Evening star., 1953-10-28
Expunqed-but Still q Smear

It is gratifying that Federal Judge Hutche-
son has seen fit to expunge from the records of
his Richmond court the report returned by
grand jury which recently indicted several
prominent Virginians on income tax charges.
But the courts action does not-and cannot
erase the smear" effect of the report.
: In this connection, a sharp distinction
should be made between the indictment and
the report. The indictment preferred specific
charge against several men, including Sidney
S. Kellam, then managing the gubernatorial
campaign of Thomas B. Stanley. Having been
specifically accused, Mr.. Kellam and the others
will have their day in court. They will have
the fullest opportunity to prove their innocence,
If they are innocent And, conversely, II they
are not innocent, then they presumably will be
convicted and punished
All of this is in the best tradition of Ameri-
can justice. But it does not apply to the grand
jury's report For the report made no specific
charge against any one. On the contrary, it
was based on insinuation and innuendo-the
effect of which was to smear former official of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue, who was
singled out by name for criticism but who was
not charged with anything.
y, The grand jury probably did not intend its
report to be a smear. But the report neverthe-
less had certain smear characteristics. It said
that we, the grand jurors, have received in
formation which led us to feel that there was
an alleged scheme" to defraud the United
StateS-involving evasion of the income tax
laws, and possible conspiracy in high places"
Then the report said that criminal proSecu-
tion seemingly had been evaded by the pay
ment of a large sum of money" Next the
report alluded darkly to "ramificationS, poten-
tialitieS and possible repercuSSionS" which
could be "far-reaching throughout the State"
kl.:- nInIf RI 0nYfN-
mend one individual and to "reprimand in no
uncertain terrps' the internal revenue official
who decided three years ago against recon-
mending prosecution on the complaint which
served as the basis for the indictment. Where
upon the grand jurors concluded that I'VE have
now completed our work. and proceeded to call
it a day.
If ever there was an uncompleted piece of
work, however this was it. What was the
information indicating possible conspiracy in
high places? Why did it seem" that prosecu-
ton had been evaded by the payment of large
sum of money? Who paid the money, and to
whom was it paid? What was the basis for the
back-fence chatter about far-reaching ramif1-
, cations, repercusSionS, etc?
If there was evidence to support these ugly
inSinuationS, the grand jury should have in
dicted the guilty parties. If there was no
evidence or if there was insufficient evidence,
the insinuationS should not have been spread
upon the record. For the inevitable effect-and
the grand jurors should have foreSeen the
effect-waS to smear the identified official of
! the Bureau of Internal Revenue by linking his
1 name to sinister insnuationS without preterring
! any charge which would have given him a
( chance to defend himself and clear his repu-
2 tation.
For nearly so years it has been the law in
the District that grand jury is without author
ity to return such report, and that the grand
Jurors are liable for damages if, in this way any
one is falsely accused. Judge Hutcheson'S de-
f, cision, to the extent that it applies the same
rule, is to be welcomed. For reputation