The Daily Alaska empire., 1950-02-03
THESE DAYS
GEORGE :. SOKOLSKY '
PERJURY

Like others. I have been reading the apologies for Alger Hiss and Dean Acheson in the New VOTE Herald Tribune and the Washingion Pest and find it increasingly dii : ficult to discover their moral posi- ton. They want us to forgive Hiss with a sort of boys be Toys slap on the wrist. They want us to believe that treason and per jury are to be determined not by law, civil or moral, but by the times in which they were commit ted. Young boys cut Of the gutter are sent to prison for perjury, but if the liar is from Harvard or Groton, different rule applies That is a snobs law.
 Yet, the fact is that Alger Hiss has been convicted as a liar. Anyone who has read the case, even if he has some doubts as to the nature and extent of Hiss's treason, and even if he rejects Whitaker Cham bers, must know that Hiss is not only a liar but a continuing one. Further he might even reach the conclusion that he has been as- sociated with other liars, because evidence shows lying in the second trial by others as we'll as py Hiss.
 A liar is ipso facto :. leprehensible person. He denounces himself as untrustworthy. The opposition to lying in human tradition is so deeply rooted that an oath is pro- yided in most instances, not only to connect the lie to civil law but to mroal law. The liar is not only punishable ty government, but by God.
 And that brings up the issue of the oath. We swear in public of ficials, and we used to do 1t by having him place a hand on the Bible I note that nowadays, the public servant, in many places just raises his right hand and takes his oath.
 When a man swears to God that he will tell the truth, the whole truth, and rothing but the truth, or that he is and will be loyal to the Government of the United States, or that he will uphold and main- tain the Constitution-He is not only committing himself to Gov lodges his obligation to moral law.
 But suppose a man is a MarXlSt, an Atheist, Communist, then he makes no such commitment and therefore is not involved in the preying of his conscience. True, he is hypocrite for having sworn to God whom he rejects. True, he has taken the oath with his fingers crossed and his tongue in his cheek. As he hates God and hurls his fist at Him, the oath itself is a mockery.
 Before an oath is sworn, the per- son should be asked to state that he believes in God He should be required to make public confes- sion of his faith; otherwise, of what use is it to swear him in? To him, such an oath is just a joke.
 Now, when the New York Her. aid Tribune, the Washington Post, and other so-called liberal organs seek to ease our consciences con- corning Hiss, they really ask us to condone lying, to accept the oath as joke, to renounce moral law. Their position is that wild oats will be sown, not only before one knows right from wrong, but even by those who are supposed to be so mature that we entrust to them the highest responsibilities in government When Dean Acheson quoted Matthew in defense of. Hiss, he might also have quoted the Commandments Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in. vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain" And also, Thou shalt not bear false witness against