Evening star., 1953-01-08
Letters to The Star

hey would be truly repentant Of their
wrong doings and not be branded as
Communists" but respectable Ameri-
can citizens when God calls them.
Love overcometh all things" land
love fulfilleth the law"
Midnight Reader.
BY giving atomic secrets to Russia.
the Rosenbergs have endangered the
very existence of the United States and
the lives of nearly $50 million people
who are citizens of this country.
If the Rosenbergs are given clern-
ency, it will mean that the United
States will not punish spies very
severely. if they do at all.
Look back to Nathan Hale, the
famous American spy, who spied upon
q British camp during the Revolution
ary War. He was given a fair trial,
found guilty. and hanged the next
morning. The Rosenbergs' spying was
much worse than Hale's. but they have
been in Jail for nearly two years.
There is no doubt whatsoever as to
the fairness Of the Rosenbergs' trial.
If President Truman does give the
Rosenbergs clemency, it means that
the Communists will win one of the
greatest victories in this cold war
which will not end until Russia is
either stopped or until she becomes
ruler of the entire earth.
Lyle McGuigan.
The advertisement in behalf of the
Rosenbergs displeases me thoroughly.
I wonder if The Star observed its usual
precautions to avoid unethical or dis
reputable advertising. am a profess
Sional man. yet I never heard of the
so-called Emergency Committee Of
the Arts and Professions to secure
Clemency for the Rosenbergs." This
group does not represent me, nor,
am sure, does it speak for the majority
of my professional associates. How do
you know that you are not lending
yourself to the ends of subversive or
disloyal persons? Certainly you are
serving unfriendly interests in this mat
ter. At least one Of the supporters
mentioned in the advertisement is a
known Communist.
Elliott b. Roberts.
The Star recently carried an account
of the decision of December 81, 1852,
of the U. S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, affirming a rul-
ing of District Judge Ryan that Julius
and Ethel Rosenberg were not entitled
to new trial. Your account mentionei
that the opinion of the Court of Appeals
stated that Judge Ryan had shown that
the RoSenbergs were not entitled to re-
lief and that no material issue was
raised which required hearing.
Your account was correct as far as
it went. but it was misleading to your
readers because Of its failure to report
other aspects of the opinion.
inclose copy Of the Circuit Courts
opinion From it you will see that one
Of the bases urged for relief was that
during the Rosenberg trial the prose-
cutting United States Attorney stated to
the press. in connection with the opening
OF an indictment against one Perl. that
Perl had been listed as witness in the
Rosenberg trial and that his special role
on the stand was to corroborate the
testimony of certain key Government
witnesses. In fact. Perl did not testify
in the Rosenberg trial.
The Court of Appeals expressly con-
demned the prosecutors action. It
stated: "Such statement to the press
in the course Of trial we regard as
wholly reprehensible." The Court also
said: I'VE may assume that, in this
case, a cautionary instruction would not
suffice, and that If defendants had
moved for new trial. it should have
been granted" The Court denied re-
lief, however, on the ground that de-
fense counsel had not made motion
for new trial on this ground at the
time of the occurrence.
It will seem hard to many that per-
sons. should be convicted and condemned
to death because of the failure of their
attorneys to make a timely motion for
a new trial. Certainly. this feature of
t'le case shnu'd have heen reported by
you IN view of the widespread requests
that the President commute the death
sentences.
Many persons have urged that exec
utive clemency be extended to the Ro-
Senbergs. Their reasons differ, but some
OF the more common reasons include:
The unprecedented severity of the SEN
tences. the questionable nature of prose-
cution tactics, the implausibility of the
prosecutions case. the fact that the
essential prosecution witnesses were
confessedly guilty Of espionage and thus
had motivation to save their own
necks Gas in fact they did) by giving
perjured testimony against others, the
Rosenbergs' continued insistence on
their innocence though in the shadow
of the chair. the difficulty of obtaining
fair trial on such charges in the cur
rent environment. the extravagant re-
marks made by the trial judge at SEN
fencing and again when denying judicial
clemency.
1t is true that the Rosenbergs were
convicted in trial in an American
court, and that the convictions were
affirmed on appeal However, miscar-
riages of justice have occurred in
America as well as elsewhere, our courts
do make mistakes, our judges are not
wholly immune from the hysteria Of
our times. and appellate review is
severely restricted.
Unfortunately. the facts in favor Of