Evening star., 1948-10-09
The Police Power Explained

To the Editor Of The Star:
Dorothy Thompson has come to the rescue
of the Justice Department in its current battle
with the House Committee on Un-American
Activities. She takes the position that the
committee is approaching precariously the
methods of totalitarian peoples tribunals"
which interpret legal codes according to the
states political objectives.' She goes on to
suggest that sympathy may not be misplaced
wnen it is directed toward persons who raise
the issue of civil rights, even though they be
Communists.
All of which goes to prove that an excellent
coumnist can fall into error in trying to mix
principle with matters legal. Miss Thompson
is not to be blamed exclusively for falling into
the trap that has ensnared many other per-
sons with little knowledge of the law. If any
group of conservative lawyers permits itself to
be outmaneuvered into the Bill of Rights issue
without recalling the principle of police power,
that may prove that the Communists have
the more able lawyers but not that the conser-
vative legalists are supreme authorities, as this
coumnist seems to think.
Limitation Of Personal Freedom.
The power Of the state to protect the public
against the abuse OF individual liberty Is known
as the police power"
ment Of its analogy to an ancient British
statute of that name, is a declaration Of certain
principles borrowed by the American people
from English common law
In the United States the Bill of Rights, as
part of the Constitution, was ratified by act Of
the people in the exercise Of their sovereign
power, and by exercise of that same power the
people can revoke the Bill of Rights, either in
whole or in part Moreover in the exercise Of
their function as interpreters Of the Con-
stitution, the courts in this democratic COM
munity have not only the authority but the
duty Of declaring that Interpretation which &C
cords to and expresses the will of the people.
In the final analysis ours is government by
the people, not by abstract principles. More
over, when the people overrule a principle
usually it turns out not that the people were
wrong but that the principle was unsound.
If we do not believe in the supremacy of the
people, we do not believe in democracy.
Neglect of the principle of democracy mis-
leads many otherwise careful thinkers into
the fallacy of confusing law and justice. Law
does not consist in principles. Law IS and
always has been the instrument of the ruling
power, which in this country, thank God, is
the people. The Constitution, the Bill of
Rights, the statutes enacted by Congress, the
courts, and the executive departments, are in
struments of the people That our law largely
is coincident with justice is an adventitious
phenomenon, ascribable to the common sense
and uprightness Of the American people, but it
is not an inherent relationship dependent
upon some divine order, for law is not always
justice and principle as witness the laws Of
Nazi Germany. 1t is closer to the truth to say
that law is government.
An Essential Governing Force.
Police power Is an essential element in all
orderly government. On it depends the Sc
curity of society, and the safety of the indi-
vidual. This power can be and is legally exer-
cised by Congress where the public welfare
is involved or the national safety is threatened
OF necessity and by its very nature. the police
power infringes on private rights and interests
The constitutional guarantees such as free
speech do not confer immunity from the ex
ercise of police power.
In conducting investigations into espionage,
unlawful and traitorous acts, the principle of
the police power is transcendent over the prin-
ciple of individual immunities. In brief, the
safety Of all is more important and essential
than the privacy Of few individuals.
SUBSCRIBER