Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-08-07
A Mans Conscience

- - - - -
Your July % editorial, "a
Mans Conscience" has merit
but fails to delimit the author
ity of a congressional commit
tee chairman as to the purpose
and kind or nature of the Ques-
tons he or a fellow member
may ask a witness. This con-
stitutional problem or PROPOSE
ton is not So simple. as you
imply, as the right to ask ques-
tons by congressional COM
mittee member and the duty
of a witness to answer. The
core of the matter is the pur-
pose and kind of question that
is asked. Also the duty of the
witness to answer flows from
the purpose and kind of ques-
ton that he is asked. A witness
has certain constitutional pro-
tectionS or rights as funda-
mental to our system of gov
eminent as a congressional
committee. It would be no
shock for a witness to refuse
to answer a question that is
flagrantly out of line or perth
nency to the purpose for which
a hearing is being held.
Congressional committees
have two main purposes,
namely, to obtain information
in order to pass. modify or
repeal laws Including amend
ments to the Constitution.
and to ascertain whether or
not the laws of the United
States are being properly ex-
ecuted.
The question arises, Should
a private citizens right of pri-
vacy and freedom of belief.
expression or association be
subject to question by a con-
gressional committee member
when the principal or clear
purpose Of the question is to
have the witness to disclose
the names of persons at a
meeting that was or is, until
judged otherwise by a Federal
court of last resort, not IL
legal?" Congress or its COM
mittees are not judicial bodies
save in rare matters that have
no pertinency to the subject
of this letter.
Are there to be no enforce
able rules that protect the
rights of citizens before con-
gressional committees? Are the
committees to determine. and
be sole judges of, their author
ity? One must remember that
Congress is a body of human
beings and that when a mem
Der does a questionable or
downright reprehensible act
in his official capacity, other
members of either house are
most reluctant, even adverse,
to criticize or censure him.
They do not want to be subject
to the same treatment. ire
sponsible freedom is license.
The trend Of two recent deci-
sions of Federal courts is
discouraging to those who
would protect strictly the
rights of the citizen in his
freedoms. One decision holds
that a congressional commit
tee member may ask a witness
a question to disclose the
names Of past associates when
the question is incidental" to
the committees purpose in
holding hearings. The other
decision holds that the refusal
of the witness to answer such
a question may subject him to
contempt of Congress and
punishment. In other words,
the courts hold that when a
witness does not comply with
an incidental" authority Of a
congressional committee. he
commits a substantive offense
thereby if the committee so
votesl This does not solve the
problem but confuses. The
committee will, almost GER
tainly. always hold that the
question was incidental"
This usually will throw all the
powerful weight of the Federal
Government against the lone
witness who decides to and
does refuse to answer such a
question.
The very constitutional
structure Of the Federal Gov
eminent in three branches, on
the one hand, and the consti-
tutional projections and rights
Of the private citizen, on the
other hand. are involved in a
citizens refusal to answer, in
good faith with or without the
protection Of the Fifth Amend
ment. questions relating to in
nocent or not illegal associa-
tons. II they we're or are IL
legal. the law has been vio-
lated. There are police and
courts TO handle the matter.
This great country Of Amer
lea that would lead the free
countries Of the world against
communism, dictatorships or