Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-07-30
Supreme Court Critics

Maryland'S former Governor and
Senator, Herbert O'Conor, is chairman
Of an American Bar Association Com
mittee with a mouth-filling name-the
Committee on Communist Tactics,
Strategy and Objectives. This commit
tee, with the approval of the ABA men,
bers, If their applause is trustworthy
guide, now has joined the Chief Justices
of the States in criticism of the line that
the Supreme Court has taken in some
OF its recent decisions.
This criticism has nothing to do with
such emotion charged rulings as the
courts school desegregation decision.
Nor does 1t fall into the category Of
incorporate name-calling. It is, instead,
an expression Of concern by competent
and responsible men who think that
the court, in its zeal to safeguard "theo-
retical individual rights" may have
made 1t impossible for our Government
to carry out "the first law of mankind
the right Of self-preservation."
What this comes down to, as we
understand it, is clash of opinion with
respect to the gravity of the threat
Of Communist Subversion. In its original
Smith Act decision the court held that
the Communist conspiracy was clear
and present danger" to our national
change in judges, this position ap-
parently has been abandoned. AS of to-
day, the court does not appear to think
that communism poses much of a threat
to this country, and its recent decisions
have made it diff1cult II not impossible
for the Department of Justice and con-
greSSional committees to pursue their
work of prosecution and exposure Of
Communist activities.
Mr.. O'Conor's committee and, to a
lesser extent, the Chief Justices of the
States dissent. They say they are just
as anxious as is the Supreme Court to
safeguard individual rights. But they
contend that this can be done and
should be done without Gripping the
power of the States and the legislative
and executive branches Of the Federal
Government to protect the country
against Communist infltration and
aggression"
The debate on this point frequently
centerS on the Supreme Courts decision
In the Jencks case, and we think it is
very much to the point. In that ruling
the court majority held that defendant
in criminal case, under circumstances
which were not spelled out with sum-
cient clarity, was entitled to examine
the confidential files of the FBI. This
decision expressly disapproved the prac-
tice of permitting the trial judge to ex-
anime the files to ascertain what mate
rial was pertinent to the defendants
case and letting him examine that-but
only that-material.
For our part, we. do not see why a
Federal trial judge cannot be trusted to
make available to a defendant all Of
the confidential reports in a file that are
relevant to his defense and that he
therefore is entitled to see. This would
safeguard the rights of an accused per-
son and also prevent fishing expeditions
through the confidential files, which
could destroy the effectiveness Of the
FBI.
The JenckS case is one Of some IS
rulings which have evoked the current
criticism of the court. This responsible
criticism, in our opinion, is healthy
thing, and we hope 1t will lead to cor
receive action-either by the court itself
or by Congress.