. Berrigan v. Sigler, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 334, 475 F.2d 918 (1973). But see Sigler v. Berrigan, 410 U.S. 902, 93 S.Ct. 952, 35 L.Ed.2d 266 (1973).

. Berrigan v. Sigler, 358 F.Supp. 130 (D.D.C. 1973).

. See United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 910, 90 S.Ct. 908, 25 L.Ed.2d 91 (1970); United States v. Eberhardt, 417 F.2d 1009 (4th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 909, 90 S.Ct. 907, 25 L.Ed.2d 90 (1970). See also United States v. Berrigan, 283 F.Supp. 336 (D.Md. 1968).

.This and other conditions were identical in the cases of both parolees except for the references to different home districts, as were the other conditions usual under such circumstances. Father Philip Berrigan’s home district was Maryland; Father Daniel Berrigan’s the Southern District of New York.

. Philip Berrigan had been given permission to travel to the District of Columbia and to Los Angeles; Daniel Berrigan to Pennsylvania, Illinois, Hawaii, France, Sweden, England, Japan and Ireland.

. Jurisdiction was premised upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361 and 2201.

. 475 F.2d at 920.

. Sigler v. Berrigan, 410 U.S. 902 (1973), supra.

. Berrigan v. Sigler, 358 F.Supp. 130 (D.D.C. 1973), supra.

. It is true that in the application for Supreme Court intervention the Solicitor General emphasized procedural aspects by asserting that “[a] stay of the order of the court of appeals should therefore be granted until a hearing can be held in an orderly fashion to determine the legal and factual merits of respondents’ claims and until any appeals from the district court’s decision after such a hearing or trial can be resolved.” But the Solicitor General in his application also called attention to the view of the majority of the panel considering the restraining order that “the kind of delicate diplomatic determination [the Board had indulged in] is properly the province of the Secretary of the State”, and he argued as further ground for a stay by the Supreme Court that opportunity should be afforded for further consideration whether the Board of Parole may in fact have inadvertently made a judgment inconsistent with authoritative foreign policy considerations. There was before the district court at the time of its final decision an authoritative answer to this question supportive of the position of the Board, as hereafter will be more particularly seen. Moreover, the appellants at the time themselves regarded the ruling the Supreme Court had been requested by the Solicitor General to make as something more than merely procedural, for they requested oral argument before that court on the ground that “a stay would amount to a reversal on the merits.”

. Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 405 F.2d 1321 (1968); Ross-Whitney Corp. v. Smith Kline & French Labs., 207 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1953); Doeskin Prods., Inc. v. United Paper Co., 195 F.2d 356 (7th Cir. 1952); Chicago Great W. Ry. Co. v. Chicago Burlington & Quincy R. Co., 193 F.2d 975 (8th Cir. 1952); Benson Hotel Corp. v. Woods, 168 F.2d 694 (8th Cir. 1948). See also 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, Civil § 2962 at pp. 630-631 (1973). Cf. Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 61 S.Ct. 229, 85 L.Ed. 189 (1940), and Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America, 147 U.S.App.D.C. 193, 454 F.2d 1036 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 906, 92 S.Ct. 1609, 31 L.Ed.2d 816 (1972), involving rulings on the merits in significantly different context. Another illustration of this point may be found in Sobell v. Reed, 327 F.Supp. 1294 (S.D.N.Y. 1971), strongly relied upon by appellants on another aspect of the case (see p. 520 infra), for there a motion for preliminary injunction had been denied by the district court, its ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals and interim relief refused by a justice of the Supreme Court; yet on the merits following this, a permanent injunction was granted.

. “(2) Consolidation of hearing with trial on merits. Before or after the commencement of the hearing of an application for a preliminary injunction, the court may order the trial of the action on the merits to be advanced and consolidated with the hearing of the application. . . .” See Industrial Bank of Washington v. Tobriner, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 405 F.2d 1321 (1968), supra.

. See United States v. Washington Post Company, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 321, 446 F.2d 1322 (1971); Ibid., 144 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 446 F.2d 1327 (1971).

. Cf. New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971), affirming 446 F.2d 1327.

. While the time of the trip for which the original invitation to the Berrigans had expired, the record discloses that such invitation later was extended indefinitely. Although Daniel Berrigan’s term of parole has now expired, that of the other appellant continues.

