voluntary act of the witness himself or the party      offering him-as, by a postponement or other interruption      brought about immediately after the direct examination, it      seems clear that the direct testimony must be struck out. Upon the same principle, the same result should follow where     the illnes  is but temporary and the offering party might      have recalled the witness for cross-examination before the      end of the trial.

'But, where the death or illness prevents cross-examination     under such circumstances that no responsibility of any sort      can be attributed to either the witness or his party, it      seems harsh measure to strike out all that has been obtained      on the direct examination. Principle requires in strictness     nothing less. But the true solution would be to avoid any     inflexible rule, and to leave it to the trial judge to admit      the direct examination so far as the loss of      cross-examination can be shown to him to be not in that      instance a material loss.' Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), §      1390.

Thus, as Professor Wigmore indicates, if neither the petitioner nor the respondent had been responsible for Budenz' unavailability, then the Court would be correct in saying that the Board must be given wide latitude in deciding whether to strike Budenz' testimony, and that the Board will be reversed only if it has abused its discretion. However, if Budenz's unavailability was caused by the Government's conduct, then, as Professor Wigmore states, 'it seems clear that the direct testimony must be struck out.'

The record of this case convincingly demonstrates that the Government was directly responsible for creating the situation in which the petitioner found itself in 1958, when it finally obtained Budenz' prior statements but could make no use of them. Not only did the Government, by its objections to the petitioner's original motions for production, prompt the Board to refuse production, but it also prevented the Court of Appeals from rectifying the Board's error by representing to the Court that Budenz had made no statements to the FBI concerning the Starobin and Weiner matters. Then, not until it was too late for Budenz to be called for further cross-examination, was the Court of Appeals apprised of the existence of Budenz' prior statements. I do not mean to imply that the Government deliberately withheld this vital information beyond the time that it could have aided the pettioner. But there can be no doubt that the Government's delay in disclosing the existence of Budenz' prior statements made it impossible for the petitioner to make effective use of those statements. Since the Government's voluntary acts caused the curtailment of Budenz' cross-examination, I think the Court of Appeals should have granted the relief which is normal in this type of situation by ordering the Board to strike all of Budenz' testimony.

Nor can the lower court's error be dismissed as harmless. Reference has already been made to the importance of Budenz' testimony to the Government's case. Moreover, as the Court's opinion demonstrates, and as the Court of Appeals admitted, there were marked discrepancies between Budenz' prior statements and his testimony before the Board. Had the petitioner been given Budenz' prior statements, it might have pursued a course of cross-examination which would have thoroughly discredited Budenz and destroyed the Board's apparent faith in his reliability. However, the petitioner was never able to conduct such an examination, and the record is therefore clouded by the not unlikely possibility that much of Budenz' testimony was unreliable. This being the case, regard for the elemental rules of fair procedure requires that Budenz' testimony be stricken from the record. Cf. Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 351 U.S. 115, 76 S.Ct. 663, 100 L.Ed. 1003; Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1, 1 L.Ed.2d 1.

I think the Court of Appeals also erred in its interpretation and application of § 3(3), one of the most crucial provisions of the Act. That section defines a 'Communist-action organization' as one (1) which is directed or dominated 'by the foreign government or foreign organization controlling the world Communist movement,' and (2) which 'operates primarily to advance the objectives of such world Communist movement as referred to in section 2 of this title.' 64 Stat. 989. Unfortunately, the statute does not, in terms, define the objectives of the world Communist movement which the alleged Communist-action organization must be found to advance. However, to set the framework for its argument, the petitioner suggested that the objectives of the world Communist movement, as contemplated by the Act, should be defined as: (1) the overthrow of all existing capitalist governments by any means necessary, including force and violence and (2) the establishment of a Communist totalitarian dictatorship, which (3) will be subservient to the Soviet Union. The Court of Appeals tentatively accepted the petitioner's definition of the objectives, and concluded that the Board's findings demonstrate that the Party operates to advance all of the suggested objectives. With regard to the first of the three objectives, the court relied upon the Board's finding that the Party 'advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence if necessary.' (Emphasis added.)

