The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1954-06-11
The 5TH AMENDMENT PROTECTS us ALL

fine and imprisonment Included in this law
was an immunity provision
Before Congress knew what was happen
ing, multitudes of individuals had begun to
appear on the scene, each eager to testify to
all their crimes in order to secure permanent
immunity from Federal prosecution!
This obviously was too much. Congress
changed the law in 1862, eliminating the
blanket immunity" provision. That effec-
lively curtailed voluntary confessions before
congressional committees
But it left no satisfactory way to cope with
the problem of witnesses who make a prac-
tice of hiding behind the Fifth Amendment.
means of providing immunity in return
for testimony was not considered essential by
Congress from that time until about four
years ago, when an increasing number of wit
nesses began to hide behind the Fifth Amend
ment.
This hampers efforts of investigating |
agencies to piece together the story of sub
Versive activities in this country AS a conse-
quence, there has been agitation in recent
years for new law to compel witnesses to
testify. Mr. Brownell himself repeatedly has
urged Congress to adopt legislation along
this line.
The House already has before it bill
approved by the Senate without dissent last /
July, which would provide such compulsion. |
Mr.. Brownell is opposed to certain aspects /
of this particular measure however
The bill provides that after witness at Il
a congressional hearing has used the self-in- |
eliminating plea the committee may vote |
him immunity from Federal prosecution based /
on his testimony The bill requires, however,
that two-thirds of the committee, including
at least two members of the minority party.
would have to vote for immunity
In addition the Attorney General would |
informed at 10 ctO Il, bofo
the vote was to be taken If he objected to
immunity IN the immediate case the commit |
tee could grant it only after the Senate or !
the House, whichever body had authorized Il
the investigation, approved it.
Mr. BrownelPs objection is based on the
argument that some criminals would escape Il
the punishment they deserved, and that he II
(the Attorney GeneraD should have either:
The immunity grant power subject to a |
congressional veto. II
veto over any grant of immunity by Con-
gress Il
Both the Senate-approved bill and Mr. II
BroWnelIs own suggested measure have i
SClrred up strong opposition among certain II
sections of the population. Many argue that i
it would destroy personal liberty as it has
been known in America
Recently 1000 college and university
teachers meeting in New York cheered an i
oiOi Ny ole Oh Cnelf SpeakerS-BOWerII
Ally of Missouri University-to the effect that
the Attorney Generals proposal was "tyran-
n.y."
mere is no assurance Congress will give II
flnal approval this year to either the pending
bill or the measure request II
ed by Attorney General Brownell.
Even II Congress passes such bill, will
1t stand up in the courts? Possibly the onlv Il
sure way of getting around the Constitution
would be to adopt another amendment. aimed :
at watering down" the Bill of Rights. But
THIS would appear practically impossible.
The American people, through good times
ana BAD have grown to revere that particular
set OF amendments. 1t would take lot of p
argument to convince them that any part of II
it should be Abandoned K