◆ SpookStack

a ice Hartan’s insistent requirement of ‘“con- ete action,” of “ingtigation, ” hark back to e then-dissenting opinion of Justice Doug: | Ips in the 1951 decision, which pointed out | that the Communist defendants were not ac- *cused of any “overt act” and that the case against them dealt with speech alone. li an overt act of attempted overthrow has to be proved against suspected Communist conspirators, if the teaching and advocating of which they are accused must be bound up with proved instigation to violence, Govern- ment prosecutions under the Smith Act may ha eansidarshiv handicannsd WD Vhs eh amay L eheemtaimnatnheld ‘il itmtientel Are we not to be permitted io head off an overt act? In writing the majority opinion in the 1951 case, Chief Justice Vinson had this to say: “The words ‘clear and present danger’ cannot mean that before the Goverment may act it must wait until the putsch is about to e executed, the plans have been laid, and he signal awaited. ” Unfortunately, the new majority lineup in the Supreme Court does not share Vinson’s opinions in the matter. It prefers to narrow the scope of the Smith Act and in so doing to dull the edge of an instrument which has been highly effective in dealing with the ringleaders in the Communist conspiracy. Even if the new theory of the court ma- jority should hold, it is difficult to under- stand why the Government should not have an opportunity to present its evidence against atl the defendants under the changed con- ditions. Meanwhile, as others accused under the Smith Act race into court with the new de- cision clutched to their chests, it might be well for Congress to take a searching look t the law that it wrote, and perhaps amend or re-write it in such a way that no legal- stic loop-holes are left for Communist plot- ers. ~