◆ SpookStack

8 ea a reentrant es 5 ier” 0-13 (Flev. 9-37-56) | ofan ON ome wpe J the misfits, To the N, ¥, Herald Tribune: Any Congressman who votes to deprive U; ited States citizens of a jury aes jin cases ot BeOUs Sauion of viclation of civil righia, or any other law violation, has no right to criticize the Supreme 1) Court “power grabbing.” I agree that the Supreme. Court has of late been grabbing | power in a most terrifying and dictatorial manner, but when the United States Congress gives Federal courts the right to rule by injunction without jury trial, they are Ill advised in criticizing - the Federal Supreme Court. The ‘{ only reason the Supreme Cowt can “grab” power Js because an. emasculated Congress is weak enough to relinquish its powers, JOHN G, W. ROBERTSON, New York, June 27, 1957, To the N. ¥. Herald Tribune: You uphold the Supreme Court's distinction between “ab- Btract’ discussion of violent overthrow of the government end actual overt acts to that purpose . Tou say that is free speech and cannot be assumed to incite to eriminal gction. -That is chuckle-headed reason- ing if I ever saw any. - . Do you honestly belleve any discussion by a Communist is without ulterior motive? Is not everything they say distated by the party?" Are any of them free to speak for themselves? The Communist party, aside | from a hard core of dedicated Fa ae par Sa ay Ser ee eee SAUL, 3b LOWUTIUUSLY TE | cruited from the disgruntled,, the unbalanced idealists and the weak-minded. Can any purported “abstract” discussion fail to have an im- pact on these unstable people? According to the Supreme long as I confine my- Sas no-matter how sub- 7 —_— ce” ind a irate. hee) OSupreme Court | ecisionsS ‘ versive, and do not stage a riot, taurder a ‘President, or sel! state secrets, I cannot be blamed be- cause some fool took my ine a Treen ee flammatory Specthes literaily and went into action. I can ase sert it was an “abstract? dis- cussion, I did not incite him. ~- I think it ls more than time for Congress to bring the Su- Preme Court down to earth. NILLA VAN SLYKE HARDER, Phiimoht, N. ¥., June 25, 1957 EThe distinction made by the court aud by our editorial was not between advocacy and overt acts. It waa between advocacy as “mere abstract doctrine’ and. “advocacy which incites to ile egal action.” Previous convice tions under the Smith Act have been upheld because the judge's charge tade that distinction, The mere assertion by a subver- sive that hla discussion is ab- tract is by no means enough to lear him of incitation to il. egal ection._Ed.} - To the N, Xx. Herald Tribune: Tyéad thé letter you printed entitled “End of McCarthyism”, I agree that the Supreme Court has apparently put an end to the era of McCarthyism, bat is that good? At least no one could accuse McCarthy of being tolerant to Communists, The Supreme Court would ap- pear othtrwise, judging by its recent decisions. I refer to the decision overruling the Red-case convictions and also the deci. éion to make avaiiabie the fites of the F.P I. This Jast seems to be the height of naivete, to put if charitably. These deci- sions seem to say: “Let's be easy ag possible an the Reds.” Personally, I prefer Joe Mo-~ Carthy. . ELIZABETH L. KENT, Brooklyn, June We RISES: # { BOT RECOROED 44 JUL 1° jas7. + i —_ Necse Tele. Room Holloman Gondy KY“ min \>7 1 ame Wash, Post and Times Herald . Wash, News Wash. Star N. Y. Herald Tribune N. Y. Journal- American N. Y. Mirror N.Y. Daily News __.__ N.Y. Times Daily Worker _.* The Worker New Leader if Date Lye 08 ae, i