Evening star., 1950-08-20

CQdL LQe 1l1CQ auenQIueuG OlItIS
1t has backed that opinion b!
tempt of Congress. 1t accuse
them of baking the committee
efforts to get legitimate informa
ton in a proper line of Legislative
inquiry.
In speed, size and sentiment
the mass move during hardl.
more than an hour of parlia
mentary time and with only on'
dissenting witness made hiStor!
on the Hill.
Even more far-reaching judi
cial history is in the making. Fol
the first time basic issue testint
rights of witnesses and powers o.
congressional committees goes tt
District Court here; and probabl.
to the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court.
1t would be difficult enough tt
decide under comparatively nor
NAL national conditions and rea-
sonably settled legal arguments.
Some Complications
Swift world-shaking dangers
complicate the problem. Rapidly
revised official policies and chang
ing popular viewpoints about
Communist aims and acts bear
heavily on it. Recent court rul-
ings as we'll as pronouncements by
individual jurists compound the
complexities.
Neither side can count too much
on precedent. The Un-American
Activities Committee startled
scoffers and surprised many other
critics by sending a lot of people
to jail. It has scored 100 per
cent so far in convictions on con-
tempt citations.
But those defendants largely at
tackled the validity and authority
of the committee or the legality
of its methods and motives. They
usually asserted that the commit
tee sought to Stif1e free speech,
control thought and blacklist
citizens and groups.
Federal courts-with the Su-
preme Court often upholding them
or refusing to intervene - have
handed down verdicts or decisions
strengthening the committee s
stand.
Then. suddenly and with re-
markable unanimity from here tc
Hawaii, numerous witnesses took
another tack when the committee
asked them about Communist
Party membership or operations
Legality Argued
The tactic rested -. although
rested" is hardly. the word to
describe stormy sessions during
the last year-on what the COM
mittee regards, as a planned
strategy" of Communists or fell
low-travelers to cover their con-
nections and wrap their silence
principally in the fifth amend
ment.
Most of those witnesses also
claimed that committee questions
invaded their right of free speech
as guaranteed by the first amend
ment. They contended mainly
however, that they did not have
to answer because the fifth
amendment provides that no per.
son shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witnes.
against himself"
The committee is convinced il
can legally inquire into the Com.
munist backgrounds or leaning.
of witnesses. It declares that the
questions conform to the desig.
mated purpose of the committee tt
investigate possible subversivt
activities and suggest appropriate
legislation.
1t is up to the committee anC
not the witness to say whether 6
question must be answered OF
whether it might incriminate him
members maintain. The commit.
tee procedure, moreover, is not 9
criminal trial. they explain. They
likewise doubt that such a witness
testimony could be used against
him, except in a perjury prosecu-
ton.
A long standing statute, they
note. clearly states: Every per-
son who. having been summoned
as witness to give testi-
mony or produce papers upon any
matter under inquiry before either
House or any committed OF
either House of Congress, willfully
makes default, or who, having
appeared, refuses to answer any
question pertinent to the question
under inquiry, shall be deemed
guilty of misdemeanor."
Emphasis on Contempt
Furthermore, according to the
committee, the current contempt
cases turn on many circumstances
besides simple rebuff to the ques-
ton: "Are you now or have you
nyar hooyo q ,,oay,ah ahar ~ %Ln CaYo