Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-09-04
Dulles and the Press

Over the past year, ] have
been extremely disappointed
in the rigid position which
most newspapers. reporters
and columnists have taken
with regard to Mr.. Dulles
press-in- China policy. ! am
particularly distressed that
such a sound newspaper as
The Star should follow with
the pack.
I am not so much bothered
by the position the news
papers take as ! am by the
method by which they as
sumo it. / had understood
that q newspaper in its edi-
torials should consider both
sides Of an issue and then
draw a conclusion based
upon what 1t believed to be
the salient facts. It seems to
me that the press in gen.
eral has failed to adhere to
such q standard as far Is
this particular issue Is con-
cerned. Instead. the press
has assumed from the out
set that Mr.. Dulles policy is
unwise and unconstitutional
and has totally failed to in
form the general reading
public that his policy may
indeed be based on sound
prccepts, both from a diplo-
matte and legal point Of
view.
The statement which the
newspapers constantly make.
over and over again. is that
Mr.. Dulles, by his qualified
restriction of the Nations
press, is contravening q basic
right guaranteed against the
Federal Government in the
First Amendment to the Con-
stitution: namely. freedom of
the press. SupeThcially. such
. conclusion appears to be
sound, but It Is not.
It Is not sound because It
fails to recognize that all
rights guaranteed in the
First Amendment land the
Fourteenth) are qualifiable
rights which must constantly
be balanced against the du-
ties and obligations Of the
Government to protect the
general public. On the State
level. we have seen in
Vulnerable instances where
supposedly sanctified rights
have been constitutionally
abridged by legislative and
executive action: e.g., coming,
compulsory vaccination, sedi-
ton acts and many others
Indeed. the very purpose Of
most law Is to restrict the
actions Of the individual, and
any such restriction is valid
II its benefit to the general
public outweighs the detri-
ment to the individual. For
example. my right Of free
dom Of speech does not en-
able me to play a trumpet
on a crowded bus.
Applying this accepted
reasoning to the issue Of
Freedom Of the Press, we
find that such a freedom is,
like all others. qualifiable.
1t can be constitutionally re-
stricted II the resulting bene-
mt to the public overbalances
the harm suffered by the
press and by the public itself
in the abridgment of its
implied freedom to know"
The Executive Branch Of
the Federal Government.
charged as It is with the
duty Of conducting foreign
policy, is the proper organ
to decide whether the Ameri-
can public as q whole will
benefit from enlarged con-
facts with the Chinese main
land. 1t has decided that the
public will not. Unless such
a decision is patiently arbi-
trary. capricious and unreal
sonable. 1t will not be struck
down by any court. Indeed
1t is questionable whether
the Supreme Court would in
ject itself into the field Of
foreign policy under any cir
cumstances. Recent deci-
sions. including the Girard
case. would indicate that 1t
would not.
Perhaps Mr.. Dulles policy
is not wise, but from a legal
point Of view, It is undoubt-
edly proper.
Albert s. Bill, Jr.
Editors Note: The Star
has never thought, and has
never commended, that Mr..
Dulles stand on the question
Of permitting newsmen to go
to Red China was an inva-
sion Of freedom Of the press.
Our position has been that
the policy was unwise, that IL
A. = A