Evening star., 1948-08-20
Citizens RIGHTS and the Nations S


rights OF the individual is a natural and
proper one. But he has cause to be
equally concerned over the security risks
involved In trying to strike safe balance
between rights of citizen and the right
of the Nation to protect itself against sub
versive acts by citizen.
In our past efforts to surround the
individual with every constitutional safe
guard against injustice, we have gravely
complicated the task of prosecuting and
convicting persons who endanger the
national defense. 1t has been reported,
without official confirmation, that the
Federal grand jury in New York was dis
suaded from indicting certain persons in
the current spy inquiry because OF the
difficulty of proving guilt under present
espionage laws Whether or not this was
the case, it is true enough that 1t Is far
harder to convict person under our laws
than 1t is, for example, in Canada.
A comparison between the laws of the
two countries is interesting, in view of
the sharp contrast between the handling
of spy cases in Canada and in the United
States. The big difference between the
lies in the little word 'intent" in the
United States statute. To indict and con-
vict person for espionage here the Gov
ernment must produce conclusive proof
that the offense was committed with in
tent or reason to believe" that this Nation
would be injured or q foreign nation
benefited. While it may be relatively easy
to prove that Government employe de-
livered confidential information to an
agent of foreign power, trying to prove
that the employees intent was treasonable
Is something else.
Canada's espionage laws were similarly
difficult of enforcement prior to passage
of its Official Secrets Act of 1885, That
act is far-reaching, indeed. The Royal
Commission which exposed the Russian
spy ring in Ottawa pointed out, in this
connection, that "the disclosure of secret
or confidential information to a foreign
power is a subject which is not regarded
either here or in England as on a level
with what may be called ordinary domestic
offenses. Special provisions are
deemed necessary"
Among the special provisions" is this
one: "On a prosecution under this sec
ton, it shall not be necessary to show
that the accused person was guilty of any
particular act tending to show a purpose
prejudicial to the safety or interests of
the state, and, Notwithstanding that no
such act is proved against him, he may
be convicted it, from the circumstances of
the case, or his conduct, or his known
character as proved, it appears that his
purpose was prejudcial to the safety or
interests of the state" Thus has Canada
disposed of the "intent' issue. Further
more, the Canadian law actually puts the
burden of proof on the defendant. 1t holds
that unless he proves to the contrary"
he is guilty under the act If "he has,
either within or without Canada, visited
the address Of an agent of a foreign power
or consorted or associated with such
agent" or even If the name and address
of such known agent is found on his
person.
1t is understandable, in the light of the
foregoing, why Canada succeeded in OBJ
tanning the conviction of so many of the
persons exposed by the commission We
have not found 1t necessary in the past to
go that far here. But there is, nonetheless
serious question whether we in the
United States have not gone too far in
trying to reconcile the Bill of Rights with
measures for national security in the face
of new techniques by new enemies Surely
the rights of all the people, as vested in
the Government, are entitled to as much
protection as the rights of any citizen.