. This is aside from the argument of the government that our prior decision was one *383which ordinarily would seek merely to maintain the status quo pending a full determination on the merits, “for which the government had less than twenty four hours to prepare argument, which was decided by this court within one day [after argument] and the execution of which was stayed by the United States Supreme Court.”

. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1968); United States v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475, 87 S.Ct. 574, 17 L.Ed.2d 526 (1967); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 85 S.Ct. 1271, 14 L.Ed.2d 179 (1965); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992 (1964); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958).

. “Appellant also asserts that the Secretary’s refusal to validate his passport for travel to Cuba denies him rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. His claim is different from that which was raised in Kent v. Dulles, supra, and Aptheker v. Secretary of State, supra, for the refusal to validate appellant’s passport does not result from any expression or association on his part; appellant is not being forced to choose between membership in an organization and freedom to travel. Appellant’s allegation is, rather, that the ‘travel ban is a direct interference with the First Amendment rights of citizens to travel abroad so that they might acquaint themselves at first hand with the effects abroad of our Government’s policies, foreign and domestic, and with conditions abroad which might affect such policies.’ We must agree that the Secretary’s refusal to validate passports for Cuba renders less than wholly free the flow of information concerning that country. While we further agree that this is a factor to be considered in determining whether appellant has been denied due process of law, we cannot accept the contention of appellant that it is a First Amendment right which is involved. For to the extent that the Secretary’s refusal to validate passports for Cuba acts as an inhibition (and it would be unrealistic to assume that it does not), it is an inhibition of action. There are few restrictions on action which could not be clothed by ingenious argument in the garb of decreased data flow.” (381 U.S. at 16-17.)

. Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 507, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992 (1964), supra, recognizes that freedom of association is itself guaranteed in the First Amendment. It must be noted, however, that the ban on travel was there struck down not because of any prospective restriction of association at the destination of the travel, but because of the overbreadth of the statute; the freedom of association referred to there was association with other members of an organization in this country which, if given up, would have avoided the application of the overly broad statutory provision.

. See Shapiro v. Thompson, supra,, n. 15, 394 U.S. at 630, n. 8; United States v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475, 481, 87 S.Ct. 574, 17 L. Ed.2d 526 (1967); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 760, n. 17, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 (1966); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 14-15, 85 S.Ct. 1271, 14 L.Ed.2d 174 (1965); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 12 L.Ed.2d 992, (1964); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125-127, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958). See also Lynd v. Rusk, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 399, 403-404, 389 F.2d 940, 944-945 (1967); Worthy v. Herter, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 153, 155, 270 F.2d 905, 907, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 918, 80 S.Ct. 255, 4 L.Ed. 186 (1959); Shachtman v. Dulles, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 287, 290, 225 F.2d 938, 941 (1955); Worthy v. United States, 328 F.2d 386, 392 (5th Cir. 1964).

. When the case was before this court preliminarily it was said “that the Parole Board’s refusal to approve appellants’ proposed visit to North Vietnam interferes with their right to travel and their First Amendment right to freedom of association”. In a very general sense the latter indication was accurate, since the prohibition of travel would as an incident involve a restriction on association. But if there were no right to travel to North Vietnam, there would be no right of association there in the constitutional sense, as rendered clear by Zemel v. Rusk, supra. We find specious the appellants’ argument that Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 92 S.Ct. 2576, 33 L.Ed.2d 683 (1972), is to the contrary, for in Mandel, it was recognized that the rights asserted in Zemel v. Rusk, were those of the passport applicant himself rather than those of the American academics who had invited the applicant to participate with them in discussion in the United States. To emphasize the contrast, the court referred to other cases which, as Zemel v. Rusk did, dealt with action or the power to control physical movement. Sobell v. Reed, 327 F.Supp. 1294 (S.D.N.Y. 1971), supra, is neither apposite on its facts nor persuasive in its generalizations going beyond them to the contrary. There the court found with considerable support in the record that the real purpose, effect and intent of a restriction against the travel of a parolee was to limit the First Amendment right of free speech and assemblage, and applied First Amendment criteria to mark the invalidity of such restriction. There is no such factual indication here.

