Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-03-28
Immunity Law Upheld


The Supreme Court, dividing to 2,
has upheld the validity of the Immunity
Act of 1854.
This statute has narrow application
It's use is limited to few types Of cases,
, such as treason, espionage or Seditious
conspiracy, affecting the security of the
United States. In such case, II 1t is
deemed necessary in the public interest,
the Attorney General may invoke the
statute with respect to an individual. And
in that event the individual, being fully
protected against subsequent conviction
or punishment by reason of any truthful
disclosures he makes, can be compelled
to testify despite the Fifth Amendments
ban on Standardization.
The majority opinion, written by
Justice Frankfurter, held that the protec-
ton afforded by the Immunity Act is an
adequate substitute for the protection
afforded by the Fifth Amendment. The
individual, in other words, is not being
required to incriminate himself. We see
nothing in the majority ruling which
suggests that the court is countenancing,
or would countenance, any abridgment of
the protection which the Constitution
throws around the individual. 1t merely
has held that the immunity diSplaces
the danger" which otherwise would arise
from compelling a person to give testi-
nnony against himself If Congress be-
ieves it is desirable to provide grant Of
immunity In the types of cases specified,
and II the Attorney General concludes
that it is in the public interest to confer
immunity in particular case, we see no
reason why the courts should interfere.
The dissenters, Justices Douglas and
Black, thought differently, and stated
their views with considerable eloquence.
Justice Douglas, speaking for himself
and Justice Black, sought support in the
legal atrocities of the England of the 10th
and 18th centuries. He invoked the Star
Chamber and the High Commission. But
why do goth century judges hold in one
case that the Constitution is a living
thing, adaptable to changing times,
and then, in another case, cite conditions
OF three centuries ago to bolster their view
as to how the Constitution should be
applied today?
Justice Douglas also commended that
the Fifth Amendment was designed to
protect an accused person against Gin
fanny" as well as against criminal prose-
cution. There is great infamy involved"
he said. Gin the present case The dis
closure that person Is Communist
practically communicates him from
society. School boards will not hire him.
A lawyer risks exclusion from the bar;
a doctor fhn nf nj ~
practice. :"
If this is correct, it Is also fact that
the same risks are incurred by a person
who is accused of involvement in Com
munist conspiracy against the United
States, and who refuses to testify on the
ground that he might incriminate himself.
Justice Douglas does not contend that
school boards should be compelled to hire
such person. If such a person finds
many doors closed to him, Justice Douglas
says, that is the price he pays for "exer-
ciSing the right of silence granted by the
Constitution" His criticism runs to the
comparable consequences which may
arise when the Government compels
someone, under grant Of immunity, to
confess his offenSe.
If the consequences of standing mute
as we'll as Of giving testimony under an
immunity grant are essentially the same,
however, it is difficult to see how an indi-
vidual would be helped by the view which
Justice Douglas takes of this matter But
the real answer, as the majority seems
to see it, is that the Fifth Amendment
cannot be invoked as shield against the
"infamy" OF which Justice Douglas speaks
AS long as an individual is not compelled
to incriminate himself, the Government,
in a case involving the national security,
is entitled to the benefit of his testimony,
If it wants it. That is the essence of the
majority ruling, and it seems consistent
enough with the conditions which prevail
in this day and age.