Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nqrmd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T08:12:22.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Deal Mass Surveillance: The “Black Inquisition Committee,” 1935–1936

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2018

David T. Beito
David T. Beito*
Affiliation:
University of Alabama
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

At the behest of the Roosevelt administration in 1935, the U.S. Senate established a special committee to investigate lobbying activities by opponents of the “death sentence” of the Public Utility Holding Company Bill. Chaired by Hugo L. Black (D-Ala.), the “Black Committee” expanded its mission into a more general probe of anti–New Deal organizations and individuals. The committee used highly intrusive methods, notably catch-all dragnet subpoenas, to secure evidence. It worked closely with the IRS for access to tax returns and with the FCC to obtain copies of millions of telegrams. When the telegram search became public information, there was a major backlash from the press, Congress, and the courts. Court rulings in 1936, resulting from suits by William Randolph Hearst and others, not only limited the committee’s powers but provided important checks for future investigators, including Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Keywords

Mass SurveillanceNew DealRoosevelt AdministrationAnti–New DealSenator Hugo Black“Black Commttee”

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 169 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © Donald Critchlow and Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

NOTES

1. Theoharis, Athan, Spying on Americans: Political Surveillance from Hoover to the Huston Plan (Philadelphia, 1978), 66–70;Google Scholar Schrecker, Ellen, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Boston, 1998), 102–9;Google Scholar and Gregory, Anthony, American Surveillance: Intelligence, Privacy, and the Fourth Amendment (Madison, 2016), 38–41.Google Scholar It is true, however, that the FBI had access to information from the often extensive systems of surveillance of local and state police agencies. Nick Fischer, Spider Web: The Birth of American Anti-Communism (Urbana, 2016), 257.

2. Lane, Frederick S., American Privacy: The 400-Year History of Our Most Contested Right (Boston, 2009), 103–8;Google Scholar Weinrib, Laura, The Taming of Free Speech: America’s Civil Liberties Compromise (Cambridge, Mass., 2016), 216–17;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Michael Stephen Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope: Political Scandal, Congressional Investigations, and New Deal Moral Authority, 1932–1952” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2010), 19–105.

3. Graham J. White, FDR and the Press (Chicago, 1979), 10; and Gary Dean Best, The Critical Press and the New Deal: The Press Versus Presidential Power, 1933–1938 (Westport, Conn., 1993), 1–7.

4. Winfield, Betty Houchin, FDR and the News Media (Urbana, 1993), 40–42; White, FDR and the Press, 35; Best, The Critical Press and the New Deal, 17; andGoogle Scholar Holli, Melvin G., The Wizard of Washington: Emil Hurja, Franklin Roosevelt, and the Birth of Public Opinion Polling (New York, 2002), 66.Google Scholar

5. Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 56–58; and Arnold Markoe, “The Black Committee: A Study of the Senate Investigation of the Public Utility Holding Company Lobby” (PhD diss., New York University, 1972), 37–47.

6. Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 39, 57; Markoe, “The Black Committee,” 92; and Lee, David D., “Senator Black’s Investigation of the Airmail, 1933–1934,” Historian 53, no. 3 (Spring 1991), 439–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Congressional Record, Senate, 11 July 1935, 11003; and Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 58, 253.

8. Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 58; and Roger K. Newman, Hugo Black: A Biography (New York, 1994), 228.

9. Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 43–47, 79, 83; Michael Perino, The Hellhound of Wall Street: How Ferdinand Pecora’s Investigation of the Great Crash Forever Changed American Finance (New York, 2010), 283–86; Congressional Record, Senate, 20 March 1936, 4097–98; Carl Beck, Contempt of Congress: A Study of the Prosecutions Initiated by the Committee on Un-American Activities, 1945–1957 (New Orleans, 1959), 6–9, 212–14; and Donald A. Ritchie, “What Makes a Successful Congressional Investigation?” OAH Magazine of History 12, no. 4 (Summer 1998): 21.

10. Newman, Hugo Black, 178–80; Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 79; and Markoe, “The Black Committee,” 95–96.

11. Markoe, “The Black Committee,” 100; Jamie C. Euken, “Evil, Greed, Treachery, Deception, and Fraud: The World of Lobbying According to Senator Hugo Black,” Federal History, no. 6 (January 2014): 73–74.

