Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-06-28

and lectured the Executive and
Legislative branches so severely
that members of Congress and
Justice Department officials are
Just beginning to fight back.
This does not mean that Pres
ident Eisenhower's comments in
Z Last Of Q Series
dictate deep dissatisfaction with
his four appointees 70 the trib-
unal. It does not mean. either.
that Attorney General Brow
nell's plans for legislative pro-
posals aim at reversing or nulli-
flying Chief Justice Warren's
views. Nor does it suggest that
Congress will either impeach or
pack the henchS
Almost certainly, the High
Court rulings in the so-called
Smith Act cases and contempt
actions against defiant witnesses
before congressional committees
As well as State commissions
viii bring counter action. So far
as can be determined at this
etage. however, the basic import
md prime constitutional aim
Of the decisions seem likely to
survive.
Agree ON Need for Action
Various Congressional and Ex-
ecutive officials usually at odds
With Mr.. Brownell on most mat
tiers agree that the time and the
trend call for something besides
talk. The courts severest critics.
by no means confined to one Sec
ton Of the country or to one
political party. concede 1t Is
shaping laws governing individ-
ual freedom.
The "counter-revolution" is to
zee that Congress is not curbed
IN making laws and in establish
ing its own rules and procedures
for getting information neces-
sary for enactment Of legislation.
One important concern Of the
Justice Department Is to make
sure that protection Of national
security and essential investiga-
tive methods. especially in fignt-
ing subversion or coping with
Communist methods. is not out
weighed too heavily by the
courts insistence on protection
Of the individual. This is es-
pecially a matter of concern for
the Justice Department in carry
ing out programs against pos
sible subversion and in coping
with the often devious tactics
OF Communists.
Temperate Views Emerge
Initial reports that turmoil II
not chaos existed throughout the
Justice Department and con-
gressional investigation commit
tees have given way to q more
temperate appraisal. This is not
100 per cent optimistic, but 1t
Is far from desperate.
The decision in the case Of
the IA California Communists |
did not strike at constitution
atty Of the 1910 Smith Act pro-
vision against teaching and adj
vocating forcible overthrow of
the Government. The court has
not determined decisively in any
case how far q congressional COM
mittee witness can properly 60
In invoking the Fifth Amend
ment guarantee against possible
self-incrimination. Nor has it
ruled directly on First Amend
ment issues of freedom Of speech
and press in such refusals to
answer.
The ruling in the Watkins case
seemed designed principally to
give a witness fair treatment by
protecting him from questions
not demonstrated to be perth
nent to the explicit purpose Of
the investigation. In a New
Hampshire case involving Paul
M. Sweezy. a lecturer and editor,
the doctrine of added care" in
the propounding Of official ques-
tons was extended to the State
sphere.
Questions Not Forbidden
The court nevertheless did not
forbid committees from asking
witnesses about persons they may
have known as Communists.
Still another facet was brought
out in the decision that John
Stewart Service was illegally
fired by former Secretary of State
Acheson from q foreign service
job, although Congress had given
the Secretary discretionary power
to dismiss employees. The court
did not invalidate that discre-
tionary power. 1t confined its
ruling to a finding that Mr..
Acheson failed to adhere to de-
partment regulations when he
ousted Mr.. Service after clear
ance by a loyalty board.
These decisions nevertheless
fell upon Congress and Govern
ment as well as State bodies with
sufficient weight to cause rum
bling and alarm.
How About Other Reds?
AS for questions about the cur
rent woes and future moves Of
Government law enforcers. Fed
eral prosecutors. and congress
sional law makers and investiga-