◆ SpookStack

ee A Good Day’s Work The Bill of Rights—that part of the United States Constitution which guards the Liberties ' of American citizens—is the strong of four decisions handed down by t Co near ‘the close of its 1956-57 terin. Taken together those rulings provide a reassur- | ing contrast to the decisions In recent years thet have tended to erode constitutional rights. In these four civil liberties cases the Supreme Court decided: First, that 14 “second string” Communist lead- ers in California were unlawfully convicted un- der the Smith Act in 1952. Second, that career diplomat John Stewart Service was wrongfully discharged by J the Secre- tary of State in 1951. . Third, that Illinois labor leader John T, Wat- kins was not guilty of contempt of Congress when he refused to tell the names gf former Communist associates to a House Un-American Activities subcommittee. Fourth, that Paul M. Sweezy, economist and co-editer of the Monthly Review, was not ac corded due process of law when he was held In contempt by the Attorney General of New Hamp- Shire for refusing to answer questions about lectures at the University of New Hampshire and about his political activities. . ™ . In none of these cases was there the slightest disposition on the part of the Supreme Court to favor Communists or their teachings. In each case, the Supreme Justices based their decision on basic rights which must apply equally to all if freedom of the individual citizen is to be protected, . Justice Harlan, an Eisenhower appointee, gave the 6-to-1 decision in the case of the California Communists. With only Justice Clark dissent- ing (Justices Brennan and Whittaker were not on the high bench when the case was argued), the court freed outright five of the defendants and returned the cases of nine others for new trials. The five were freed, the Supreme Court said, because the evidence against them “is so clearly insufficient that their acquittal should _ be ordered.” : As Justice Harlan aaid, the Department of : Justice erred in putting its reliance om the 1951 decision of the Supreme Court upholding the © Smith Act conviction of Eugene Dennis and i other top officials of the Communist party in | the United States. The error was, a0 Justice | Harlan found, in failing to distinguish between “advocacy of abstract doctrine and advocacy of | action.” To quote the Justice's words: ' The essential distinction is that those to’ whom the advocacy fs addressed must be urged to do something. now oF in the future, rather than merely to believe in something. In applying the Smith Act, the Supreme Court had to decide, so Justice Harlan explained, whether the 1940 law forbid advocating and teaching forcible overthrow as an abstract prin- ciple, “divorced from any effort to instigate 4 r Vf +a ia 40 Mh. Tr. Boar man Mr. Belryont.. BUT Stenny Mr. Wse yomm |e fy y Mv, Nonce Tele. Ruom.. Me. Helloman—_— Mise Gandy ee ee ST. LOWES POSC-DISPAI CS ST. LOUIS, MISS “AI Date: OAK Editics: ot phase pun Author: lo nee 44 JuL 1° 196% ——— action to that end.” Answering the questi ee a a Syglice Hazlan said: “We hold that it deerme) OL Te x