. 18 U.S.O. § 4203 provides in part:

“(a) If it appears to the Board of Parole from a report by the proper institutional officers or upon application by a prisoner eligible for release on parole, that there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the laws, and if in the opinion of the Board such release is not incompatible with the welfare of society, the Board may in its discretion authorize the release of such prisoner on parole.

“Such parole shall be allowed in the discretion of the Board, to return to his home, or to go elsewhere, upon such terms and conditions, including personal reports from such paroled person, as the Board shall prescribe, and to remain, while on parole, in the legal custody and under the control of the Attorney General, until the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced.”

. 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.28-2.32. Section 2.28 with reference to travel by parolees provides in part as follows :

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is a general rule of the Board that a *385parolee may travel outside liis supervision district only with the prior approval of the Board. Travel outside a district without prior Board approval may be authorized by a probation officer subject to the following-described limitations

“(a) Board approval shall be required for vacation trips outside the district.

“(b) Board approval shall be required for recurring travel outside the district, except in cases involving parolees who cross district boundaries to engage in or seek employment or for shopping or recreation, if such travel is not more than 50 miles from the district line.

“(c) Board approval shall be required for travel outside the continental limits of the United States, including travel or work aboard ship.

“(d) Board approval shall be required in any case in which specific travel conditions have been imposed upon the parolee by the Board. ...”

. “ . [T]he right to travel is protected by the Constitution, being a part of the right to liberty. But the simple, succinct phrases of the Bill of Rights, indestructible protections to some of the fundamentals of our way of life, can be, and often are, expanded by rhetorical inflation beyond all semblance to the realities with which they were meant to deal.” Worthy v. Herter, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 153, 155, 270 F.2d 905, 907-908, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 918, 80 S.Ct. 255, 4 L.Ed.2d 186 (1959), supra.

. For example, the Attorney General may extend the limits of the place of confinement by a prisoner as to whom there is reasonable cause to believe he will honor his trust by authorizing him under prescribed conditions to visit specifically designated places for a period of not exceeding 30 days or to work at said employment or to participate in a training program in the community on a voluntary basis while continuing as on provisions of the institution or facility; and extensions may be granted for the reestablishment of family and community ties or for other significant reason consistent with the public interest. 18 U.S.O. § 4082 as amended. The most recent amendment continued the progress of statutory liberalization by authorizing extensions for “significant reason” in lieu of “compelling reason” as the statute formerly read. Act of Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 907 (1974).

.“ . . . With respect to travel either within the United States or outside the United States, the Parole Board recognizes the First Amendment rights of parolees. Board policy is to permit the parolee full exercise of such rights, subject to the necessary limitations that a parolee not engage, or propose to engage, in criminal conduct, or other activities clearly incompatible with the conditions of parole. In this connection, where a borderline situation is presented, the Board must perforce make an ad-hoc determination under all the known factors or circumstances of the case, whether to approve the particular travel application.

“ . . . With respect to travel outside the United States, the Parole Board policy, in the case of a parolee whose representations appear to be bona fide, and who the Parole Board considers will not abscond, is to allow such travel, subject to this exception : The Board in the exercise of its statutory discretion has determined not to permit a parolee to travel to any area where the Board totally lacks any official means of communication with the parolee in the discharge of its responsibilities, or of ascertaining, in the discharge of its responsibilities, whether activities engaged in there by the parolee are consistent with the terms of parole and in particular, the representations made to the Parole Board by the parolee in securing its approval for the travel.

“ . . . [T]he Board will not approve foreign travel to an area as to which the Secretary of State, acting within his foreign *386relations responsibilities, has determined that such travel is not in the national interest of the United States. ...”

. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 478, 483, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).

. Hyser v. Reed, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 254, 259, 318 F.2d 225, 235 (en banc), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 957, 84 S.Ct. 446, 11 L.Ed.2d 315 (1963).

. And not entirely irrelevant to public policy is the desirability of not so weakening the discretion and means for proper supervision on parole as to discourage its being granted by those having discretion in' that matter, or to discourage the support of the public for appropriate liberality in such decisions.

. 475 F.2d at 920.

. 475 F.2d at 921.

. 475 F.2d at 923.