The petitioner contends that, in the light of our decisions in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137; and Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356, the objectives component of § 3(3) should be construed in such a way that an organization could not be deemed to be advancing the first of the three cited objectives unless it engages in advocacy directed at prompting forceful overthrow of the Government, as distinguished from advocacy as an abstract doctrine; that the Board did not find that the Party engaged in illegal advocacy, but instead found that the petitioner merely engaged in the advocacy of force 'if necessary,' which is tantamount to the advocacy of forceful overthrow as an abstract doctrine; and that the absence of a finding of unlawful advocacy on the part of the petitioner renders the Board's order unsupportable.

In my judgment, the petitioner's argument is eminently correct. In Yates v. United States, supra, the Court made it clear that a distinction had to be drawn 'between advocacy of abstract doctrine and advocacy directed at promoting unlawful action.' Id., 354 U.S. at page 318, 77 S.Ct. at page 1076. It then went on to hold that, while the latter type of advocacy could be prohibited consistently with the dictates of the First Amendment, an attempt to prohibit the former type of advocacy would raise grave constitutional problems. The Court therefore concluded that Congress, well aware of this distinction and of the constitutional problems involved, intended the Smith Act to apply only to advocacy which was aimed at inciting to action. See also Dennis v. United States, supra. There is no reason to assume that when Congress adopted the Subversive Activities Control Act it was any less aware of the constitutional pitfalls involved in attempting to proscribe advocacy as an abstract doctrine than it was when it passed the Smith Act, for, as the Court said in Yates, in construing a congressional enactment, 'we should not assume that Congress chose to disregard a constitutional danger zone so clearly marked.' Id., 354 U.S. at page 319, 77 S.Ct. at page 1077. Therefore, since the construction urged by the petitioner will make the statute more compatible with this Court's prior decisions defining the area of prohibition permissible under the First Amendment, it should be adopted, and the Court should hold that the Board cannot require a group to register as a Communist-action organization unless it first finds that the organization is engaged in advocacy aimed at inciting action. Clearly, the Board made no such finding in this case. The Board merely found that the petitioner has engaged in advocating the use of force 'if necessary.' However, this is not the sort of advocacy which incites to action. At most, it is no more than the formulation of an abstract doctrine, which, as the Court indicated in Yates, 'is too remote from concrete action to be regarded as the kind of indoctrination preparatory to action which was condemned in Dennis.' Id., 354 U.S. at pages 321-322, 77 S.Ct. at page 1078.

The Court brushes aside the petitioner's argument by saying that, because this statute is 'regulatory' and not 'prohibitory,' the Yates and Dennis cases are inapplicable. However, it blinks reality to say that this statute is not prohibitory. There can be little doubt that the registration provisions of the statute and the harsh sanctions which are automatically imposed after an order to register has been issued make this Act as prohibitory as any criminal statute. Therefore, for the reasons which I have stated, I think the Board's order ought to be vacated and the case remanded so that the Board can determine whether the evidence supports a finding that the petitioner is engaging in advocacy aimed at inciting the forceful overthrow of the Government.

Finally, I think the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining an order of the Board which was based, in part, on a finding which the court admitted lacked evidentiary support. Section 13(e) of the Act lists eight criteria which the Board should consider in determining whether a group is a Communist-action organization. The seventh of these criteria is the extent to which 'for the purpose of concealing foreign direction, domination, or control, or of expediting or promoting its objectives,' 64 Stat. 999, an organization engages in certain secret practices or otherwise operates on a secret basis. In its original Report, the Board concluded that the Party engaged in secret practices in order to achieve both of the purposes recited in the Act. The Court of Appeals, in its first opinion, held that the finding of secret practices was proper, but that the Government's evidence failed to demonstrate the purposes for which these practices were pursued. While recognizing this deficiency in the Government's evidence, the Court nevertheless affirmed the Board's order. The two Modified Reports, issued by the Board after the first and second remands, eliminated the original finding that one of the purposes of the secret practices was the concealment of foreign control. However, though no additional evidence was taken regarding secret practices, and even though the Court of Appeals had already expressed its view that the Board's purpose findings were unsupported by the evidence, the two Modified Reports reiterated the finding that the secret practices were engaged in to promote the objectives of the Communist Party. In its third opinion, the Court of Appeals adhered to its ruling that the Board's finding was unsupported by the evidence, but it nevertheless affirmed the order, holding that the finding was merely a subsidiary one and that the whole record supported the Board's conclusion that the petitioner met the definition of a Communist-action organization contained in § 3(3).