12. Markoe, “The Black Committee,” 105–6; Euken, “Evil, Greed, Treachery, Deception, and Fraud,” 74; and “Executive Defends His Utility,” New York Times, 13 August 1935, Book 8, 10.

13. Diaries of Henry Morgenthau Jr., 24 July 1935, 122C, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum; and Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 96–97.

14. Kornhauser, Majorie E., “Shaping Public Opinion and the Law: How a ‘Common Man’ Campaign Ended a Rich Man’s Law,” Law and Contemporary Problems 73, no. 1 (Winter 2010), 125–45;Google Scholar and Black to J. A. Smith, 25 March 1935, Treasury Department Legislation (1935), Income Tax Returns Publicity, Box 223, Folder 9, Senatorial File, Hugo L. Black Papers, Library of Congress.

15. Czaplicki, , “The Corruption of Hope,” 96–99.Google Scholar

16. McGrain v. Daughtery, 273 U.S. 135, 175 (1927); Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 34, 46–48; “The Power of Congressional Investigating Committee to Issue Subpoena Duces Tecum,” Yale Law Journal 45, no. 8 (June 1936), 1505–8; Boudin, Louis B., “Congressional and Agency Investigations: Their Uses and Abuses,” Virginia Law Review 35, no. 2 (February 1949), 170–72;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Jurney v. MacCracken 294 U.S. 152 (1935).

17. Euken, “Evil, Greed, Treachery, Deception, and Fraud,” 74–75; U.S. Senate, 74th Cong., 2nd sess., Alleged Seizures of Telegrams and Records and Telephone Communications, Document No. 188 (Washington, D.C., 1936, 3–5; Hearst v. Black et al., 87 F. 2d 68 (1936); Francis R. Stark to Black, 16 March 1936, Box 181, Folder 2, Senatorial File (Lobbying) Correspondence, Black Papers.

18. Copies of some of the telegrams are at Special Senate Committee to Investigate Lobbying Activities, Records, U.S. Senate, 75th Cong., Telegram Files, 1935–38, National Archives. Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 98; Harry Y. Saint to Black, 13 March 1936, Folder 6, Box 181 Senatorial File (Lobbying) Correspondence, Black Papers; and Congressional Record, Senate, 26 March 1936, 4495–96.

19. Congressional Record, House, 4 March 1936, 3265; and Felix Bruner, “Lobby Group Seeks to Find Wire Seizure Justification,” Washington Post, 5 March 1936, 1.

20. William Doherty, “Court’s Power Challenged by Black Group,” New York American, 27 March 1936, 4; Paul C. Yates to Black, 25 September 1935, Box 181, Folder 2, Senatorial File (Lobbying), Correspondence, Black Papers; and Saint to Black.

21. Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 98–99.

22. William Randolph Hearst v. Hugo L. Black et al., In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, “Brief of Plaintiff in Support of Motion for Injunction Pendente Lite and in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Want of Jurisdiction” [c. April 1936], 52, Folder: District of Columbia, Hearst vs United States Senate Special Committee, 1935, Box B-48, Western Union Telegraph Company Records, Archives Center, National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.

23. Holli, The Wizard of Washington, 67–68; Burton Folsom Jr., New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America (New York, 2008), 178–79; and William E. Leuchtenburg, The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy (New York, 1995), 101–2.

24. “Lobby Probes Aims of Liberty League,” Baltimore Sun, 29 January 1936, 2; Newman, Hugo Black, 185; “New Lobby Hunt Begun,” Los Angeles Times, 29 January 1936, 2; “Senators Open Fresh Quiz on New Deal Foes,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 28 January 1936, 1; Arthur Sears Henning, “Terror Spread Among Enemies by New Dealers,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 9 February 1936, 1; J. Fred Essary, “Senate Lobby Investigators Defied by Liberty League,” Baltimore Sun, 15 February 1936, 9; and “Scores Lobbying Inquiry,” New York Times, 11 February 1936, 10. Black’s interest in the Crusaders, however, had started long before January 1936. On 4 September 1935, the committee had sent the group a “full and exhaustive questionnaire regarding the Crusaders, their structure, purposes and methods.” F. W. Blaisdell to Hugo L. Black, 15 October 1935, Folder: NRA, Black, Hugo, Committee, 1936, Series I-60, Box 57, Robert R. McCormick Papers, Colonel Robert R. McCormick Research Center, First Division Museum at Cantigny Park, Wheaton, Illinois.

