Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-12-05
Immunity Low
Legal Guinea Pig Is Needed Before Effect
Of the New Statute Con Be Fully Determined
By Phil Yeoeer and John stork

Reds, the reluctant scientists, the
Hollywood and Greenwich Village
writer's and the silent government
employees? viii they be called back
and given immunity in exchange for
information? And if this happens,
will a lot of patient work on behalf
of such sleuthing agencies as the
FBI and CHA be impaired?
Again, time holds the answer.
Professional staff members and
legal counsel for the three most in
vestigative committees of Congress
the House Un-American and the
Senate's Internal Security and
Permanent Investigations subcom~
mittees-admit they have discussed
such possibilities at length on an
informal basis.
Apparently, however, none OF
these groups has considered the re-
call of prior Fifth Amendment"
witnesses formally and, as yet. no
specific plans along this line have
crystallized. Representative Harold
Velde, Republican, of Illinois. out
going chairman of the Un-American
Activities Committee, has said a re-
call might be issued for Alger Hiss
who was released from prison Mo-
vember q.
Hiss, however, was not one OF
those who used the Fifth Amend
ment; he did not refuse to talk but
got into trouble on the basis of what
he did say. If. under new question:
ing. Hiss invoked his rights against
self-incriminat.on, presumably ne
might be granted immunity under
the new statute.
Question No. 8: Will immunity
under the Federal low extend to
Stote low and the Stote courts?
This is apt to be the most sem
sitive problem of the group. Sup
pose the kingpin of Los Angeles
narcotics ring decides to 'rat" on a
Nationwide syndicate with which
he has been working. He comes to
Washington and gives the informa-,
ton to Congress. Is California then,
precluded from prosecuting the
man under it's own narcotics laws
because Congress has granted i'm
munity?
There is a distinct split 'of au.
thority on this point.
In an 1896 decision the Supreme
Court held that Federal immunity
statutes Were applicable to State
courts if it was clear that they were
intended to be so.
The new 1854 statutes says
nothing about such intent, but
can it not be argued that the intent
is implied? OF course, it can and
will be.
The immunity statute in effect
prior to this year, however. had
been interpreted both ways. Last
July a Federal district judge held
that a Maryland court had acted
wrongly in introducing as evidence
in gambling suit statements
previously made to congressional
committee.
Other decisions are to the con-
trary, including one in which a Fed
eral judge in Ohio upheld man
who refused to testify before Con-
gress, after being granted immunity.
on the grounds that he might be
incriminated in State court. But.
this does not seem to be general
rule and the question is going to
have to be settled at higher level.
Finally, the 1896 decision as to
congressional intent" is itself still
open to question. 1t was by a 5-4
vote, one which could be overturned
today if the question were again
presented as to whether Congress
actually has this power over the
States.
The House Judiciary Committee,
for example, commented on the point
when it reported the immunity bill
last summer: THE answer is not
too clear the question can only.
be resolved by a decision Of the
Supreme Court"