Opinion of the Court. SHIPMAN ET AL., TRADING AS SHIPMAN BROTHERS, ET AL. v. DUPRE ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA. No. 689. Decided April 24, 1950. In this case, a three-judge federal district court erred in ruling on the merits of a suit to restrain enforcement of a state statute on the ground of its invalidity under the Federal Constitution when it did not appear that the statute had been construed by the state courts; but the federal court should retain jurisdiction pending a reasonable time to afford an opportunity for complainants to obtain such a construction. Pp. 321-322. 88 F. Supp. 482, judgment vacated. Appellants' application for a declaratory judgment and injunction, on the ground of the alleged invalidity under the Federal Constitution of certain sections of South Carolina statutes regulating the fisheries and shrimping industry, was dismissed on the merits by a three-judge federal district court. 88 F. Supp. 482. On appeal to this Court, the judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded, p. 322. Aaron Kravitch, Phyllis Kravitch and Joseph Fromberg for appellants. John M. Daniel, Attorney General of South Carolina, T. C. Callison and R. Hoke Robinson, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees. PER CURIAM. Appellants sought a declaratory judgment that certain sections of the South Carolina statute regulating the fisheries and shrimping industry were unconstitutional, and interlocutory and permanent injunctions restraining the state officials from carrying out those provisions. The 339 U.S. Opinion of the Court. statutory three-judge District Court assumed jurisdiction, decided the issues on the merits, and dismissed the complaint. 88 F. Supp. 482. From the papers submitted on appeal, it does not appear that the statutory sections in question have as yet been construed by the state courts. We are therefore of opinion that the District Court erred in disposing of the complaint on the merits. See American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582, 595-599. The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded to that court with directions to retain jurisdiction of the complaint for a reasonable time, to afford appellants an opportunity to obtain, by appropriate proceedings, a construction by the state court of the statutory provisions involved. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents. Syllabus. UNITED STATES v. BRYAN, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 99. Argued December 15, 1949. Decided May 8, 1950. Respondent was the executive secretary and had custody of the records of an association which was under investigation by the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. The Committee issued and served upon respondent a subpoena directing her to produce before the Committee, at a stated time, specified records of the association. Respondent appeared before the Committee, but refused to produce the records on the ground that the Committee was without constitutional right to demand them. Respondent was indicted, tried and convicted for willful default in violation of R. S. § 102, 2 U. S. C. § 192. Held: 1. The presence of a quorum of the Committee at the time of the return to the subpoena was not an essential element of the offense (Christoffel v. United States, 338 U. S. 84, distinguished); and, when the Government introduced evidence that respondent had been validly served with a lawful subpoena directing her to produce records within her custody and control and that on the return day she intentionally failed to comply, it made out a prima facie case of willful default. Pp. 327–330. 2. The defense of lack of a quorum was not available to respondent under the circumstances of this case. Pp. 330–335. (a) When a witness seeks to excuse a default on grounds of inability to comply with a subpoena, the defense must fail in the absence of a showing of even a modicum of good faith in responding to the subpoena. P. 332. (b) Respondent having made no objection to the lack of a quorum on her appearance before the Committee, having relied on other grounds for noncompliance with the subpoena, and having raised the quorum question for the first time on her trial two years later, she cannot rely upon the defense of lack of a quorum on her trial for willful default. Pp. 332–335. 3. The trial court did not err in permitting the Government to read to the jury the testimony that respondent had given before the Committee when called upon to produce the records. Pp. 335-343. Opinion of the Court. 339 U.S. (a) R. S. § 859, now 18 U. S. C. § 3486, which provides that "No testimony given by a witness before . . . any committee of either House . . . shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court, except in a prosecution for perjury committed in giving such testimony," did not bar the use, at respondent's trial for willful default under R. S. § 102, of the testimony given by her before the Committee. Pp. 337-340. (b) In R. S. § 859 the term "any criminal proceeding" does not apply to a prosecution for willful default under R. S. § 102. Pp. 338, 342-343. (c) Congress intended the immunity provided by R. S. § 859 to apply only to past criminal acts concerning which a witness may be called to testify. Pp. 339–343. 84 U. S. App. D. C. 394, 174 F. 2d 525, reversed. Respondent was convicted of a violation of R. S. § 102, for failure to produce records in compliance with a subpoena of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives. 72 F. Supp. 58. The Court of Appeals reversed. 84 U. S. App. D. C. 394, 174 F.2d 525. This Court granted certiorari. 338 U. S. 846. Reversed, p. 343. Solicitor General Perlman argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Campbell, Robert S. Erdahl, Philip R. Monahan and Felicia H. Dubrovsky. O. John Rogge and Benedict Wolf argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent is the executive secretary of an organization known as the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee (hereinafter referred to as the association) and as such has custody of its records. Prior to April 4, 1946, the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of 323 Opinion of the Court. Representatives, which was conducting an investigation into the activities of the association, had attempted without success to procure these records from respondent and from the chairman of the association's executive board, Dr. Edward K. Barsky. On March 29, 1946, the Committee issued subpoenas to each of the known members of the executive board summoning them to appear in the Committee's room on April 4, 1946, at 10 a. m., to testify and produce certain specified records of the association, and an identical subpoena directed to the association by name was served upon respondent Bryan in her official capacity. Bryan and the members of the executive board appeared before the Committee at the date and time set out in the subpoenas and in response thereto. Each person so summoned failed to produce any of the records specified in the subpoenas. The members of the executive board made identical statements in which each declared that he or she did not have possession, custody or control of the records; that Miss Bryan, the executive secretary, did. Respondent admitted that the records were in her possession but refused to comply with the subpoena because "after consulting with counsel [she] came to the conclusion that the subpena was not valid" because the Committee had no constitutional right to demand the books and records. Asked whether the executive board supported her action, she refused to answer because she did not think the question pertinent. The Committee on Un-American Activities then submitted its report and resolution to the House. Setting out at length the Committee's attempts to procure the records of the association, the report concludes: "The willful and deliberate refusal of Helen R. Bryan and the members of the executive board of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee as named herein to |