25. Henning, “Terror Spread Among Enemies by New Dealers,” 8.

26. “Liberty Leaguers Flay Senate Lobby Probe,” Atlanta Constitution, 15 February 1936, 2; and Hugo L. Black, “Inside a Senate Investigation,” Harper’s Magazine 172 (February 1936), 275–76.

27. Mark Sullivan, “Stories Clash on Seizure of Telegrams,” Hartford Courant, 9 March 1936, 18; Hearst v. Black et al., “Brief for Plaintiff,” 52; “Crusaders Tell Tactics in Black Inquisition Here,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 8 March 1936, 17; “Utility Inquirers Seize Files Here,” New York Times, 3 March 1936, 7; and N. J. Neamy to Robert R. McCormick, 12 March 1936, Byron Price to McCormick, 13 April 1936, Special Committee to Investigate Lobbying Activities to McCormick, 21 January 1936, Folder: NRA, Black, Hugo, Committee, 1936, Series I-60, Box 57, McCormick Papers.

28. “Utility Inquirers Seize Files Here,” 1.

29. Silas H. Strawn v. The Western Union Telegraph Company, In the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia “Brief for Plaintiffs,” [March 1936], 1–3, Folder: District of Columbia, Strawn v. Western Union, Western Union Telegraph Company Records, 1936, Archives Center, National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.; “Silas Hardy Strawn, 1866–1946,” American Bar Association Journal 32, no. 3 (March 1946): 164; Jeff Shesol, Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt v. the Supreme Court (New York, 2010), 10; and Henning, “Strawn Asks Court to Halt Lobby Snooping,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 3 March 1936, 4.

30. Leuchtenburg, William E., “A Klansman Joins the Court: The Appointment of Hugo L. Black,” University of Chicago Law Review 41, no. 1 (Fall 1973): 6–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. “Washington: Black Inquisition,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 8 March 1936, B7; Czaplicki, “The Corrupton of Hope,” 87; “A Damaging Attitude,” New York Times, 22 March 1936, E8; White, FDR and the Press, 31; Mark Sullivan, “Capitol Comment,” Centralia Sentinel, 6 March 1936, 1; “Black Booty,” Time 27, no. 11, 16 March 1936, 18; and Arthur Krock, “In Washington: Seizure of Telegrams May Be Campaign Issue,” New York Times, 6 March 1936, 20.

32. “Black Group Gets Wires by the Millions,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 5 March 1936, 1, 8; and Congressional Record, House, 4 March 1936, 3266; and Kenneth W. Vickers, “John Rankin: Democrat and Demagogue” (M.A. thesis, Mississippi State University, 1993), 50–55. Ira Katznelson documents how Southern Democrats (including racists such as Bilbo and Rankin) were instrumental to the creation and implementation of the New Deal. Katznelson, Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origns of Our Time (New York, 2013), 84–91, 163.

33. Congressional Record, Senate, 5 March 1936, 3228, 3330–31.

34. Walter Lippmann, “Today and Tomorrow: Legislative Inquisition,” Los Angeles Times, 7 March 1936, A4; and Ronald Steel, Walter Lippmann and the American Century (Boston, 1980), 167, 216–19, 227–33.

35. Felix Bruner, “Borah Request Adopted,” Washington Post, 10 March 1936, 1.

36. Newman, Hugo Black, 187–88; “Report of the Standing Committee on Communications to the American Bar Association,” Annual Report of the American Bar Association 61 (1936): 644; “Senate Accepts Curb on Activity of Lobby Inquiry,” Christian Science Monitor, 12 March 1936, 2; Black to Western Union Telegram Company and T. B. Kingsbury, 18 March 1936, Folder 7, Box 181, Senatorial File (Lobbying), Correspondence, Hugo L. Black Papers; and Henning, “Halt Senate Wire Seizures,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 12 March 1936, 8.