The Court now adopts the lower court's reasoning, and holds that since the unsupported finding was merely 'subsidiary,' it is not necessary to remand the case to ascertain whether the Board would reach the same ultimate coc lusion in the absence of the unsupported finding. I submit that the Court's action does not square either with the facts, as they appear in the record, or with the prior decisions of this Court. It is unrealistic to characterize the Board's secrecy finding as insignificant and subsidiary. It directly relates to one of the eight enumerated criteria listed in § 13(e). The Board devoted 19 pages to it in the Modified Report. It is also the only one of the § 13(e) standards concerning which there was any substantial amount of evidence of post-Act conduct on the part of the Party. In view of these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the Board found it necessary to reassert the finding, even though it knew that the Court of Appeals considered the finding unsupported by the evidence, how can it be said that the finding is unimportant? Surely, if the finding is as unimportant to the Board's conclusion as the Court of Appeals and this Court seem to think it is, the Board would have abandoned the finding altogether rather than retain it and risk another remand either by the Court of Appeals or by this Court. These factors would not seem to indicate that the finding was trivial, but, on the contrary, that it was crucial to the Board's ultimate conclusion. This being the case, it will not do for the Court of Appeals or for this Court to conclude that the Board would have reached the same conclusion without relying upon the unsupported finding. Congress has placed the responsibility for making that determination in the Board and not in the courts. As this Court said in Securities & Exchange Comm. v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88, 63 S.Ct. 454, 459, 87 L.Ed. 626, 'If an order is valid only as a determination of policy or judgment which the agency alone is authorized to make and which it has not made, a judicial judgment cannot be made to do service for an administrative judgment.' An agency's 'action must be measured by what (it) did, not by what it might have done.' Id., 318 U.S. at pages 93-94, 63 S.Ct. at page 462. See also N.L.R.B. v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 314 U.S. 469, 62 S.Ct. 344, 86 L.Ed. 348. Therefore, because the Board's order is clouded by the fact that it rests upon a finding which is admittedly unsupported by the evidence, I think the Court should strike the secrecy finding and remand the case to the Board for reconsideration.

In my view, the Court today strays from the well-trod path of our prior decisions by reaching out to decide constitutional issues prematurely. If the Court would remand on any one of the four errors which I have discussed, and I think each warrants a remand, the resolution of the difficult constitutional issues presented by this case would certainly be postponed, and perhaps made totally unnecessary. For, if further cross-examination of Gitlow based on the memoranda discredited his testimony, or if all of Budenz' testimony were stricken, or if the Board were required to find that the petitioner actually engaged in advocacy aimed at inciting action, or if the secrecy i nding were stricken, the Government's case might be so weakened that it would be impossible for the Board to conclude, on the basis of the present record, that the petitioner is a Communist-action organization, as that term is used in the statutes. Moreover, a remand on the basis of these non-constitutional errors is the only disposition that would be consistent with the 'fastidious regard for the honor of the administration of justice' which the Court found so compelling in 1956. 351 U.S. at page 124, 76 S.Ct. at page 668.

I think it is unwise for the Court to brush aside the non-constitutional errors disclosed by this record. However, since the Court insists upon doing so, I feel constrained to express my views on a dispositive constitutional issue which now confronts us by virtue of the Court's holding on the non-constitutional questions. I agree with MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN that, once having entered the area of constitutional adjudication, the Court must decide now whether the Act violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by requiring the petitioner's officers to submit a registration statement on behalf of the petitioner. For the reasons set forth in his opinion, which I join, I believe that the Act does constitute a violation of the Fifth Amendment.