◆ SpookStack

/ “ 0-19 (Rey. 9-7-58) Cr : ‘Today in National Affairs wo Supreme Court Provédure Questioned in Bias Ruling hited States doesn't practice what 1€ + .. From time immemoriat it has been @ rule of law that, when { an expert witness testifies in court, he must be present for cross- fxamination by the other side. The Aupreme Court has just said, - moreover, that, when the F. B. I. puts on a Witness in a criminal case, the other side Tnust have access to anything and every- Uhing about the witneas which is in the files af the isw-enforcement agency so that the credibility of such a witness may be tested In court: -~ . But the Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t allow this in its own proceed- Baings. Thus, the famous decision on school integration violated all the rules of modern courts by declaring that it was based on the “authority” of witnesses who never were re- vealed in court at all. . . Some of these “witnesses” were connected with Communist-front organizations, and one of them was a Swedish Socialist who bitterly criticized the American Constitution. The ; _ lawyers for the several sovereign states who argued the case before the Supreme Court were not told that the court had any “secret witnesses" or “experts” wp its judicial! } Lawrence fleeve. Only when the decision was printed did the American People learn what “witnesses” hag Court’s conclusions. Today one of American history has grown out, influenced the Supreme Wie bitterest controversies (hn pays that & “provisional Lnvepil- Ragon of the guthorities ufion of the same Supreme Court de- \ | ¢ision, which says candidly that its ruling Was based on informa- pick the Supreme Court relied INDEXED . 95 : pean : is to @ shocking degree ton derived from certain “ex- iby eir connection with and partic- verte. yO peation in the World-wide Com-f The decision says that “what- Miunist Conspiracy, in that Bra- ver may have heen the extent Bmeid and Frazier, listed in the f psychological knowledge” atBeroup of six authorities, have? he time (1898) that the opinion no less thay Riy-eight clta-[ {Plessy V. Brown} was handed im the files of the Comes down which permitted ‘‘sep- i : Achivi-l' wrate but equal” school facil-f ities, the new finding “is amply fi * revealing supported by modern “ author- Prouecmuin In. or pay ticiogtions jty.” . with, Communist or Communis ? The Supreme Court, in its {TOW Organizations ands opinion, then cited six “author- es tties® and said in @ footnote: “and see generally Myrdal, ‘An€ - ay Eastlatd pointed out American Dilemma’ (1944)." we the Sethn Soest ” Sen. Eastland, of Miselsstpp!,Meclared—in the book cited by mocrat, chairman: of theIBhe Supreme Court—that the Senate Judictary Committee, hasff nited States Constitution was placed before the Benate a reso-Wimpractical. and wnsulted tot fution containing information Minodern canditiona” and that its ‘which nobody was evidently per- Bdoption was “nearly a plot taitted to place before the Su-Figainat the common peoples,” feme—Peurt during ibe time” Ben. Eastland added that ibe case wes being argue "Hefthe citation of theat “author. ties clearly indicates “a dan- serous influence and control en the Supreme Court} by Comsmunist-front pressure groups and otner enemies of the Ammerteeretepublic f Zz ' 63FuL ise? | Wa ee WASHINGTON, June 27.—The Stpreme Court of the prere—— al “mrenmems thereof thet is inimical ta the general welfare and best interesta of the repub- ts a “oe My. Eastland seid he was cén- vinced the Supreme Court has been “indoctrinated and ‘brain- washed” by Left-Wing pressure groups." : ; Whether one does or does “authorities cited by the Su- preme Court por introduce other experta io present @ contra- dictory interpretation. For the court didn’t tell anybody who its “witnesses” were, It kept them secret until the decision itself was announced, So there wasn't any opportunity for con- frontation” or “refutation.” Yet, that’s the ride the Supreme Court insista on whenever any oné in the lower courts brings! in witnesses and no opportunity for: cross-examination is given. Instead of performing a re- view function, the Supreme ‘Court has introduced its own “axperta,” and the other side ‘gould not cross-examine them or ‘evaluate their expertness or \credibility. This certainly wasn’t “dye process” =- the court's ‘faffortte phrase, which it u tediy in sa recent decis: erjppling the powers of Congr sidnal investigating commit © 1957,N.¥. Herald Tribune Ite. EX-131 \C4- 27E78-A NOT RECORDED . 138 UL 10 19535 + a. 8. Wash, Post and anes Times Herald Wash, News Wash. Star N. Y. Herald Tribune ON N. Y. Journal- - American N.Y. Mirror N, Y. Daily News N.Y. Times Daily Worker The Worker New Leader : Date t 957