Evening star., 1954-12-13
baltimore Hit
For His Beliefs,
Arnold Claims
Indicted for Lying
Rover Retorts as
Court Hears Motion
BY Howard [. Dutkin

BY Howard [. Dutkin
Owen baltimore today was pic
tured as "an innocent and con-
fused man indicted because he
held controversial opinions"
Countering this portrayal by
Defense Attorney Thurman Ar
mold. United States Attorney Leo
A. Rover declared:
"This man is not indicted for
his beliefs but for perjury. He's
indicted for lying about his be-
liefs. He can believe as he sees
fit."
The opposing viewpoints were
expressed in arguments before
Federal Judge Luther w. Young
dahl in the U. S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.
At issue was a motion by Mr..
Arnold that a two-count perjury
indictment against the 54-year-
old former State Department
adviser on Far Eastern affairs
be dismissed.
Specific Offenses Charged.
One count charges that Mr..
baltimore lied when he told a
Senate Internal Security sub
committee in 1852 that he had
never been a follower of the
Communist line. The second
count accuses Mr.. baltimore Of
lying when he said he had never
been promoter of Communist
interests.
Trial on these charges and on
an earlier indictment containing
five minor accounts of perjury
tentatively has been set for jan
uary 10. The chief count in the
earlier indictment. accusing Mr..
baltimore of perjury when he
said he had never been a sym
pathizer" or "any other kind Of
promoter" of communism, had
been thrown out by Judge
Youngdahl as too vague charge.
The judge was upheld by the
U. S. Court of Appeals for the
District as to this count.
Today was the first time Mr..
Rover and Judge Youngdahl had
faced each other in a courtroom
since the prosecutor, several
weeks ago, told the jurist that he
had prejudged the case in favor
of the defendant and asked that
Judge Youngdahl withdraw as
trial judge. This request was
sharply refused by the judge who
termed the charge of bias "scan-
dalous."
All Amenities Observed.
There were no verbal fireworks
today, however, as the argu-
mentS progressed with both men
hewing to the legal amenities.
Attacking the indictment, both
for its alleged vagueness and on
the grounds that it violates the
free speech and belief amend
ment. Mr.. Arnold. a former ap-
pellate court judge here, as
serted:
IF the power to return such
an indictment is given to the
Attorney General, no one in
Congress, in the State Depart
ment, no writer or commenta-
tor" would be safe from perjury
charges because of written or
spoken opinions.
He said they would be faced
with the choice of admitting
they were Communicating fol-
lowers in certain instances or Of
fighting perjury indictments. ,
Guesses on Intent Stressed.
Mr.. Arnold asked how a jury
could possibly determine "Mr.
Lattimore's opinion of his own
opinions" without trying to spec
ulate and make guesses as to
the inner workings of the de-
! fendant'S mind. Under the law,
perjury is an intentional lying
under oath.
Mr.. Arnold asked how a jury
could lucidly determine these
facts in arriving at a verdict:
! /. What is the Communist
/ Party line.
2. Whether opinions as to the
recognition of Outer Mongolia,
/ the Korean truce and the pro-
posed blockade of Red China
favored American or Communist
interests.
8. What Mr.. Lattimore's opin-
ion Of the Communist line was
at the time he testified and
whether in his own mind he lied
when he denied being a follower.
But Mr.. Rover cited the ap-
pellate court opinion in the
earlier indictment. written by
Judge E. Barrett Prettyman, as
saying:
Clearly freedom of speech
does not include lying under
oath. Even If baltimore had
a right not to speak he did not
have a right to speak falsely. :"