The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-10-13
A Government of Laws

We are fond of saying that we have government of laws, not government of men. What do we mean by that? We mean simply that we are governed by laws passed by the peoples representa- tives, and that those laws, being passed, apply to all alike. We contrast this with government by men, wherein a single ruler, be he emperor, czar, or fuehrer, imposes his will on single individuals whether they have violated any laws or not Some maintain that this govern ment by laws, not by men, is the key- stone of free government. It is such be- cause it leaves the individual free except for such restrain as has been applied on equal terms to all others.
 There has been considerable talk about loss of our liberties The presumption has always been that the executive de- partment of the government would some how uSurp them. But may liberties not be lost through the legislative branch? On June 13, 1940, the House of Repre- sentativeS overwhelmingly passed bill, 330 to 42, whose sole aim was to provide the deportation of one man, Harry Bridges. On Oct. 6, without word of debate, the House again passed an identi- cal bill, the Senate having failed to act on the first. Bridges west coast c. l. o. leader, has been clearly shown to hold so- cial views repugnant to the great major ity of the American people. He has been shown to have worked in close collabora- ton with Communists, and to have fol- lowed, in the main, their "line" Re- pugnant as all that is to most Americans, 1t is not in itself a violation of existing law.
 The U. S. Constitution, Article l, Sec- tion 9, paragraph 3, says: No bill of at tainer or ex post facto law shall be passed" A bill of attainer is an old Eng fish device dating from Tudor days for the punishment of political offenSes with out resort to ordinary judicial procedure It took away from the accused whatever rights he had in courts of law, and con- victed him by direct parliamentary ac- ton. It was used by arbitrary kings to dispose of people who had incurred the royal displeasure, even though they had violated no existing laws.
 Whether the action against Bridges in the House violates the Constitutional pro- hibition against bills of attainer it re- mains for competent judicial authority to say. To layman 1t looks perilously close -close enough to warrant careful exami- nation when the bill comes before the Senate All this is not in defense of Bridges. Perhaps Bridges should be de- ported. If he has violated the law in such way as to make himself liable to the penalty of deportation, then on con- viction in a regular court he should be deported. If there is no law which now touches the activities in which he has en- gagged, and Congress believes such activi- ties be illegal, let it pass such law.
 But to single out one individual for a special act of the national legislature is a most dangerous precedent. If any in- dividual whom any Congress deems un- desirable may be deported by special act, then there is no reason why some future Congress may not similarly deport Father Coughlin, Albert Einstein, or Tom Gird- Ter, or you, or me. It might prove more important to preserve government of general law applicable to all on equal terms, than to get rid of Harry Bridges.