◆ SpookStack

O-i9 (Rev. 9-7-56) OQ **- Seen Confronted 's The Judiciary Committee of B House of Representatives s ants to know how the re- t cent decisions of th? Wremes ‘ o- toward limiting or : ae ing the investigative powers of Congress. So a ape- [in the Cole case. Among the ial committee of five mem- recommendations of the aug- bers has been appointed ta gested bill is the point that a ; condutt an inquiry. distinction should be made * But before any such inquiry | between employes in “security- ; can be effective, will the House | sensitive” agencies and ordi- ‘of Representatives accept the | nary employes of the Govern- setting forth the President's loyalty and security program. Fe of the -executive order Tt wes this order whose scope was subsequently modified by the Supreme Court's decision SS gS . Supreme Court’s edict and * ment. mye Sass ® resolution stating ex- The Supreme Court itself yaetly what it wishes to inves- {ned under consideration at the atest - inta an in @ tigate, and, if it should decide _té eall any witnesses, will the eommittee make clear in ed- ance distinction. The Court said wn fo be atten oe witnesses the Congress didn't mean to ‘ allow nonsensitive agencies to willbe dees unien the'aaug be covered by the Wreidents of ntatives is prepared aUOnS. assert fully Moody left the service of the to f its prerogatives Chief Justice a few days after under the Constitution, which the decision in the Cole case ys each House can make its ss wn rules governing {ts pro- was handed down, 94 the term ‘ings of the court ended. Moody, Th © ots of thi of course, bad just as much , LHETée are lo 7 about the operations oie right to publish his article as Bupreme Court of the United the Justices, nemacives, seem , ert the ben: mak- States which, under the “right | {°,288*rt © ¢ fo know” doctrine, Congress ing pyblic speeches on.contro- tan seek ta learn. ' versial issues of the day. foto of is, for example, the Wy VEE Wit. Geo decision handed down on June il, 1954. made just such a . nom uestionably, nods knows a abou wers e of “law clerks." Maybe hee they ought to be summoned to testify to explain recent decisions. Some of these aides are bfilliant students of the Jew and perhaps know more wbout the new-fangled reason- @ in the so-called “liberal” ee than do some of the and, in the article ip the California Law Review which occurs: “For what it may be worth, it is the writers’ heliet that some type of Federal ae- curity program is both paliti- cally and socially justifiable.” But the article pointe out that Congress should exclude from consideration as charges by any executive department against any employe such things as the signing of peti- tions, presente “at a gatherin of two or mote people,” use an alias, attendance at educa- tonal institutions, trayel out- United States. It isn't clear from the article whether ; ices themselves. . " In the March, 1956, issue of the California Law Review, ! tnstance, there was pub- ‘shed an article entitled “The Federal Loyalty-Security Pro- ‘ram: -A Proposed Statute.” One of. its three authors was Grahem B. Moody, jr, who Was. described ‘1 a footnote as él “head Jaw clerk to the Chief "side the [ sustiee of the United States.” ‘s Moody, In this article, pro: all questions relative to such posed a bill which Congress: points would be barred from ently urged to enact im. inquiry Cte ae dill OE 6175 161957 Fa, ~~ __ by Tribunal's Curbs of Congress in these matters ©! he co-authored, a footnote a eae ree BE ae Ea a fet oe ta paieees ams -_ nvestigating Court Decisions :57 ~~ iy! House Group Stadying Rulings’ Effects .. »ttins up “standards” to "as: . Government employment would not occur solely on ac- ‘count of their “sssoclations! or “passive activity.” - “Af Moody's paint of view 16.. to have been borne out 4 confirmed ‘in the Supreme, Court: Wecisions hich fol~ 2 lowed. This would appear to in=" dicate that, while the justices, / themselves, might decline tg! testify before the new com-" mittee of the House, maybe. the talented law clerks could. shed some Hght on the reason- | ing processes of some of the; ‘Justices, For the court now olds that individual rights! ually supersede the right of’ he Nation’ to protect itself’ gaingt subverafon. It accepts he so-called “Itberal’ view that congressional investiga- tors have no right under ’ Constitution to compel answers! from witnesses if the questions? elate to beliefs, past associn~* fons or “political” concepts. e word “political” presum. : ably now covers the Communtat ’ -QParty, though Congress hes refused’ to dignify the. Comes munist organization as a' legitimate political party in this country but holds tt to be | the agent of a foreign power hostile to the interests of the United State. ee | The House Judiciary Com- ittee will not get very far with its inquiry unless it ts’, prepared to investigate the * processes of the Supreme Court itself. For the American people have the right to find out who writes the decisions - of the ‘Supreme Court today—_ the justicéa or their. “law ” clerks.” If the “law clerks” 4 have such influence, should © not each parhsps ognized with the title of - “assistant Justice” and be ap- pointed hereafter subject te. confirmation by the Senate, just as are the justices them- - a selves and the “policy-making” ’. The Worker officials who assist the top- level members of the execu-. tive the Govern.: ment tee he, SoverRs. Wash. Post and Times Herald Wash, News _, 2 Wash. Star N. Y. Herald Tribune N. Y. Journal- American N.Y. Mirror 2 N. Y. Daily News N. Y. Times Daily Worker New Leader Dat wut 8 mi _ UA ATS KSA NOT RECORDED 44 JUL 15 1957 OF a