Evening star., 1936-03-21
FREEDOM Of PRESS
IS SEEN At STAKE.
Black Committees Wire
Tactics ViSioned as Pro-
found Threat.
RY DAVID LAWRENCE.

the press shall be maintained IN
America transcends in Importance
any other aspect of public policy to-
day, for if the encroachment is not
repudiated then the rights Of the citi-
zen to other constitutional guarantees
will be similarly impaired.
In its simplest form the question
has been raised Three publishers of
newspapers in widely separated parts
of the country have had their private
messages seized by what is plainly an
unlawful method, judging by Supreme
Court precedents. The privacy which
has for so long a time attached to
kilograms has been cast aside by q
Senate committee.
The Federal communications act
and other laws make it a Federal
offense to disclose the contents Of
messages except ION lawful authority"
Employees of the Federal Communlca-
tions Commission, acting on orders
from members of the commission,
surrendered private messages without
questioning the legality of the request
of a Senate committee.
lZ,UUU messages OOpleu.
But even though some $4,000 tele-
grams were copied by Senate COM
mittee representatives with the CO.
operation Of the Federal Communlca-
tions Commission, the question arises
whether the Senate committee had
right to turn over any message so
obtained to any person outside the
a copy Of one of these private mes
sages was transmitted to member
Of the House of Representatives.
Elisha Hanson, general counsel for
various newspaper publishers. insists
in a motion filed in the District Su-
preme Court that the Senate commit
tee violated the law and SO did the
Federal Communications Commission
employees in turning over private
messages to outside persons.
1t is not a question Of what the
messages contained because in one
instance the telegram was COM
munication between publisher and
his Washington correspondent. AS
subsequently disclosed, the member OF
the House who was mentioned in the
telegram took offense at the charges
and made a speech about it, thus
making the telegram public. Had this
not been done, the public would not
have been aware that this particular
attack had been made on the mem
Der. So the issue now turns on what
right the Senate committee had in
transmitting to an outside person a
copy of telegram it had obtained in
its own inquiry.
There is, moreover, the point that
q Judge in the District Supreme Court
had a week ago ruled that the sub
poena under which the Senate COM
mittee had obtained copies Of its tele-
grams was unlawful. In the face
of this opinion from the bench, the
Senate committee went ahead with
the transmission Of the copy Of the
message to a member Of tht House.
This means the beginning of con-
siderable litigation of importance to
all the people who believe in the con-
stitutional guarantee Of the freedom
of the press. Senator Black of Ala
bama, chairman Of the Senate Lobby
Committee, told the Senate on Friday
that If injunctions were going to be
granted against Senate committees, it
would mean they could be enjoined
against getting evidence. But that is
precisely what the Supreme Court has
said again and again, that no such
unlimited right to seek evidence has
been granted. The judicial power,
the right to enforce Federal statutes
and conduct Investigations into viola
tions of existing laws, is not vested in
either house of Congress but in the
courts, where action is to be taken
following the presentation of evidence
secured in the usual way through the
Offices Of the United States district
attorneys.
Usage Makes No Law.
1t has been contended in the Senate
that the subpoena used by the Lobby
Committee is virtually the same as
has been used for many years. But
this does not make it lawful or con-
stitutional. Chief Justice Taft once
said, with reference to this point, that
the fact that a law had not been
challenged in the courts was not to
be taken as a confirmation Of its
validity.
The chief difficulty with the Senate
Lobby Committees subpoenas Is that
they have not particularized or shown
how the information sought Is per-
tinent to an inquiry or how the pro-
posed legislation on which information
Is sought comes within the constitu-
tional power of the Senate. Thus
there is no power in the Senate or
in the House, or in both together, to
pass any laws abridging or curtailing
the freedom of the press. Interfer-
ence in the communication between
publisher and correspondent and the
making public of private messages
relating to the editorial conferences
of newspaper men is plainly an at
tempt at abridgement of the freedom
Of the press.
The prospects are that an issue OF
real magnitude will come out Of the
seizure of the kilograms. 1t Is ru-
mored that President Roosevelt is not
in sympathy with what the Senate
Lobby Committee has done but, on
the other hand, he has not manifested
any interest so far as is publicly
known in the alleged violations Of
Federal law by members or employees
of the Federal Communications Com
mission.
1t would seem probable that the
controversy over the right of privacy
of telegraphic messages would engage
the interest of citizens generally,
especially when, in the face of
Federal court decision, use is made
by members Of the Senate of tele-
grams which have been obtained by
.neans of the same subpoena that was
declared by court in another in
stance to be faulty.
Copyright. 1850
PI ANSIV NJ 6. MEETING