37. Ben Procter, William Randolph Hearst: The Later Years, 1911–1951 (New York, 2007), 170–71, 190–91, 206; “Increased Fund Asked to Push Lobby,” Washington Post, 13 March 1936, 2; Congressional Record, House, 18 March 1936, 3950; and Henning, “Black ‘Terror’ Fought in New Court Actions,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 13 March 1936, 1.

38. Henning, “New Suit Filed to Halt Black Wire Seizures,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 14 March 1936, 1, 8; and “Hearst Files Suit on Lobby Inquiry,” New York Times, 13 March 1936, 6.

39. Black to Western Union Telegraph Company and Kingsbury; and “Hearst Telegram Given Out in House,” New York Times, 19 March 1936, 1.

40. Congressional Record, House, 18 March 1936, 3950; and Black to Western Union Telegraph Company and Kingsbury.

41. Congressional Record, Senate, 26 March 1936, 4384, 30 March 1936, 4579, 1 April 1936, 4708; and “Interest Is Taken in Schwellenbach Reply to Hearst,” Christian Science Monitor, 31 March 1936, 2.

42. Congressional Record, Senate, 31 March 1936, 4650.

43. Saint to Black; Henning, “New Suit Filed to Halt Black Wire Seizures,” 1–2; and “Hearst Assailed as Real ‘Dictator,’” Baltimore Sun, 31 March 1936, 1.

44. “Validity of Subpoena Issued by Senate Committee for All Telegraphic Correspondence over Named Period,” Columbia Law Review 36, no. 5 (May 1936): 843; “An Obvious Red Herring,” Washington Post, 21 March 1936, 8; “Raw Censorship” (reprinted from Editor and Publisher), New York American, 22 March 1936, 8; and Arthur Krock, “In Washington: Black Committee Accused of Invading Court Functions,” New York Times, 27 March 1936, 20.

45. Congressional Record, House, 15 April 1936, 5530–36; and “House Delays Black Group’s Defense Fund,” New York American, 3 April 1936, 1.

46. Markoe, “The Black Committee,” 173.

47. William, Anderson, The Wild Man from Sugar Creek: The Political Career of Eugene Talmadge (Baton Rouge, 1975), 136–40;Google Scholar “Photo Hitting at First Lady Is Revealed,” Hartford Courant, 16 April 1936, 1; George Wolfskill, The Revolt of the Conservatives: A History of the American Liberty League, 1934–1940 (Boston, 1962), 175–78; Robert F. Burk, The Corporate State and Broker State: The Du Ponts and American National Politics, 1925–1940 (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), 226; and “Photo Hitting at First Lady Is Revealed,” Hartford Courant, 16 April 1936, 1.

48. Burk, The Corporate State and Broker State, 226; Alan J. Lichtman, White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement (New York, 2008), 86; Myron I. Scholnick, The New Deal and Anti-Semitism in America (New York, 1990), 182–83; and Jonathan Bean, ed., Race and Liberty in America: The Essential Reader (Lexington, Ky., 2009) 175.

49. “Foe of A.A.A. Defies Quiz,” Los Angeles Times, 17 April 1936, 2; “Farm Leader Won’t Answer Lobby Probers,” New York American, 17 April 1936, 1; and “Lobby Group Witness Balks at Questions,” Washington Post, 17 April 1936, 1.

50. Jean, Choate, Disputed Ground: Farm Groups That Opposed the New Deal Agricultural Program (Jefferson, N.C., 2002), 84–87;Google Scholar and James C. Carey, “The Farmers’ Independence Council of America, 1935–1938,” Agricultural History Society 35, no. 2 (April 1961): 73.

51. “Court’s Power Challenged by Black Group,” New York American, 27 March 1936, 4; “Partial Retreat from Moscow,” Washington Post, 1 April 1936, 8; and Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 95. Even after the FCC ceased cooperation, however, Stanley Morse, executive president of the Farmers’ Independence Council alleged that a telegram sent on 10 April to E. V. Wilcox, the council’s secretary who also testified that day, “apparently was in the hands of the Committee a few hours later.” Stanley Morse to Member, 20 April 1936, Folder: I-60 NRA-Black, Hugo, Committee, 1936, McCormick Papers.

