Evening star., 1936-04-07
Inquisitorial Methods.

states IN It's decision IN Lne Jones case
involving the securities act did not pass
upon the constitutionality Of the law
itself. 1t did, however, slap down upon
a regulation of the Securities and Ex-
change Commission set up by the act.
And by the same token it hit devastat-
ing blow at inquisitorial methods of
Government agencies.
The Jones case involved the right Of
an individual or corporation to with
draw an application for the issuance OF
securities The Securities and Exchange
Commission had laid down regulation
declaring that once petitioner had filed
a statement and an application 1t could
not be withdrawn. j. Edward Jones,
New York dealer in oil stocks, had filed
a registration statement prior to the is
suance of securities. The commission
found fault with the statement. Jones
withdrew the statement and application
or sought to do so to put an end to the
proceedings. The commission sought to
compel him to appear and testify regard
ing the statement. The court, in its
majority opinion, held that the defendant
had a right to withdraw the statement,
since no effort had been made to issue
the securities, and that the commission
had no right to compel him to testify
regarding the statement since he had
withdrawn it.
The court held that there was no need
in this case to pass upon the conSti-
tutionality of the securities act since the
regulation of the commission to which
Jones objected could not hold water. So
this particular New Deal law, which
certainly has much in its favor, stands
as the law until a new test is brought
before the court for Interpretation OF
the law under the Constitution.
The decision of the court was 6-to-3
affair, with three of the associate justices
dissenting. The dissenting opinion, sub
scribed to by Justices Stone, BrandeiS
and Cardozo, upheld the right of the
commission to hold that registration,
once made, could not be withdrawn and
thereby prevent the commission from
calling, in this case, Jones to appear and
give testimony. "The rule now asSailed,"
said Justice Cardozo, who handed down
the dissenting opinion, was wisely con-
ceived and lawfully adopted to foil the
plans of knaves intent upon obscuring or
suppressing the knowledge Of their
knavery. The witness was under duty
to respond to the subpoena (of the
commission)."
The court held in its majority opinion,
that the commission had assumed an
arbitrary power, not conferred by the
law; that there was no precedent for
the assumption of such power, and finally
that no right of the general public was
affected by the withdrawal of the Jones
application. It contended that II the
rule of the commission were upheld, the
withdrawal of the innocent as well as
of the guilty would be denied; that
submission of the books and private
papers of the innocent could be COM
pelled as well as those Of the guilty.
The exercise of such a power, the
court held, would be more pernicious
to the innocent than useful to the public"
Clearly the court had in its decision, no
desire to shield the guilty. 1t decided
the case against the commission because
it felt that 1t must uphold the three
protective rights of the individual-that
against compulsory self-accusation, that
against unlawful searches and seizures
and that against unlawful inquisitorial
investigation"
It may be argued that the commission
has right to pursue the guilty; that
the end justifies the means, and that the
means to bring to exposure and justice
the criminal and the fraud are justified.
Such an argument was used in other
days to uphold inquisition. And such
an argument seems to be creeping into
the minds of Government agencies to-
day. The action of the Black committee
of the Senate recently when it went on
q 1lSIllIlk CApCNAt1OIA 4AAVO SAAS SAAAS~S -
the telegraph companies and demanded
that the messages sent by certain critics
of New Deal legislation be turned over
to the Senate committee is case IN
point. The fact that, after the COM
mittee had withdrawn subpoena under
which it had seized telegram and then
the chairman of the committee handed
over the telegram in question to mem
ber of the House to make public, is an
indication of the lengths to which these
inquisitorial methods may go-all under
the assumption that the end justifies the
means.
The decision of the Supreme Court in
the Jones case will be scanned particu-
larly in the light of the contention of the
Black committee that it is entitled to 60
into the files of the telegraph companies
for whatever purpose it desires. 1t is not
likely that the committee will obtain
much satisfaction from the views of the
court as just expressed.
-eRe&A