Evening star., 1948-03-21
Questioning Communists

majority of the United States Court
of Appeals has come to the fortnight
conclusion that Congress has the right to
ask witnesses before its committees
whether they are Communists or believers
court also ruled that witnesses who refuse
to answer such questions can properly be
punished for contempt.
The decision of the court was made in
the case of Edward K. Barsky and his
associates in the governing body of an
organization known as the Joint Anti
Fascist Refugee Committee. Barsky and
the others were convicted in the District
Court for contempt after they refused to
produce certain records sought by the
House Committee on Un-American Activ-
tiles. The appellate court, however. did
not confine its ruling to the issues raised
by the defiance of the committee subpoena,
but went on to examine the larger issue
of free speech which had been raised by
the defendants.
Agreeing that the proper balancing of
the right Of free speech against the right
of Congress to investigate is difficult and
delicate" the judges nevertheless resolved
the pertinent doubts in favor of Congress
The theory of the defense was that the
congressional investigation restricts free
dom of speech by uncovering and publiciz-
ing expressions of unpopular views, and
since such exposure might result in social
ostracism or economic penalties, according
to the defense point of view, the effect is
to suppress or restrict free expression Of
unpopular views.
There may be some basis for this, but
the court held, and properly so, that the
right of Congress to investigate threats to
the security of the Nation is superior to any
constitutional right of an individual to be
protected from embarrassment arising
from exposure of the fact that he holds
unpopular views, such as belief in COM.
munism. The majority opinion, written by
Associate Justice Prettyman, stated the
matter in these words:
THE prime function of government, in
the American concept, is to preserve and
protect the rights of the people. The
Congress is part of the government thus
established for this purpose. This existing
machinery of government has power to
inquire into potential threats to itself,
not alone for the selfish reason of self
protection, but for the basic reason that
having been established by the people
as an instrumentality for the protection
of the rights of the people, 1t has an
obligation to its creators to preserve
itself"
This is an eminently sensible position,
especially when one bears in mind that
the Constitution provides machinery for
any orderly change in our system of gov
ernment which the people may desire to
make. 1t is more sensible, certainly, than
the contrary viewpoint which, as prac-
tical matter, contends that the intent of
the Constitution Is to raise shield around
Communists, for example, within the pro-
lection of which they may work for the
subversion and notification Of the free
doms guaranteed by the Constitution.
The Barsky case is important because
of the degree to which it bears on the
recent effort by the House committee to
Investigate communism in Hollywood. If
the Supreme Court shares the opinion
of the Court of Appeals-and It's recent
refusal to review a similar ruling In the
Josephson case suggests that it may-the
Hollywood figures who refused to say
whether they were Communists are going
to find themselves in serious trouble.