52. “Report of the Standing Committee on Communications to the American Bar Association,” 645; William A. Gregory and Rennard Strickland, “Hugo Black’s Congressional Investigation of Lobbying and the Public Utility Holding Company Act: A Historical View of the Power Trust, New Deal Politics, and Regulatory Propaganda,” Oklahoma Law Review 29, no. 3 (1976): 569; and Alice Roosevelt Longworth, “What Alice Thinks,” Los Angeles Times, 1 April 1936, 5.

53. Newman, Hugo Black, 188; White, FDR and the Press, 95–96; “Editorial: Senator Black Feeds on Poisoned Meet,” New York American, 28 April 1936, 14; cartoon, New York American, 17 April 1936, 22; and Berton Braley, “Sh-h-h-Sh-Shish,” New York American, 11 April 1936, 10.

54. Berton Braley, “Go As Far As You Like,” New York American, 2 May 1936, 14.

55. Arthur “Bugs” Baer, “Giving the Committee a Black Name,” New York American, 2 April 1936, 4.

56. Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 88–89; Black to Seba Eldridge, 23 March 1936, Box 181, Folder 6, Senatorial File (Lobbying) Correspondence, Black Papers; Roger N. Baldwin to Black, 18 April 1936, Hugo L. Black, Box 181, Folder 8, Senatorial File (Lobbying) Correspondence, Black Papers; and Black to Baldwin, 29 April 1936, Folder: American Civil Liberties Union, Box 11, Special Committee to Investigate Lobbying Activities, Records, U.S. Senate, 75th Cong., National Archives.

57. “Hearst Assailed as Real ‘Dictator,’” 1; and “Better to Give Nation Back, Malone Says,” Baltimore Sun, 31 March 1936, 2.

58. “Black Names Ex-Partner as Probe Counsel,” New York American, 23 March 1936, 8; Congressional Record, House, 15 April 1936, 5540–41; and “House, 153 to 137, Rebukes Senate Lobby Committee,” New York Times, 16 April 1936, 2.

59. Congressional Record, House, 15 April 1936, 5543, 5545.

60. Congressional Record, Senate, 22 April 1936, 5832–33; “A Setback for the Grand Snoop,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 17 April 1936, 14; and “A Black Eye for Black” (reprinted from the Chicago Daily News), New York American, 27 April 1936, 13.

61. “Text of Attack on Black Group,” New York American, 23 April 1936, 13; “Publishers Score Senate Committee for ‘Gagging’ Press,” New York Times, 23 April 1936, 18; and Walter Lippmann, “Today and Tomorrow,” Los Angeles Times, 28 April 1936, A4.

62. Henning, “Terror Spread Among Enemies by New Dealers,” 8; “The Senate Black Shirts,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 7 May 1936, 10; and “The Night Riders: An Old Southern Custom,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 7 May 1936, 1.

63. Paul W., Ward, “Washington Weekly,” Nation, 25 March 1936, 371–72;Google Scholar “The Liberty Leaguers Have Their Own Private Interpretation of the United States Constitution,” Progressive 4, no. 176 (2 May 1936): 1; and “The Progressive Repudiates Selfish Use of Freedom of the Press,” Progressive 4, no. 171 (March 21, 1936): 1.

64. Harold Ickes, The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes: The First Thousand Days, 1933–1936 (New York, 1953, 555, 693; Michael J., Webber, New Deal Fat Cats: Business, Labor, and Campaign Finance in the 1936 Presidential Election (New York, 2000), 136–37;Google Scholar and James T. Patterson, Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal: The Growth of the Conservative Coalition in Congress, 1933–1939 (Lexington, Ky., 1967), 39, 50.

65. Raymond, Moley, After Seven Years (New York, 1939), 336–39.Google Scholar

66. “Court Rebukes the FCC,” New York Times, 10 November 1936, 5; “Senator Black Maps Course With Liberals,” Washington Post, 11 September 1936, 2; “Senate Votes Fund to Defend Black Quizzers,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 7 June 1936, 10; “Strawn Wins Wire Suit,” New York Times, 26 June 1936, 3; and “The Republican Party Platform of 1936,” 9 June 1936, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29639 (accessed 24 May 2017).