. Parole supervision often can be exercised effectively by means other than regular *387meetings or repeated communications and, indeed, my experience indicates that some of the most effective kind does not involve frequent contacts between parolees and parole officers. Reasonable conditions themselves, and a reasonable insistence upon compliance with them, have been found of beneficial effect both with reference to a particular parolee and with respect to others as well. Equally important is the preservation of apparent means for obtaining information concerning the conduct of parolees. Moreover, while individual situations must be considered, failure to adopt a general policy keyed to the broad necessities of the parole system, could only lead to a breakdown of that system and the involvement of the Board in myriad problems of subjective differentiation. I am mindful of some deprecation of the latter consideration that could be gathered from Washington Post Co. v. Kleindienst, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 75, 494 F.2d 994 (D.C.Cir. 2/21/74), 42 U.S.L.W. 2459, affirming, 357 F.Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1972). See also Washington Post Co. v. Kleindienst, 357 F.Supp. 770 (D.D.C. 1972), ibid, 406 U.S. 912, 92 S.Ct. 1761, 32 L.Ed.2d 112 (1972), and 477 F.2d 1168 (D.C.Cir. 1973). But I deem the facts and controlling principles of the present case to be essentially different. Here the Board in the exercise of its statutory discretion had determined as a rule of general application not to permit parolees to travel to any area where the Board totally lacked any efficient means to communicate with them, to ascertain whether activities engaged in there by the parolees are consistent with the terms of parole and the representations made to the Board by the parolees in securing approval for travel, or to reestablish their custody in the event that they do engage in illegal activities. Too, the Board’s general rule recognizes, and not without reason, that to allow a parolee to go completely beyond any effective control could itself encourage violative conduct. Departure from that policy in the case of the Berrigans would have been disruptive in principle and even on the basis of subjective evaluation unjustified, in view of the fact that their strong feeling on the war and Vietnam already had led them into criminal violations. Earlier Board approval of travel to Hanoi by parolee James R. Hoffa has been referred to by appellants in implied justification for similar leave to them. The proposed trip by Hoffa was cancelled when the State Department refused to validate a passport for him and the Board then conceded that such travel had been improvidently granted. If the Hoffa episode was disruptive or an embarrassment for the parole system, the granting of similar leave to the appellants would only be a magnification of these unjustifiable effects. These are some of the considerations which impel the writer to believe that the requirements of reasonable supervision in themselves justified the denial of the requested leave as determined by the court below. 358 F.Supp. at 138-140.

. Affidavit of January 19, 1973, of appellee Sigler. This position was reaffirmed in the Board’s February 2, 1973 en banc reconsideration of appellants’ request after the Board had been informed by letter that “the Secretary of State has concluded that the proposed travel of Reverand Philip Berrigan and the Reverand Daniel Berrigan to North Vietnam is not in the national interest of the United States.” See 22 C.F.R. § 51.73

. Textile & Apparel Group v. FTC, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 353, 410 F.2d 1052, 1057, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 910, 90 S.Ct. 223, 24 L.Ed. 2d 185 (1969), relied upon by appellants to demonstrate that the Board should have disregarded the determination of the Secretary of State in reaching its decision.

. Based upon a representation of the United States Attorney at the time.

. The record contains a copy of a letter dated February 2, 1973, from Barbara M. Watson of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs of the Department of State to the Chairman of the United States Board of Parole reading: “In response to your letter of February 1, 1973, I am authorized to advise you that the Secretary of State has concluded that the proposed travel of Reverend Philip Berrigan and the Reverend Daniel Berrigan to North Viet Nam is not in the national interest of the United States.

“In reviewing the matter at your request, we have applied the criteria o£ Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 51.73.”

. “However, the second ground is ‘facially legitimate and bona fide’ within Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769-770, 92 S.Ct. 2576, 33 L.Ed 2d 683 (1972), and must be sustained.” (Dissenting opinion of Judge MacKinnon, 475 F.2d at 923-924.)

. In different context, yet with point here, this court has said that “ [t] he law presumes implied power in a government agency — unless precluded by a contrary provision expressed or clearly discernible in its organic statute — to cooperate with other government agencies concerning intermesh of jurisdiction or other matters of mutual concern.” Municipal Intervenors Group v. Federal Power Com’n., 153 U.S.App.D.C. 373, 376, 473 F.2d 84, 90 (1972).

. See opinion of the court, supra at 517.

. Berrigan v. Sigler, 475 F.2d 918, 920 (1973) (Bazelon, C. J., concurring).

. Id. at 920, 921.