◆ SpookStack

barrassing , Balaceelooking “at “the Tene apd | , shadows in some of these opinions, it js |. interesting to note that Justices Hues b, |: ee tan _Black’ and William” 0, Douglas, both (Ponce m rrr ” Ja thei orentoas “Roosevelt appointees, still emerge as the / COURT. From - Dorothy: rneger . Court's leading “freedom firsters,” while'| der the Due Process Clause of: Charice ified, thea ~ ef. i . th Ar woo who their husbands Justice Tom Clark, a Truman appointee, the Fifth Aniendment” | while’ they were with: | Most frequently dissents on the consery: ative side, with all four of the Eisen: ,hower appcintees dnd some. others in between, ~ é Poe ;° The Court's condemnation of . tha almost unlimited invest- ‘gative powers conferred upon | the. Un-American Activities ' Committee . and. its frequent Warren Stood Alone - -- \- “gOWNEF Justice Earl Wairen” often stands with Black and Douglas, but at the same time maintains a salutary independence, This was pointedly dem- onstrated when he delivered a separate concurring opinion in the Roth and <Al- berts cases. a Justice Brennan had written @ sweep. - ing opinion, for. the majority, . upholding convictions under the Federal and Cali- fornia obscenity statutes, Douglas: dnd Blark eondemnead the ctetitac oc ‘aac eee WAIN UG SLELULES & “COT- - munity censorship in- one -of Its. worst forms.” The Chief Justice congluded -that the defendants, ‘ re plainly en- gaged in the commercial exploitation of ' are we “Whe can define the meaning of ‘un-American’?” the. Chief Justice asked. Jt ig truly amaz- ing that this committee should have ‘probed into many facets of American life over a period of 20 yeara, sometimes with the \ptmnost recklessness, without ncountering any effective ju- dicial restraint. . ‘ - “erhaps this fact accounts | for the scope of the present: opinion. Vat some of ita. gen- ¥ necessarily alarmed Congress, | which lays great store upon its, investigative powers. Jn this case it remained for Justice Fe- lix Frankfurter to summarize — a a the American -mitttary forces abroad, the Court‘ applied a basie eonstitutional principle ; in a manner which may have serious repercussions on our military defenses, Ht said that these women, being’ civillans, - could not be tried by courts martial. This means they can- not be tried at all, for none of our civilian courts has juris diction over crimes committed _ in other countries; § | The- Court had an embar- rassing choice to make. The United States as Justice Black pointed gut in the Majority opinion, is “entirely a cres- ture of the Constitution.” It cannot act against American | sitizens ‘abroad “free of the’ Bill of Rights.” Though the soundness of this principle is scarcely open to question, its application ta the facts at hand is giving much concern. eralizations eeem to have un) IF THE Black-Warren-Dpug- , las-Brennan view prevails, something must “give” some. ere. It would be impossibp:. td bring all civilian offende “the state and Federal governments can | ’§ jon of the Chief Justice had aj been similarly stripped of non- | essentials and generalizations, the chance of inducing -Con- ~: gress to hold 2 tighter rein on : its far-reaching inquiries might g have been improved. a | One other aspect of the case _materlals with prurient effect” and that ; dramatic fashion. If the opiu- —___. -eonstitutionally punish - such ~conduet.” He stood alone on nartowet ground be- “cause he feared (and mapy: share. this ee dn te, algoaa io the United Siai fof trial, along with the wie nesses, who, in many in- stances, would be citizens of ‘foreign lands, Nor is it feas- fear} that the majority opinion may later he invoked against geriuine art | and literature. oo a The note that the Chief Justice. sounded here may be appropriately applied to various other opinions. The ° _Court has Jooked toward broad horizons, Sgme of its opinions will undoubted! ba landmarks in_the history of civ : has disturbed some lawyers. If, . it had involved some of the: ible to set up civilian courts to more bizarre quests of the prob: try Amertcang in other coun- : sters, the condemnation of their , tries. No nation today will the morbid and shameful craving -for | ~~ the ruling of the Court in noti- | Jeose “charter” wauld have 2 tolerate that tind of extrater-. in t nstance the c 1, ices . however inept it may have heen |... | Tout Marske arte ang tating its: purpose, was {n- ;, : - estlgune the jpaltration of; cepted the principie laid down H hy the majority oniy because t these were capital cases. It might be feasible to bring the relatively few capita] casts | arising among civilian camp- . followers abroad to the United : ‘States for trial. Yet it is- ~ Wherties. Yet there is a feéling amofg: me lawyers, officials and other servers of the Court that, in staking ‘out ‘new areas of freetiom, it has gone too jar and moved without the caution which f. Communists into labor unions. © Undoubtedly, as Justice Clark : pointed out in his dissent, Con- gress has power to inquire into a conspiracy aimed at destruc- K tion of the Nation. Pe, \ . - OF COURSE, questions asked must be pertinent in the most F legitimate of investigations and | that pertinenc® should be made Clear to the witness; also, the | powers of the Investigators ought tb be specifically defined. :' ' But this gets back to the nar- row ground of the Court's rul-_ : Co ing and still teaves some pus * ofinion, he concluded that “there’is | ‘ repeal ayer ite much broader . e i . tcear Aye ot wor congressional power {o* expose for the | sake of exposure” and the convic- ‘tion of John T, Watkins for contempt ‘of Congress was “necessarily invalid un- ! Bee COURT, Fags Bs, Columy f° : a ‘expected of the Nations highe 1 ce le cee L difficult to see how any legaf distinction can be made be- tween caplial and other crim. inal offenses when they are. ‘all lumped together in the con- ; Stitutional guarantee of trial f In’ the Watkins case, for example, t _ Chief Justice seemed oblivious to the | Sense of restraint which caused him to ' Stand alone in thé obscenity cases. This , time he carried 2 malority with him in SS nee Te eeak 4) _ |. agfour de force against the Comm f Ee OF Un-American ‘Activities, In a 35-pa * ervbealiliine,