Evening star., 1934-11-06
LONG LIBEL CASE
MAY CURB ABUSE
Supreme Court Ruling to
Affect Congressional
Immunity.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.


Government by undertaking and by
demagoguery that attacks personal
and professional regulations under the
cloak of congressional immunity may
have been materially curtailed as
consequence of a decision OF the Su-
preme Court of the United States just
handed down.
The highest court held that Senator
Long Of Louisiana must stand trial for
an alleged libelous attack on Gen. An
sell. The court does not say that the
speech delivered by Mr.. Long was Ii
belous. 1t doesn't pass on the merits
of the case at all. but holds merely
that the Louisiana Senator must stand
trial.
1t so happens that Mr.. Long was not
content to make his remarks in the
Senate-something for which, under
the Constitution he could not be taken
to taSk-but he actually republiShed
the speech and circulated it through
the mails If, therefore, the state
ments in the speech are held in the
forthcoming trial to have been libel,
Senator Long may have to answer to
the charge of having circulated a Ii
belous document.
Republication Is Issue.
Many members of Congress feel that
they can say what they please on the
floor and that they cannot be sued.
But the question raised by the Su-
preme Court now is whether repub-
lication Of libelous statement is an
offense, particularly if member of
the
printing and circulation Of the re-
marks.
Newspapers and periodicals have
long been neld immune from damage
because they printed official proceed
ings, but the new decision raises
question as to how far strictly libelous
attacks made in the course of public
debates may be reprinted.
There can BE- no doubt that many
members of Congress in the past have
called witnesses before congressional
committees and asked them questions
which have injured their business or
professional regulations and that
many of the sensational investigations
have been undertaken with a view to
undertaking prominent persons.
1t has been apparent, on the other
hand, that without this congressional
power to inquire and investigate,
many evidences of wrong doing would
not be disclosed and the public in
terest would not be served by suppress
sion. There were years in the early
part of this century when periodicals
risked libel suits to do what the con-
gressional committees do in exposing
wrong doing.
So the question probably will hinge
on whether the circulation of an at
tack on an individual was or was not
necessary to the conduct of hearing
or investigation In numerous in
stances it probably has not been nee
essary.
Certainly the Supreme Courts de-
cision will tend to have restraining
effect on the vocabularies of some of
the statesmen in the National Capital
who have hitherto felt they could say
integrity and remain immune from
suit.
Long in Novel Situation.
For a long time anything that
Senator or Representative said has
been considered privileged to print.
The latest decision casts some doubt
on this point and indicates that Sen
ators and Representatives may be sub
ject to civil suits, and if they are liable
it may also be held that perhaps those
who circulate liberous attacks would
be similarly subject to suit.
Nothing has been settled as to the
merits of the alleged libel But the
fact that Senator Long must defend
himself in civil suit is a novel situ-
alton for any member of the Upper
House. There has been no suit of this
kind for many years.
incidentally, it has been argued by
some lawyers that statements issued
by executive officials of the Govern
ment, casting reflections on companies
or businesses, may make those Of
ficials subject to suit and damages,
and it would not be surprising if the
whole subject of using official positions
to attack the integrity of individuals
and companies may not furnish some
interesting sequels Of the Huey Long
case.
tcopyrisht 19349