Evening star., 1934-11-19

The decision Of the United States
Supreme Court that Senator Huey
Long must stand trial on a charge
of libel will be a warning to legis-
latorS that there are limits to con-
gressional immunity, in the opinion
of newspaper observers. The decision
is expected to Nave a salutary effect
upon the language employed by mem
bers Of Congress.
Freedom of speech, says the
United States Supreme Court, does
not become license to libel, even when
draped by the cloak of congressional
immunity" is the way the New York
World Telegram interprets the courts
decision, and the New Orleans Times
Picayune declares that mo fair
minded American will question the
equity and justice of this ruling"
ITO leave a victim of inflammatory
congressional denunciation without
any chance to defend himself in
courts" believes the Kalamazoo
Gazette. would be just about as un-
reasonable, unjust and un-American
as anything could be-" and the
Pontiac (Mich) Daily Press asserts
that the United States Supreme
Court has rendered the country a
distinct service in its decision" To
the Indianapolis News it seems that
''the ruling already has done much to
mark the limitations of license as
distinguished from freedom of speech" ,"
while the Grand Rapids Press re-
marks that Senator Long and Huey
Long are not the two separate persons
that he thought they were"
Few people will sympathize with
the rough-talking Kingfsh, who first
dared the general to sue him and
then claimed immunity from suit,
says the Oklahoma News, while the
st. Cloud Daily Times states: "Huey
boasted: I do not claim any privilege
from this man anywhere under Gods
living SUM- But when the suit was
started Huey recanted and claimed
that he could not be sued because
he was a member of the United
States Senate"
ANY remarks made by a Repre-
sentative or Senator in Congress are
exempt under the Constitution from
being grounds for civil or criminal
prosecution in the courts" points
out the Dayton Herald. But Senator
Long is alleged to have broadcast
printed copies of his speech, and this
distribution is the basis for the suit"
The Portland Oregonian likewise is of
the opinion that, while it might
have been argued that Long could
claim and obtain immunity for utter
ances, however libelous, on the floor
of the Senate, manifestly such i'm
munity would not extend to the cir
culation by mail or other means of
the Objectionable address"
The Milwaukee Journal concludes
that "all it comes to is that Senator
or Representative may be abusive on
the floor of Senate or House, but he
must watch his step in other places"
and the Eureka (Calif) Humboldt
Times agrees, adding that "Ansell's
case has served worthy purpose in
making that point clear"
"The immunity prescribed by the
Constitution is from arrest" declares
the New York Sun. 1T was written in
at time when arrests in civil actions
were common, but it cannot cover the
service of papers in which no arrest
occurs" With this the Saginaw Daily
News concurs, while the Burlington
Uowa) Hawk-Eye Gazette explains
that ''in the early days it would have
been simple matter to cause the
arrest of legislators on trumped-up
charges merely to hold them long
enough to prevent their votes being
recorded" The same paper adds: But
Senators and Representatives have
formed the habit of hiding behind this
immunity clause to prevent being