Evening star., 1950-08-23
Communists and the Law

Communists and the Law
The Senate within the next few days, will
get around to the question Of what new legisla
ton, If any, is needed to deal with Communists
and other subversive elements in this country.
ts This is the sort of debate which tends to
become more emotional than reasoned. There
are certain basic considerations, however, which,
If kept in mind can be helpful. Among the
tests which should be applied to any anti-sub-
yersive bill, are these:
,s ID Il it constitutional? e
ca Will It do any good If passed?
60 II so. will its benefits be outweighed by
damage done to our political institutions and
traditions?
There are variety of bills pending in
the Senate, including q so-called administration
bill which would give effect to the recommended
tions made by the President in his recent mes
sage on internal security. Majority Leader
Lucas has announced, however, that the Nc
Carran bill will be taken up first, and this will
open the door to debate on all of the measures.
The McCarran bill is an omnibus measure,
bundling up most of the Presidents recommends
tions, the essential features of the Mundt-Fer-
guson bill, and some ideas that originated with
the Nevada Senator. Among the latter is an
amendment Of the immigration laws which
has met with criticism, although, in another
form, it passed the Senate without dissenting
vote. Apparently, it received little scrutiny at
the time of enactment, and presumably it was not
intended to do the things some of its critics say
it would do. In view Of the complaints which
have been made, the Senate should go over this
provision with care when 1t takes up the omnibus
bill. 80
So far as our domestic Communists are con-
LA~l - IAFp -
two sections that were taken from the Mundt-
Ferguson bill.
One of these sections makes 1t a criminal
offense knowingly to conspire to do any act
which would substantially contribute" to the
establishment in this country of totalitarian
dictatorship under foreign control.
The other section contains the much-de-
bated registration requirements Under these
provisions, presidential board subject to judicial
review, would designate Communist political or
Commuaist-front organizations, and could also
decide whether an individual belongs to such an
organization. These organizations would have
to file with the Attorney General the names Of
their officers and regular financial statements.
Communist political organizations (which means
the Communist Party) would also have to make
public the names Of their members Other
related provisions deny passports to members
OF these organizations and require that any
hterature they send through the mails must
plainly indicate its Communist source.
The first section contains language that
undeniably is broad. It does not seem to The
Star, however, that il Enenaces basic American;
freedoms or, as the CIo seems to think that
it threatens bona fide labor unions Certainly,
the bill is not intended to do these things and
1t should be remembered that any prosecution
under 1t would have to survive the test OF court
h0t tn Ire if,,$io
applicability to particular set of facts
The difference Of opinion as to the regis
tration features presents more dificult question
1t Is question that has brought forth conflicting
views from sincere and competent men. If,
in fact, these provisions would outlaw the Com
munist Party, they might be declared unconsti-
tutional. The more serious argument, however
Is that registration would drive the Communists
underground. But it may be doubted that there
Is great deal Of merit TO this. The really
dangerous elements among the Communists and
their sympathizers already are underground.
And they would stay underground with or with
out registration requirement
The basic question here, 1t would seem, Is
whether the registration section would do any
good! Perhaps it would accomplish little and
the Senate should weigh this point with care
But In final analysis, the threat of Communism,
both worldwide and domestic, being what 1t is
fears that are largely speculative or fanciful
should not stand in the way of enacting legis-
lation that would strengthen our internal Sc
curity. It is hard to know where the line should
be drawn between tolerance and restrictive
legislation. That decision, however, is q con-
gressional responsibility, and in meeting it
Congress should not be swayed either by an
emotional hostility toward Communism which
ignores constitutional restraints or by the some
times silly protests from those who think there
is something un-American about any security
legislation.
'*..1 ~ -
Collateral in Sex Cases
Municipal Court judges have moved to pro-