67. Folsom, New Deal or Raw Deal? 180; and Holli, The Wizard of Washington, 74–75.

68. Choate, Disputed Ground, 87; and Burk, The Corporate State and Broker State, 243.

69. Hearst v. Black et al., 87 F.2d 68 (1936), 69–70, 72; and “Court Rebukes the FCC,” New York Times, 10 November 1936, 5.

70. “Editorial: Unlawful Snooping,” Washington Post, 11 November 1936, X8.

71. Beck, Contempt of Congress, 213–15; U.S. Congress, Senate, 57th Cong., 1st sess., Subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, Hearings, Violations of Free Speech and the Rights of Labor, Part 3, 733, 954–56; 75th Cong., 2nd sess., Part 15-D, [1938] 6929.

72. Fischer, Spider Web, 200; and David T. Beito and Marcus M. Witcher, “‘New Deal Witch Hunt’: The Buchanan Committee Investigation of the Committee for Constitutional Government,” Independent Review 21, no. 1 (Summer 2016): 49–51.

73. August Raymond Ogden, The Dies Committee: A Study of the Special House Committee for the Investigation of Un-American Activities, 1938–1944 (Washington, D.C., 1945), 194–201; https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/House+Committee+on+Unamerican+Activities (accessed 18 December 2017); Beck, Contempt of Congress, 214–28; Martha M. Driver, “Constitutional Limitations on the Power of Congress to Punish Contempts of Its Investigating Committees: Part II,” Virginia Law Review 38, no. 8 (December 1952): 1013–14; and Robert K. Carr, “The Un-American Activities Committee and the Courts,” Louisiana Law Review 11, no. 3 (March 1951): 311–13; and

74. Beck, Contempt of Congress, 235–37; United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953); and Beito and Witcher, “New Deal Witch Hunt,” 66–67.

75. Arthur J., Sabin, In Calmer Times: The Supreme Court and Red Monday (Philadelphia, 2011), 153–60Google Scholar; Beck, Contempt of Congress, 156–62; and Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 179 (1957).

76. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Politics of Upheaval, 1935–1936 (Age of Roosevelt, Vol. 3) (Boston, 1960), 323; and Gregory and Strickland, “Hugo Black’s Congressional Investigation of Lobbying and the Public Utility Holding Company Act,” 560.

77. Leuchtenburg, “A Klansman Joins the Court,” 6; Newman, Hugo Black, 190, 193; and Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 104.

78. Tony A., Freyer, Hugo L. Black and the Dilemma of American Liberalism (New York, 2008), 107–57Google Scholar; and Czaplicki, “The Corruption of Hope,” 104.

79. Lane, , American Privacy, 108Google Scholar.

80. Nardone v. United States, 302 U.S. 381–82 (1937); Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939); Hearst v. Black, 87 F.2d 69 (1936); Alan G. Theoharis, The FBI and American Democracy: A Brief Critical History (Lawrence, Kans., 2004), 56–57; and Colin Agur, “Negotiated Order: The Fourth Amendment, Telephone Surveillance, and Social Interaction, 1878–1968,” Information and Culture 48, no. 4 (2013): 429–31. Some congressional opponents of the Black Committee had charged, however, that the FCC had violated Section 605 by giving access to the telegrams. Henning, “Asks Discharge of FCC for Aid in Wire Seizure,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 18 March 1936, 6.

81. David Hochfelder, “Constructing an Industrial Divide: Western Union, AT&T, and the Federal Government, 1876–1971,” Business History Review 76, no. 4 (Winter 2002): 725; U.S. Senate, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., Subcommittee on the Committee of the Judiciary, Hearings, Wiretapping for National Security (Washington, D.C., 1954), 15, 24; Alan F. Westin, Privacy and Freedom (New York, 1970), 173–83; Anthony Gregory, American Surveillance, 39, 44; Theoharis, Spying on Americans, 67–69, 99, 74, 106–11; and Schrecker, Many Are the Crimes, 222–26, 259–60.