Evening star., 1951-11-09
Court Rules Police
Must Answer Quiz;
Barrett Premature
Continued From First Page.)

Continued From First Page)
three days. Mr.. Baun1an extended
the time period to 10 days after
the Barrett suit was filed.
Good Faith Held Obvious.
While declaring that the Com
missioners obviously acted in good
faith, Judge Kirkland added that
their order appeared to be outside
the scope of the specific authority
The judge also noted that the
order was issued at the request of
a subcommittee member-Chair-
man Neely-and was not a sub
committee directive.
On the other hand, the judge
ruled that an injunction is not
the proper remedy for asserting
constitutional. privileges. Maj.
Barrett. in seeking the injunction,
claimed the QUESTIONABLE violated
his constitutional rights.
Constitutional privilege, the
judge said, must be asserted after
a witness is asked a question and
refuses to answer. An injunction,
he added, is an extraordinary
remedy to prevent irremediable
damage.
In this case. he said. if Maj.
Barrett and others similarly stu
ated" suffer an injury. they must
first exhaust their administrative
remedies within the Police De-
,partment before they can ask aid
from the court.
At this point, he said, the mat
ter is an interdepartmental dis
pute and the courts have no juris-
diction to interfere by injunction
with the conduct of administrative
proceedings.
In mentioning administrative
remedies. Judge Kirkland also OBJ
served that generally a policeman
does not have the right to restrain
the enforcement of an apparently
lawful order.
Maj. Barrett, reached at his
home and told the courts decision,
said mo comment.
Both Chairman Neely and Com
mittee Counsel Bauman voiced
qualification at Judge Kirkland's S
decision.
Senator Neely said he was per-
sonally convinced the subcommit-
tee inquiry-now facing a Janu-
ary. 1852. deadline-should be
extended if the court proceedings
or any other circumstances pre-
vent completion of the investiga- |
ton before the end of January.
This was an obvious reference to !
an expected appeal.
Mr.. Bauman, who drafted the
police QUESTIONABLE, commented
that the judges decision seems
to have vindlcated the corpora
ton counsel's view completely"
Arguments on the case be-
fore Judge Kirkland late yes
terday brought a surprising
concession from Assistant Cor
poration Counsel Oliver Gasch,
representing the Commissioners,
that perhaps some of the ques-
lions in the QUESTIONABLE may be
improper"
Points to Expedient.
AS he neared the end of his ar
gument defending the Commits /
sioners' authority to order the
questions be answered. Mr.. Gasch
acknowledged for the first time
there may be a serious question
Involving the propriety of some of +
the questions" s."
But, he added. "any rights these /
men have can be preserved by the
simple expedient of answering
such questions as are not object |
ionable to them until such time as
they can be taken up by the Com |
missioners or the subcommittee.
1t was learned that after the
hearing, Mr.. Gasch, accompanied
by one of Maj. Barrett's lawyers,
visited Judge Kirkland in cham
bers and explained that he in
tended no concession that any of
the QUESTIONABLE queries were
improper.
Clarification Permitted.
The judge gave him permission
to file papers clarifying his state
ment to the opposite effect during
the hearing.
Maj. Barrett's attorney, Charles
E. Ford. who argued the case with
Mr.. Garfield. Immediately seized
upon Mr.. Gasch's statement in
open court.
THE corporation counsel here
for the first time comedies there
are at least some questions which
should not have been asked" Mr..
Ford jubilantly declared.
And yet he (Mr. Gasch) knows
we'll that the Commissioners
ordered that all the questions
be answered." Mr.. Ford de-
clared.
The lawyer then argued that "63