Evening star., 1948-10-01
Refusal to Prosecute

The answer of the Department OF Justice
to the demand from the Un-American
Activities Committee that 1t prosecute
certain individuals for violation OF the
Espionage Act runs along two lines
It's first contention is that there is no
competent proof" to support prosecu-
ton under Section of the Espionage Act
(The committee had also contended that
prosecution might be instituted under
Section 4, the conspiracy section OF the
law
The question of whether there is COM
petent proof to support prosecution Is
a matter of judgment. The lawyers in the
Department of Justice are entitled to their
opinion, and if they sincerely believe that
the evidence is lacking, then they are right
in not seeking indictments against the
persons named by the committee.
There is ample reason, however, to
disagree with the position taken by the
department, especially in the case involv-
ing the two former atomic scientists. The
testimony there was not "hearsay," as the
statement issued by the Department OF
Justice implies. On the contrary, the COM
mittee's recommendations in that case
were based on the direct testimony OF one
of the scientists involved, who told how
he had been approached by the other
scientist and requested to meet with
known Soviet espionage agent, or the
arrangement made for Identification OF
the agent when the meeting should occur,
and of the highly suspicious details OF the
meeting when finally held. 1t is significant
ofI, involved
when called before the committee in closed
session, refused to testify on the ground
they might incriminate themselves. There
is very strong reason to believe that this
amounted to a conspiracy in violation OF
the Espionage Act. 1t is case Whlcn
might or might not have stood up in~court,
but it is perfectly absurd to suggest, as
the department does, that in demanding
prosecution the House committee was ask
ing it to engage in witch hunt" Tnere
is every indication that this affair, whether
provable or not, was a genuine and serious
attempt at espionage.
The other aspect of the departments
answer is a political attack on the Un-
American Committee. One would have to
be exceedingly naive to suppose that the
committee is not making what political
capital it can out of It's investigation. But
precisely the same thing is true OF President
Truman's attack on the committee and
of the departments statement. to the
extent that it is political. And 1t is hard
to see why any one should be unduly
excited about this. 1t is nonsense for the
department to talk about this being con-
trary to our democratic system" In the
last analysis, the Department OF Justice,
and all other agencies of Government, are
accountable to the people. The department
cannot expect to put itself beyond the
reach of inquiry, nor can it take the posi-
ton that it's explanation of its decisions,
especially in a matter of this kind, must
be accepted without question.
The department is within its rights IN
refusing to prosecute suspected espionage
agents if 1t thinks the evidence does not
warrant prosecution. But it has no valo
reason to complain because the soundness
of that decision is being submitted to the
Judgment of the electorate.