Evening star., 1951-04-08

Wnat 20 DO about political mori
and weeks this committee has bt
I 1850 senatorial campaign-with
paigns in Maryland. New York ant
Iowa-although the committee ha
had its investigators look into ,
number of other States.
Two major problems presen
themselves.
First: What's to be done to pre-
vent the use of lying, Scurrilous
defamatory campaign literature
Second: What changes shoult
be made in the limitations OF
campaign expenditures contained
in the present Corrupt Practice.
Act?
Literature used in the Maryland
Ohio. Utah election campaigns
and in the North Carolina ane
Florida and South Carolina pri.
mary elections for the senatorial
nominations scream to the high
heavens. But what to do abou1
that kind of pamphleteering-by
LAWS tough nut to crack.
Picture Objection
One concrete suggestion come.
from member of the Senate
committee-a law banning the USE
of so-called composite pictures ir
campaigning. These are picture.
made to show a candidate fol
Office alongside another person, or
apparently friendly terms, wher
such association might be harmful
politically to the candidate. The
most widely publicized picture o1
this kind was used in the Butler
Tydings campaign in Maryland. II
showed former Senator Tydings
close to Earl Browder, former
Communist leader. Mr.. Tydings
has bitterly attacked the use OF
the tabloid which contained this
picture-which he has claimed was
largely responsible for his defeat
by Senator Butler, Republican.
The picture, Mr.. Tydings declared
was intended to fool the Maryland
voters into believing that he was
friendly with Browder and the
Communists. Also, he complained
that the text of the tabloid was
filled with lying attacks upon him
self.
A composite picture can be
made by fitting two separately
made photographs into one, or by
cutting out portions of one pho
tograph and pasting the remain
ing parts together. The defenders
of the anti -Tydings tabloid say
that the picture of Tydings and
Browder was clearly marked
composite" But whatever it was
marked, it was intended to hurt
the former Maryland Senator by
placing Browder alongside him.
The first amendment-now part
of-the Constitution of the United
States says: Congress shall make
no law abridging the freedom
Of speech, or of the press
But Congress and the States are
at liberty to make laws Furnishing
libel, and they have done so.
Under the constitutional provision,
1t seems impossible to halt the
publication of scurrilous and lying
campaign literature. Nor does
there appear any practicable way
to set up censoring government
officer or agency to decide whether
campaign literature should fall
under ban because it is scurril-
GUS, lying or defamatory.
Smear Literature
Members of the Senate commit
tee point out that a practice seems
to have grown up of dumping
defamatory literature into the
final weeks or days of campaign
when it is too late to be prop
erly answered by the candidate
attacked and certainly too late for
the attacked candidate to obtain
action through the courts on
ground of libel. How effective,
however, such scurrilous attacks
really are is difficult to measure.
Sometimes they arouse such in
tense indignation among the
voters that they boomerang. The
labor unions tried such tactics
against Senator Taft in the last
Campaign, with kind of comic
strip tabloid. picturing Taft as an
enemy of the poor. In Ohio, the
reaction was in favor of Mr.. Taft.
However, a smear" campaign was
effective against former Senator
Graham in the North Carolina
Democratic primary campaign,
where both the race and the Red
issues were raised against Graham.
Another suggestion for dealing
with smear" campaign literature
is provision of law making it
necessary for the candidate in
whose interest any literature is
circulated to have the personal
Endorsement or approval of that
candidate. There is law
already on the statute books
which penalties any person who
wilifully publishes or distributes
any card, pamphlet, poster or ad-
vertisement in a campaign for
the election of a President or Vice
President, or member of the Sen
ate or House, which does not con-
tain the name or names of the
person or persons or committees
responsible for publication and
distribution. The penalty is al
fine of not more than $1,000 or
Imprisonment for not more than
a year, or both.
Mr.. Tydings himself has rec
commended that the committee
and the Senate itself demand that
United States attorney start
criminal libel proceedings against
those responsible for the tabloid
used against him. If such a step
were taken, it is argued, it might
prove an effective deterrent and
prevent the use of smearing lit
erature in future congressional
campaigns. But some members