Evening star., 1949-07-04
Letters to The Star
Argues That Congress, Not Committees
Was Rebuked by Supreme Court
To he Editor of he

~~ ~A- ~
Argues That Congress, Not Committees,
Was Rebuked by Supreme Court
To the Editor Of The Star:
David Lawrence customarily has some
good viewpoints. But In his comments Of
June 80 he was decidedly erroneous in his
thinking with respect to the Supreme Court
Christoffel decision as it affects the opera
ton Of lawmaking.
Mr. Lawrence fears the Supreme Court Is
reaching into the legislative process to tell
the Congress how to transact business. The
fact Is that in the Legislative Reorganization
Act of 1916 public Law No. COL. 10th Con-
gress), approved August 2, 1916, the language
of Section 1873 I'D is extremely clear. 1t
reads: mo measure or recommendation shall
be reported from any such committee unless
a majority Of the committee were actually
present"
That is not rule or custom. It Is the
law! Congress through the committee dele
gated the task of examining the witness in
question and assumed the committee had
discharged it's obligation under the law prop
erly and completely.
The mere fact that the court now agrees
with some enterprising counsel that an
accused person is entitled to all the benefits
and rights under the statutes as well as the
thing-the law is just as much for Congress
to understand and obey as common citizen
Unfortunately there are no provisions for
removal from office for those on Capitol Hill
who skim over the law. Had there been, the
official who allowed the committee and the
Congress to suffer loss Of prestige before the
Supreme Court would have lost his Job or
otherwise been punished.
I found from inquiry after the court
decision that congressional attaches were
stunned. They could not understand what
the court was talking about. They assumed
1t was referring to the invalidity of laws
already enacted. 1t seemed never to dawn
upon them that Congress itself had been
brought to judgment for its own omissions.
The courts attention was drawn to the
fact that competent tribunal in Congress
now by law. means that quorum must be
present at the time q vote is taken. This
means physically present and not by proxy
or by phone call. The records of any COM
mittee should be regularized by regulations
issued by the Committee on Expenditures
in the Executive Departments. This COM
mittee should become the repository for
reports from the respective committees and
there should be constant effort at improve
ment Of committee procedures. Public Law
COL still leaves much to be desired in. this
regard.
So please tell Mr.. Lawrence that Congress
set BOBBY trap for itself The court sprang
the trap and in the excitement a man who
allegedly perjured himself before 4 number
of lawmakers insufficient to be competent
tribunal" got away. Let's not kid about this
serious blunder on the part Of the committee
involved and pray that other committees
may profit from the experience.
Chairman Wood of the Un-American Ac-
tivities Committee last Thursday announced
that the reason he alone could not hear the
facts in the case Of a suspect was that 'the
Supreme Court says we have to have a
quorum" Mr.. Wood is eminently incorrect.
Congress says there must be quorum. but
only for purposes of reporting out any
measure or recommendation
Representative Wood is busy man. 1t
is understandable. therefore, that Mr.. Wood
chairman in his own right, may not have
been told that he and others in Congress
voted that before decisions can be made by
committees the law demands q quorum.
The court is not invading the congress
sional field in this decision. It merely Is
telling the lawmakers that their laws had
better mean what they say or the Commu-
nists are going to skip clear of the law
ON WITH THE SHOW.