Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-10-14


Mr.. Tucker is q lawyer in Federal service
and writer on Legal subjects.
~-~----------~-~
that terminated the employment
of any public official who refused
to speak before any official inquiry.
The Supreme Court decided that
firing Professor Slochower on the
sole ground that he had pleaded the
Fifth Amendment before congress
sional committee. would be an ar
bitrary and unreasonable action by
New York City. and hence violate
the "due process" clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Since the Slochower decision,
three incidents of national promi-
nence involving the right not to
speak" have taken place.
The most dramatic of these in
volve the famous playwright, Ar
thur Miller. In July while testi-
flying freely before the House I'm
American Activities Committee on
his relationship to communism, he
refused to name persons he had
seen at Communist-Sponsored meet
ings. He then sent a moving APP
peal to the Committee suggesting
that it refrain from citing him for
contempt.
In justifying his refusal to speak,
Mr.. Miller cited his sense of per-
sonal loyalty to others, the die
tates of his conscience against in
forming on others, the principles
and human values reflected in his
dramatic writings, and his belief
that democracy would not be served
by his reporting the other partici-
pants in Communist meetings. The
House of Representatives cited him
for contempt by vote of 373 to 9.
Cited SIochower Decision
Another incident features New
Jersey Judge John Bigelow, who
in July was appointed by the State
Governor to the board of Rutgers
University. The New Jersey Senate
at first, through its Judiciary Com
mittee, rejected the appointment of
Judge Bigelow. In hearings he had
indicated that he would not neces-
sarily fire teacher for pleading the
Fifth Amendment, resting his 'po-
sltion on the Slochower decision.
Only after considerable public out
cry did the Senate confirm Judge
Bigelow.
The third incident concerns a
ruling by New York State Educa-
ton Commissioner DR.. James Allen.
This was that the New York City
Board of Education could not fire
teachers for refusing, in a duly
authorized inquiry by the Board,
to name other teachers as Com
munists. This determination, too,
is basically grounded on the Slo-
chower decision.
There are two different camps in
approaching situations like those
above. Both agree that there is a
general civic duty upon persons to
yield up information needed by leg
islative committees, courts and
other official inquiry bodies in order
to do their work. Both also agree
that the Fifth Amendment is legally
available as a justification for not
supplying information which would
tend to incriminate a person. From
this point, however, there is a sig
nificant difference in emphasis.
Focus on Rights
One camp focuses on the civil
rights of individuals which it sees
involved in the above situations. 1t
reasons that if persons are punished
for not speaking. by contempt pros
ecutions or by being fired from
public employment, this will tend
to force them to speak out against
their will. Then, if a person can
be forced to reveal things about
himself, in later inquiries, his will
ingnesS to speak and act freely in
his daily life will be reduced, and
his freedom of speech and action
will be impaired. Likewise if he can
be forced to reveal things about
others, he will be made to act
against his conscience and personal
beliefs. Punishment in the above
situations will discourage the exer-
else of the Fifth Amendment priv
ilege, and thus tend to deprive per-
sons of it.
The bible for this camp is a book
let Of three speeches by Dean Girls
void of the Harvard Law School,
THE 5th Amendment Today" This