The Wilmington morning star., 1947-10-31
AS Pegler Sees It
BY WESTBROOK PEGLER
Copyright, 1947, By King Features

WASHINGTON, Oct. 80 - Some of our
courts ave built up a rule which pro-
tects in their treachery those actual enc
mics of the United States who are Com
munists but deny that they are. 1t is ironi-
cal that patriotic judges should shield men
whom they surely regard as anti-Ameri-
can conspirators when they could rule the
other way. Nevertheless, some of them do.
The theory is roughly this:
Communists and fellow travellers are OBJ
jects of loathing, and actual Communists
may be excluded from some public posi-
tons. Therefore, any person who calls an
other a Communist, a fellow-traveler or
even, in some jurisdictions, a Red, may
be called upon to prove it and to pay
damages if he can't. There is a thin theory
here that the government might refuse to
employ some innocent individual merely
because someone else said he was a Com
munist. Actually anyone so excluded would
be rejected not because OF anything that
anyone else had said but because the gov
eminent had its own reliable information.
So far, the question has not reached
the Supreme court. If the court were con-
s%istent, the patriotic American citizen
might feel confident that, in due time, the
justices would stick to reasoning already
expressed and throw the Muscovites down
stairs.
There are previous decisions which seem
to promise that the patriot will be made
free to call a man a Communist who
plainly is and deliberately taunts good citi-
zens to say that he is.
In one case, Justice Frankfurter wrote
that it was harmless repartee to say that
a man was a Fascist, with malicious in
tent to damage his reputation and destroy
his business When there was absolutely no
ground for the charge.
Here, a racket union had tried to compel
a pair Of Industrious Graeco-Americans,
who had a little restaurant, to hire union
members to do work which they did them
selves. TIL union picketed the place with
false statements that any customer who
patronized it was guilty of promoting
Fascism. That does seem so silly that you
might justify the courts decision hat the
remarks were just juvenile pickering. But
when you reflect that a teamster or a
tailor might be blackballed from coast to
coast for crossing a picket line and pa
tronizing Fascists, you think again. This
union intended these slogans to hurt. 1t
just because nobody really believed them.
In many other cases, the boss vermin of
the union racket have placarded premises
with lies which the public knew to be
lies. And when 1900 900 customers quit in
fear of punishment as scabs, the prepos-
ferrous hurts as much as the truth. Still
the Supreme court called these little white
lies.
Recently, when the Thomas Committee
on Un-American Activities took testimony
on Communism in Hollywood, the general
public heard for the first time who the
traitors were who lave been needing
propaganda into the films and blackballing
from the business many a good Ameri-
can. incidentally, 1 hope some way may
be found to make some amend to Patter-
son McNutt. a first-class movie writer who
fought in France in the first war and was
driven out of Hollywood two years ago,
sick and beaten after a long, lone siege.
Like the %stiletto this treacherous European
weapon strikes unseen and makes no
sound. McNutt had fought the reptilian
sneaks of the guilds and he was whispered
out at the top of his ability while the
Eislers and other migrate refugees rode in
chaiSeS.
This hearing of the Thomas committee
gave the papers and the radio their first
free opportunity to print names. It was
the first time they had been mentioned in
sworn testimony. Even when a citizen in
formal public debate unguardedly calls his
opponent a Red, he may be financially
crippled or destroyed by the American
courts. The lawyers for the Communists
are well paid. The none comes from
rich contributors in Hollywood and New
York and from arbitrary assessments for
'defense funds levied by Communist UNI
ions.
Invariably, the Communists demand
enormous judgments. And, almost invari-
ably, they are mischief-makers who would
not lose face in the circle of their friends
because their friends are all the same.
Their risk of financial loss and their pro-
fessional handicap in private employ or
government service is theoretical and a
verdict of six cents would be fair in any
case. In McNutt's case, the damage was
not imaginary. They ruined him.
OuOtatiOnS