◆ SpookStack

® Bulletin re ve = SS eof : The U. S. Supreme Court held last spring that a New York State ban against,” "The Miracle'"-—-on the grounds that it was sacrilegious—--was unlawful censorships It also ruled that motion nictures, as such, were entitled to free-speech guarantees OHIO UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE MAKES REPORT * In a report to the state legislature, the Ohio Un-American Activities Commis: sion has called for some of the toughest anti-subversive legislation yet proposed, The commission, which went out of existence on December 31, also asked the lawmakers:: to revive its investigation into Communist operations in the state, ts me The strongest proposals of the commission were those calling for laws that* would make it a felony, carrying a penitentiary sentance, to: (1) help form, contri- bute to, or knowingly remain a member of a subversive organization; (2) commit or aid any act dedicated to violent overthrow of the state or federal government; (3) destroy records or secret funds of subversive. groups. — as wo Be The commission went on to stress "the clear and present danger of the Comminist Party" and asked for laws to dissolve Communist organizations, bar Communists and:3/%"" . members of other subversive organizations from holding special privileges or licenses, end make refusal to testify about Communist activities prima facie evidence of Com= munist or front-organization membership. ; 7 ee re’: . ¥ During its statewide investigations, the commission cited 20 witnesses fo refusing to say whether they wero or had been” Communists. —So-far;—seven-of _the-—37 5 - witnesses lave been indicted by grend juries. The commission has estimated that- there are about 1,300 Communists in the state, © va coe a ACLU groups in Cincinnati and Cleveland have strongly criticized the pro édurés and tactics of the investigating committee, The Cincinnati branch, after the <a iean mission reported, asked the legislature to cnd the commission's activities and “tos; investigate the latter's "strange and un-American conduct", It called for an inquiry to determine why the eennission released testimony of a witness “in reckless disré-. gard of the liberties and lives of the people who might be adversely affected thereby" -It also requested an investigation to cover the role of legislative investigating sgp committecs in our society and the development of procedures and safeguards to-insure- against repetition of civil liberties abuscs. . oe - . U.S. COURT RULES CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE PUBLICITY MAY PREJUDICE TRIAL One of the more unusual legal: decisions of the past few months has come--from the U.3. Court of Appeals in Boston. In effect, it says that if a congressional investigating committee looking into corruption stirs up nationwide publicity against a government official already under indictment, that official may get an ad journmen of his trial in order to lessen the danger of prejudice to him. LP. os Pil is The court's ruling came in a case involving Denis W. Delaney, one time col] tor of internal revenue for the district of Massachusctts. Delaney was indicted ing! September, 1951, for receiving payments aimed at influencing his decisions and for making false certificates of the discharge of tax liense 1° Mey é In October of the same year, the House Subcommittee on Administration of the Internal Revenue Laws - the so-called King Committee - began hearings focused on: the charges against Delaney. Many of the witnesses ‘called were those who had testified: before the grend jury. In addition, the investigators dug into other aspects of Delaney's life, among them an alleged bankruptcy and a charge of embézzlement s~n 3% Although the testimony against him had wide pu licity, Dolancy was neither, called;nor invited to appear before the committec. eR . re? ou 3 S ; Because of the adverse press reports, Delaney asked for, and”got, a’ postpone= ment of his trial - for one month, However, his petition for a further delay | was:xis, turned down by a district court. - vas ae CEU oD a This, said the court of apneals, was an error. Delaney sh ther continuation to give the furor a chance to dic downs ° | oF ea The court made its ruling not as’a matter of constitutional law, »: - what it thought to be proper supervision of procedure in federal, courts. .” ‘decision might not apsly to cascs involving pcople indicted or investigate bodies, or when proceedings are held in state courts, “And the court did not © what would happen if a person were indicted after a legislative’ hearing, rath _ before the hearing, : Hees SE