Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1943-12-04
Letters to the Editor
But Is Arrangement Time
The Real Issue

D1s ~ hlIhABHH1CHl lime
The Real Issue?
To the Editor Of The Star:
Regarding your editorial on the Nc
Nabb decision Saturday, November 81,
beg to disagree with your conclusion.
Too often a person is arrested and
held for questioning" or for investi-
cation, for the purpose of questioning.
No formal charges is entered against
him, yet If he desires to leave, he is
restrained-unlawfully He may be held
for two or three days, sometimes in
communicate, and his request for an
attorney to be present at such ques-
tioning almost uniformly is denied, I'M
less he happens to be afluent Only if
his family or friends get word of his
detention may action be started-habeas
corpus-to free him or to force the ar
resting authorities to bring charge
against him. AS practicing attorney,
often have seen this to be the case.
Certainly, such tactics Of unlawful
detention-nowhere authorized in the
statutes-should be discouraged every
where, and most of all, in our Federal
prosecution and criminal court system,
since the Federal courts often set the
example for State courts and State and
local criminal proceedings.
Is it not, therefore, possible that the
Federal Supreme Court had some such
idea in mind-to give the accused" the
legal status OF an accused person be-
lore subJecting him to arbitrary deten-
ton and questioning, which heretofore
has been winked at by courts, although
no legal justification for the same can
be found? ROBERT L. BOYCE, Jr.
To the Editor of The Star:
1t has not been often that I have
found myself in agreement with the
views OF Justice Felix Frankfurter of the
United States Supreme Court, but I
must confess that the longer he is on
the court the more I like his legal phi
losophy. His decision in the McNabb
case illustrates my change of viewpoint.
After recovering from the first mental
shock in that decision, find myself
more in agreement with it the more
study it
OF course, the decision may not be
orthodox. Statements made by q person
under arrest before he is brought before
committing magistrate heretofore have
been held to be admissible to prove his
guilt even ii he were not brought before
the magistrate within reasonable time,
as required by law. The Federal statutes
do not specifically provide that such
statements may or may not be used in
these circumstances. Therefore, in hold
Ing that such statements may not be
used, the Supreme Court may have re-
sorted to judicial legislation, but there
is nothing new in that; the court always
has done the same on occasions, the only
difference between the present and for
mer courts in this respect being in the
eagerness with which the present court
tries to Guido Congress in establishing
new laws.
1t hardly seems just that what a per-
son says while he is being detained in
Jail under arrest and while he is being
denied his legal right TO appear imme-
diately before the magistrate should be
used against him. We pride ourselves
on saying that every person charged
with crime shall be presumed to be
innocent until he is proved to be guilty,
that he shall be entitled to a speedy
and public trial before jury, that he
may not be compelled to testify against
himself, that he shall have a right to be
confronted by the witnesses against him.
that he shah have . right to secure