Evening star., 1947-10-30
Film Figures Silence
On Red Affiliations
Held Legal B|under
Committee of Congress
May Ask and Citizens
Must Answer Questions
Bv David Lawrence

alleged communists by the House
Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties. Up to a few days ago, it didn't
look as if the committee had un-
covered much or that it was on a
hot trail. 1t seemed that the in
vestiration would fail for lack Of
proof.
Then the radical fringe which
sometimes loses itself in an emo
tional outburst that impairs Its
judgment made a blunder. Some
one told the Hollywood folks o1
the pinkish variety that they didn't
have to testify and that they coulo
legally refuse to say whether or not
they are Communists or Communist
sympathizers. At this point the
radical brethren ran head into the
basic principles of our constitutional
system and aroused Immediately g
suspicion that they have something
to conceal or don't have the courage
to stand by their convictions.
What they didn't know evidently
is that it has been we'll settled by
court decisions that committee OF
Congress NAV ask a citizen any
question and the citizen must
answer unless he has committed a
crime and in answering the question
might tend to give testimony against
himself.
Need Not Say "Why."
1t doesn't matter whether a con-
gressionaI committee is or is not
ready to say why it wants the
information. The courts have ruled
that Congress may need information
in order to determine how and
what to legislate and that hence
there can be no curb on the quest for
information by a legislative COM
mittee.
Unless congressional committees
have such power, our whole system
of government would be weakened
because legislative bodies would be
defed when they sought informa-
ton on prices or profits or labor
relations or any other of the vital
subjects on which public opinion
might demand legislation.
Now this Is not to say that con-
gressional committees are fair. They
rarely have been impartial and
they have smeared many a reputa-
ton without legitimate cause. Some
OF these same radical brethren
cheered loudly when New Deal COM
mittees of Congress smeared busi-
nessmen and when the New Deal
chieftain made his fireside talks
accusing businessmen of malprac-
tices without distinguishing between
the few who might accurately be
so described and the many who were
being unjustly denounced by in
nuendo and otherwise.
There Is only one defense against
the unfairness of the publicity de-
rived from congressional COM
mittees attack That is a barrage
of truth and courageous answer.
The people who refuse to testify
are their, own worst enemies, for
they tend to convict themselves In
the court of public opinion. 1t is
lawful for a citizen to proclaim
himself a Communist. Congress
may some day legislate on the sub
ject, but it hasn't so far. Just why
any one who is sincerely addicted to
the communistic philosophy should
hesitate to avow 1t is a puzzle.
But. by the same token, 1t falls
with i'll grace on a fair minded
public for the Communist sympa-
thizer to defy our constitutional law
and claim immunity under the free
speech clause of the Constitution.
Restraints Under Law.
The free-speech clause does not
give everybody the right to say any,
thing he or she pleases. The laws of
libel and SANDER furnish a whole
some restraint. Nor does it protect
any citizen from the inquisitorial
function of Government, which at
least is out In the open and not
characterized by the physical CO.
ercion, intimidation or bludgeonine
which witnesses undergo in certain
country whose system the Com
munists profess to revere and are
by inference asking America to
adopt.
1t is very unfair also that men,
bers of both houses of Congress are
protected under the Constitution
from being sued for libel or SANDER
for what they may say on the floor
of either house or in committees,
but no liberal has yet come out in
favor of repeal of that provision
of the Constitution. There is only
one remedy for that sort of unfair
ness when practiced by members of
Congress. 1t is to dare the member
to repeat his remarks outside of
Congress and prove his statements
to a jury in a suit for libel or
slander.
There are many things about our
constitutional system which bring
unfairness, and methods of commit
tee investigation by Congress are
among them. But whoever refuses
to testify because he doesn't like
the question will get scant sympathy
from a fair-minded public. In Amer
lea questions are asked by Congress
and every one has the right of reply
and the right to denounce the ques-
tion and the questioner. but the in
formation must be forthcoming or
the person who refuses to furnish it
goes to jail if charge of contempt
is sustained. That's the constitu-
tional law of America today. If any
of the radicals are interested, they
might learn that Parliament in Brit
ain and other democracies require
the same respect for parliamentary
questioning.
Reproduction Rights Reserved