◆ SpookStack

. ~Us Honcréble George Cochran Doub April 23, 1958 Munn, etc., by doctrinaire extensions of the due process clause, _ and when all blocks to communist control are finally removed - when the assertion of the power by Congress will be essential to national self-preservation, If the administration should oppose this Bill because of the inciusion of the escape clause correction of the Konigsberg case, it will go far to confirm the assumption by the Court of its power as a super-legislature, so justly criticized by Judge Hand, Here, in my view, we have a fundamental constitutional clash. both the Administration and Congress have seriously sought to meet the menace of communism. Both have sources of information which have led to tneir actions, not available to the Judiciary. They, not the Judiciary, have the responsibility for defense. The people have backed the Ad- ministration and Congress. Surely, this 1s no time for minor legalistic objectidns to be made to the Bill, as it is now evolved in a completely different way from the crig‘nal Jenner Bili, when it is finally passed. But any such defeccs are minor compared to the overriding importance of the Executive and Congress continuing to cooperate in a fieid of importance to nationai security, as is recognized by the public, was by the Vinson Court - but is not by a majority of the present Court, Io don't think discriminating people will be concerned by the editorials of such papers as the New York Times, and the hang-over from the criticisms of the originai Jenner Bill. I must say that, even though agreeing with the objectives, I thought 1t an unwise method,at the present time anyhow. Its casual treatment by the New York Times is pretty ridiculous, as pointed out by the comment in the National Review of April 12, 195t, and alsothe Saturday Evening Post of April 19, i958, photo- states of which are enclosed. But I don't mean to get olf on the original Jenner Bill, or even the Jenner-Butler Bill, be- cause that is not what !s coming from the Commi:tee and it should not be treated as the same, but should be analyzed on its merits without that backgrdund. It is unfortunate that there is bound to be a hang-over of that attitude in editorial minds, as il- lustrated by the vicious attack by the Evening Sun of April 23 and the more restrained criticism of tne Morning Sun of April @4. As to the latter, the inclusion of matters such as the investiga- tion of communism, the leaving of certain areas to states, the correction of criminal laws, seem &@s closely related as the various provisions of the original Internal Security Act and the Communist Control Act. As to tne former, the editor of course confuses the issue as to lawyers, which is whether the privilege of becoming an officer of the state court is to be left to the state to determine, and the rhetorical question is based upon the assumption that it must be outrageous not to