(concurring).
The court’s opinion, to which I subscribe, calls to mind my statement in Quinn v. United States that a “conclusive presumption of intent to violate the statute might attach to a naked refusal to answer, i. e., a refusal without a statement, at the time, of the reason therefor.”1 The present decision illustrates an implicit limitation on the application of that principle. It makes clear that no such presumption would attach to a refusal to answer a question not shown to be “pertinent to the question under inquiry.”
. 91 U.S.App.D.C. 344, 203 F.2d 20, 33. (Emphasis supplied).