Evening star., 1950-08-09
Tested Legal Defenses'

In his message asking tighter security legis-
lation. the President said that we already have
"tested legal defenses" against treason espionage
sabotage and other acts looking toward the over
throw of our Government by force and violence.
Much depends upon what is meant by the
word tested" Mr. Truman seemed to feel that
these legal defenses have stood up rather well
under the test of experience with them, and 1t is
true that they have provided the basis for
number of successful prosecutions. But In all
such cases we were locking the stable door after
the horse had been stolen. Those legal defenSes OF
which the President spoke have not prevented
the theft of many of our most vital security
secrets On the contrary, the Communist eSpi-
onage agents and their friends have been able
to breach our security defenses so successfully
that one is inclined to wonder whether we have
been able to keep anything of any Importance
from them. So far as the work OF these agents
Is concerned, our legal defenses have been tested
and found sadly deficient
Mr. Truman proposes some tightening up OF
our statutory safeguards. He wants to clarity
certain language" in the espionage laws, to ex-
tend the three-year statute OF limitations on
prosecution for that ofense, to require the regis
tration of persons who have been trained in
espionage or subversive tactics by foreign gov
ernment and grant Of broader authority than
now exists for the President to establish security
regulations concerning the protection Of military
bases and other national defense installations.
He also wants Congress to permit the Attorney
General to exercise supervision over aliens subject
to deportation and to require them to report their
whereabouts and activities at regular intervals
All of these would appear to be steps in the
right direction, although it is hard to determine
lust what is meant, for instance, by the request
with respect to military and defense installations.
Certainly, nothing should be left to chance IN
these matters yet the tone of the message raises
some doubt as to the extent to which the
President is willing to go in applying security
safeguards.
Mr.. Truman indicated his opposition to pend
ing measures such as the Mundt-Nixon bill,
which he described though not by name, as po-
lice state measures. Sponsors of such measures,
he said, advocate breaking down the guarantees
of the Bill Of Rights in order to get at the Com
munists They forget that if the Bill Of Rights
were to be broken down, all groups, even the most
conservative, would be in danger from the arbi-
trary power Of government"
The sponsors of measures to which the
President refers will not admit that they are
advocating any breaking down of the Bill Of
Rights. The Mundt-Nixon bill has had the
benefit of distinguished counsel. Yet 1t is always
hard to know where the line should be drawn be-
tween the preservation of individual liberties and
the safeguarding of those liberties from subver
sive elements striving for the destrution Of all
liberty. But the protection of the Bill OF Rights
should not be extended to cover activities aimed
at the violent overthrow of our system, and we
should be on guard against glib phrases that
blind us to the fact that the Communists will use
the Bill of Rights if we permit them to do so, as
a shield for precisely that kind OF activity.
It is on questions of this kind that Mr.. Tru-
mans early attitude toward such things as the
Alger Hiss case is somewhat disturbing. Congress
should give him the added powers he requests
and IT, in its judgment, still more legislation is
needed. it should not hesitate to enact 1t.