The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1954-06-11
Reprinted from WASHINGTON DAILY
NEWS

How do so many witnesses summoned be-
fore congressional hearings get away with
flat refusals to testify?
Why can't these hostile witnesses-liter-
ally hundreds of them in recent years-be
compelled to answer legitimate questions con-
corning Communist affiliations, incluence
pedding, or other activities?
What charm do they carry which permits
them, in effect, to thumb their noses at pub
lie agencies created to protect the security
and welfare of the United States?
The truth is that they are hiding behind
set of words; words which for more than 1872
years have been a part of Americas basic
law; words forming a small portion (the
Fifth Amendment) of that division of the
U. S. Constitution known as the Bill of Rights
which spells out their protection, and the
protection of everyone.
The significant clause here reads 'No per-
son shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be witness against himself -
Thanks to those Is words in the Consti-
tuition, witness after witness has been able
to avoid answering questions by asserting
that an answer might incriminate, or tend
to incriminate" him.
To understand why our Constitution pro-
vides this shield, it is necessary to look back
some three centurieS-tO a time when the
right to avoid characterization came to be
recognized by the common courts of Eng
land Indeed, one might look back even farth-
err, to the 18th Century, when public resistance
to torture by courts of the church brought
an end to these means by which individuals
were compelled to give intimate details of
their daily lives and the conduct of their
neighbors.
The American Founding Fathers, we'll
aware of their English heritage, responded
to public demands for a written guarantee
against Standardization when they drew
up the U. S. Constitution
This guarantee was spelled out by the
first Congress, meeting in New York, in one
of the 10 amendments constituting what we
now know as the Bill of Rights.
The Fifth Amendment has proved effec-
tive down through the years in preserving the
privilege against Standardization.
The question of how far the privilege ex-
tends was settled by the courts as far back
1907. 1t is practically limitless. In short, a
witness, by claiming it, may refuse to answer
in almost any kind of proceeding, whether
judicial legislative, or administrative.
During the trial of Aaron Burr for trea-
son, nearly century and half ago, Chief
Justice John Marshall declared:
"The court ought never to compel wit
ness to give an answer which discloses a
fact that would form necessary and es-
sental part of crime which is punishable
by the laws"
At various times in the nations history,
attempts have been made to get around the
guarantee, by means of i'm
munity laws.
At this moment, Congress has before it
several recommendations submitted by
Attorney General Herbert Brownell-to COM
pei witnesses to testify before congressional
as we'll as in the courts, in re-
urn for promise that they will escape crimi-
nal prosecution.
A law along this line actually was adopted
n 1857, when Congress made refusal by a
committee witness to answer any pertinent
question a misdemeanor punishable by both