Evening star., 1951-11-18
No Easy Answer to the Question Of THAT QUESTIONABLE

general CnaC tne QueSLlOn0alfe VIC.
lates no constitutional rights or statu-
tory provisions, is a rightful delega-
CATION OF authority, Is not witch
hunt, is not cunning for any one
person, and is not Gestapo weapon
threatening each rich man, poor
man. beggerman Cor thief, or doctor,
lawyer, merchant and chief. police
or otherwise. The claim, in short, is
that it won't do thing to an honest
policeman except cause headaches
and writers cramp.
Despite it's admitted inconvenience,
according to this view, the question
naire really provides a short cut to
avoid the far greater inconvenience
of questioning long rows Of police
men at subcommittee hearings.
The time problem particularly wor-
ries subcommittee officials. The small
investigating staff has only few
weeks for a study job considerably
more complicated than the filling out
of the questionnaires.
Questionnoire's Parentage
The history, of the QUESTIONABLE
goes back several years.
Although on white paper. the pres
ent quiz is essentially the same as
the Green Sheet" QUESTIONABLE is
sued last year to Brooklyn policemen
at the direction of Brooklyn grand
jury. It traces its ancestry back to a
shorter and simpler financial ques-
tionnaire distributed periodically to
New York City employees by the Office
OF Investigation during Mayor La
Guardia's administration. In later
years, District Attorney Frank Hogan
used % page interrogatory quite
similar to the one introduced in the
District.
Here, however. the QUESTIONABLE
comes from a congressional commit
tee and not q grand jury. Subcommit-
tee officials favor the legislative ap-
proach. not only because they might
have difficulty obtaining data from a
jury-sponsored questinonaire, but also
because, in their opinion, they might
encounter harder legal battle on
the issue Of delegation of authority.
In Brooklyn, the Green Sheets
caused rash Of designations by po-
licemen.
No Court Test
So far as authorities here know,
none Of these questionnaires has been
tested directly in the courts. Neither
side regards last weeks District Court
decision in terms OF a victory, al
though both sides found hope Of pres
ent or future gains. The court held
that it was without jurisdiction to
grant an injunction against use Of
the QUESTIONABLE because no COM
planning policeman has suffered in
jury. such as dismissal, or has ex-
hausted administrative remedies in
the department. At the same time
the court indicated it did not think
the Commissioners had authority to
order the policemen to answer the
questionnaire. The controversy con-
tinues to rage.
Defenders of the QUESTIONABLE in
sist that there is too much talk about
constitutional issues. They say the
Constitution doesn't apply. The
right of privacy" is q statutory and
not constitutional matter. 1t might
apply. they say. when your picture is
snapped on a street and published in
an advertisement against your will.
But, SO the argument goes, It doesn't
mean that q policeman's privacy Is
invaded when he Is ordered to tell
the public what the public has
right to know about its public sery-
ants.
Opponents Of the QUESTIONABLE
contest not only that statement but
also the defenders denial that there
Is anything confidential about finan-
clal communications between hus-
bands and wives. BY what right, the
opponents ask. can the subcommittee
or anyone else demand that q hus-
band disclose detailed property hold
ings or income Of his wife, and how
could q wife be compelled to testify?
Precedent Feored
They see the whole thing as
dangerous precedent. What they op-
pose. they say, Is not the effort to
obtain legitimate information on ac-
tivities of policemen and other public
employees. 1t is. rather. the uncon-
stitutional and unfair use of a
"dragnet" or fishing expedition"
that could readily get out of hand
and clamp down on almost any group
of citizens.
The late Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes provides opponents of the
QUESTIONABLE with q convenient
quote: 1T is contrary to the first
principles Of justice to allow q search
through all the respondents records,
relevant or irrelevant. in the hope
that something may turn up"
Something may turn up-who
knows? Meanwhile, the subcommit-
tee staff is deep in its quest of ques-
tionnaires. Like the father who
threatens a spanking, the investi-
gators say the duty really is harder
on them than on policemen who must
I'LL out the forms.
Whereupon the other side prompt
ly replies: Maybe. but is doesn't hurt
you in the same place."
>pLo Op~o