Evening star., 1934-06-24
Continued From First Page.)

than the rule for witness before a
committee to be represented by coun-
sci. It seldom is allowed. AS a>recent
slaring example, former Senator Reed
OF Missouri, skilled in the catch-aS-
catch-can of legislative hearings, was
not permitted to act as attorney for
Or. Writ.
Time was when witness was per-
mitted to read an opening brief. This
Is seldom permitted now. 1t is ac-
cepted occasionally for the printed
record, meaning that it is tossed un-
read to the official stenographer, but
as frequently it is spurned. Instead,
questions are Immediately fired at
him, while the cameramen sporadlcal-
" continue to shoot" and the micro
phones, if in use, carry the proceed
ings over the country.
Meanwhile, agents of the Senate
may swoop down upon the offices OF
the witness and without search war
rants ransack his files for evidence.
Suchs happened, for example. in the
proceedings against William p Mac
Cracken Indeed, his attorney, Frank
]. Hogan, was not permitted to con-
fer alone with his client while the
search was in progress. He had to
escort his client to another lawyers
Office to obtain privacy.
incidentally. the sentencing of
MacCracken to 10 days in jail for
contempt of the Senate and the ac-
ceptance of an appeal of his case by
the United States Court of the Dis
trict Of Columbia paves the way for
legal test of far-reaching impor-
tance. In this case the Senate has
raised in definite form, uneXampled
heretofore, the question of its right
not only to try citizens for alleged
violations of its orders, but actually
to punish them Immediately upon con-
victing them.
There is no previous Supreme Court
decision in which this question has
been determined. Should the court
hold that the Senate was within its
rights in trying and sentencing Mac
Cracken, the Senate's power of inves-
tigation will be greatly strengthened.
Few persons would be inclined to re-
sist that body's demand for verbal
information or records.
There is a violation of established
practice more pertinent than any pre-
viously outlined If a witness has
consulted with his attorney In ad-
vance of the hearing and the COM
mittee, learns of it, then the lawyer
may be called before the committee
and made to tell everything his client
has divulged to him, whether con-
fidential or not. However startling
this assertion may be to the legal
profession, however contradictory it
may be to court practice, it is the
procedure before the Senate. Under
the conception Senators have of their
authority, there is little alternative
for the attorney. Should he refuse
to comply with the demands made
upon him, he is liable to be charged
with contempt.
If all this seems to be high-handed
procedure, mind you it is not new to
Washington. Unusual proceedings
have been enacted at one end or the
other of the Capitol for years But,
II they are not new, today they have
become much more frequent and more
glaring. Congress would do little but
hear contempt cases if all were
brought to final action. The major
ity are ignored.
Time and again witnesses have been
guilty of contempt. Some have been
extremely theatrical Take an Incl
dent of years ago that still fingers in
our memory, when Charles G. Dawes,
later to be Vice President and Am
bassador to Great Britain made his
famous Hell and Maria speech. His
may have been regarded by some
as case of contempt His vocabu-
larry stunned the members before
whom he was appearing They list
ened spellbound as he tongue-lashed
them-and let him go his way with
something akin to reverence.
More recently a District assessor
jumped down the throat (fguratively
speaking) Of the committee before
which he had been summoned. He
attacked them. He paid his respects
to Congress. But he was not hailed
for contempt. Instead, he passed from
the scene almost unnoticed.
This type Of witness is likely to es-
cape. 1t is the witness lacking in
combative qualities or suspected of
wrongdoing who is put to the test. If
he does not break under it, and the
subject is deemed of sufficient i'm
portance for further investigation,
then he Is brought up for contempt
not in court of law, but before a
political body which now claims here
tofore uncontemplated quasi judicial
functions.
The members of the political party
to be benefited may play upon the
incident to the full extent of their
indignation. They can say anything
and everything they wish-under the
cloak of senatorial immunity-with-
out fear of redress
The Senate pulsates with indiena-
ton when an individual has the
temerity to disregard its command to
talk, especially if he is suspected OF
Withholding damaging information.
Offenders against senatorial preroga-
tlves may be held up to public ridicule
without redress, as the Senate now
proposes to punish them for their
ways without appeal to any higher
tribunal. Even convicted murderer
can carry his case into the highest
courts and in his extremity appeal
for clemency to the Governor of his
State or the President of his country.
Not so the contempt victim, in the
senatorial view, who may be thrust
into the bastile with the Senate doing
the thrusting.
With all of this, there has been
some progress, as there has been some
retrogression. Some investigations
have served useful purposes; some have
done harm A decade has passed
since the power of investigation was
effectively established with the oil
scandals the motivating power. Harry
r. Sinclair then defied the Senate:s
Investigating Committee He ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court. That
tribunal sustained the Senate's au-
thority. In consequence, Sinclair
served a term in Jail for comtemp.
There has been no question since
then as to the power of Senate COM
nittee to call witnesses or to force
them to testify, providing the infor-