United States of America in Congress assembled, That title 18, United States Code, section 3486, is amended to read as follows:
" § 3468. Compelled testimony tending to incriminate witnesses; immunity
"(a) In the course of any investigation relating to any interference with or endangering of, or any plans or attempts to interfere with or endanger the national security or defense of the United States by treason, sabotage, espionage, sedition, seditious conspiracy or the overthrow of its Government by force or violence, no witness shall be excused from testifying or from producing books, papers, or other evidence before * * * any committee of either House * * * on the ground that the testimony or evidence required of him may tend to incriminate him * * *. But no such witness shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is so compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, nor shall testimony so compelled be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding (except prosecutions described in subsection (d) hereof) against him in any court.
"(b) * * *
"(c) * * *
"(d) * * *
'Sec. 2. The analysis of chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking out
"3486. Testimony before Congress; immunity.' and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
"3486. Compelled testimony tending to incriminate witness; immunity.'
'Approved August 20, 1954.'
It is immediately noted that former § 3486 has been eliminated from new § 3486. The enacting clause of the new section states that it 'is amended to read as follows:'; it did not state that it was to be added to the old section; also a different catchline or heading is enacted which differs from the catchline or heading that preceded old § 3486 and is inconsistent therewith. Enactment of a different catchline is to be given significant effect in determining the intention of Congress. Amalgamated Ass'n etc. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 3 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 310. Also, by enactment the analysis of chapter 223 of Title 18 is changed. The general object of the new act as expressed in its title is clearly more restrictive and repugnant to the broad purpose of the former statute.
From these indications contained in the amendment itself, the court finds that Congress clearly intended that the amendatory statute was to be a complete substitution for the provisions of former § 3486. This intent is further reflected in Supplements II, III, IV, and V of the 1952 edition of the United States Code, Title 18, § 3486, as well as the 1958 edition, each of which omits the provisions of old § 3486.
It was an early recognized principle of statutory construction that the words 'amended to read as follows' in a statutory enactment set forth a legislative intent that all the law on the subject was to follow and that such language 'evinces an intention to make the new statute a substitute for the amended statute exclusively',
and that there is no need for inconsistency in order for the amendment to operate as a repeal. Endlich, Interpretation of Statutes (1888), § 196; Crawford, Statutory Construction (1940), §§ 30 4,4, 305; Sutherland, Statutory Construction, 3d ed., vol. 1, 1932. The use of the words 'amended to read as follows' coupled with the new catchline of 3486, plus the fact that the new section is substantially similar to the former section insofar as it deals with compelled testimony
and provides it shall not be used as evidence in any criminal proceedings, leads inevitably to the conclusion that new § 3486 is a complete substitution for old § 3486. It is eminently clear by the catchline to the new section that it is much narrower in scope than the former section; Congress deliberately did away with the broad and imperfect immunity granted by the old section. See: Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 12 S. Ct. 195, 35 L. Ed. 1110.
What appears from the face of the amendment finds full support in its legislative history. The conclusion to be drawn from that history is that the amendment was to be a complete substitution for the former section. Indeed, the Reports of both the Senate and House of Representatives Judiciary Committees clearly indicate that 'section 1 of the bill substitutes a new section for section 3486, title 18, United States Code'. (Page 8 of the House of Representatives Report No. 2606, 83d Congress, 2d Session; and pages 1 and 3 of Senate Report No. 153, 83d Congress, 1st Session.) Further, both the Reports unmistakably show that the then existing law was to be stricken in its entirety. This was done in the House Report by the catchline of former 3486 and the entire provisions of the former section being set off by black brackets in compliance with clause 3 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives (pp. 9-10). See also, the 'Changes in Existing Law' set forth in the Senate Report on page 13 in compliance with subsection (4) of Rule XXIX of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
For these reasons we reject the defendant's argument that the amendment contains two immunity provisions, one excluding as evidence in subsequent criminal proceedings testimony given before Congress, and another which, in certain named circumstances not present here, prohibits prosecution or subjection to any penalty or forfeiture on account of any matter concerning which a witness has been compelled to testify nor shall such compelled testimony be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding. Mr. Justice Frankfurter speaking for the Supreme Court in Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 76 S. Ct. 497, 100 L. Ed. 511, presents an analysis of new § 3486 which we understand as stating that it contains one immunity provision with two parts.
Defendant approved a stipulation by his counsel that he was fully advised of his rights before the Senate Committee, that he was represented by counsel, that he was advised 'he could take the Fifth Amendment', and that 'he chose to testify in lieu of taking the Fifth Amendment' (T., pp. 183-184).
It therefore appears that at the Committee investigation defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to claim his Constitutional privilege to refuse to incriminate himself. Under the then state of the law defendant did not obtain any immunity and his admissions could be used against him legally in the criminal trial. United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Comm'r of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 113, 47 S. Ct. 302, 71 L. Ed. 560; United States v. Murdock, 248 U.S. 141, 148, 52 S. Ct. 63, 76 L. Ed. 210; Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 370-371, 71 S. Ct. 438, 95 L. Ed. 344.
It is our opinion that the weight of the evidence supports the verdict.
An appropriate order will be entered denying the motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial.