Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-03-31

an important bearing on the Fl
of racketeering in labor and man.
agement.
When Mr.. Beck showed up before
the rackets investigating commit
tee last week, Chairman John Nc
Clellan inquired if the labor leader
had brought his records and papers
with him.
Yes, Mr.. Beck said. he had.
And was Mr.. Beck prepared to
produce them for committee in
spection?
No, Mr.. Beck said. he wasn't
So the Senator promptly signed
subpoena duceS tecun which had
been readied ahead of time and had
it served on Mr.. Beck.
Now would Mr.. Beck kindly turn
over the records?
No. Mr.. Beck said, he wouldn't.
And the reason he wouldn't was be-
cause the committee was acting be-
yond its jurisdiction and because he
Mr.. Beck, was shielded by the
Fourth and Fifth Amendments from
demands that he surrender any
personal data.
Were They Personal?
Were the activities about which
Mr.. Beck was questioned solely
those OF private citizen, or were
they the semi-ofhcial or quasi
official acts of a union member?
And are the records and documents
IN question really personal records,
or could they also be considered
union records of which Mr.. Beck
happens to be the custodian, in
tended or unintended?
Conceivably the answer to these
queries might have lot to do with
whether or not Mr.. Beck is cited
for contempt of Congress as a re-
suit of his performance on Capitol
Hill last week.
The public is not generally aware
OF the content of the records sought
by the investigating committee, so
1t may be, as claimed, that they
are strictly personal ones. On the
other hand. since Senator McClel-
Ian has openly stated that he plans
to give careful study to the de-
termination Of whether Mr.. Beck's
conduct before the committee
amounted to "actionable" contempt.
there may be doubt on this point.
II the records and papers are not
purely personal ones, then Mr.. Beck
was possibly flouting the law when
he declined to turn them over
the Fourth and Fifth Amendments
Notwithstanding. In other words,
these constitutional projections
would not apply in such circum-
stances.
The Fourth Amendment gives
citizens the right TO be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and
effects, against sonable
searches and seizures. :"
The Fifth Amendment provides
that no person shall be compelled
in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself"
Limited Application
Insofar as they apply to business
and labor organizations these two
amendments are. according to the
current state of law, limited
In fact. the privilege against
Self-incrimination as set forth in
the Fifth Amendment is a personal
one and cannot be invoked to cover
up any wrong doing by an organi-
cation, Incorporated or unincorpo-
rated, or its officers. And 1t is pretty
difficult for an organization TO sue
coed IN denying its records to q
duly authorized Government au-
thority on the grounds of unreason-
able search and seizure.
The latest Supreme Court holding
on the matter--one which UNDER
took TO define Fourth and Fifth
Amendment privileges as applied to
busineSses-occurred in 1916. This
was Oklahoma Press Publishing Co.
Us. Wdllin0 and it involved the
refusal Of the company to produce
records to show that it was comply
ing with the Federal wage-hour
laws. Grounds for refusal we're
much the same as those offered by
Mr.. Beck.
The court decided that the Fifth
Amendment offered no protection
to the company or its officers as
such. nor did the Fourth under
the circumstances.
Here is the significant comment
In that opinion:
"A fair distillation tof the law in
regard to the production OF cor
porate records and papers) in re-