◆ SpookStack

fd - mon, co oe» Court has to the contrary—as the dissent paints out—one cannot without observing that this is done by telling a State court po ble doubt of i evEEE BEERS SF i i § tT z i ! ye lution stating, omey General is authorized a is mation [upon such tion as in his fudg- _ tment may ov reliable... .” : No. matter the” hrasing of words nor 1 the rationale of in ual members of the majority, it is plain that the elements of es sweet Lia. Me ft =, partnership between State and federal gov- ernments in the investigation of subversive activities have been sharply limited, if not destroyed. Mere questioning in legislative fact-finding does not stigmatize. It is the answers to questions that count. Tf the ques- tions are pertinent and relate to a vital concern of the State, they should be sanc- tioned, not struck down. The mere asking of relevant questions in fact-finding into possible subversion cannot destroy legiti- mate free speech. Without being disrespectful, I believe it . is a fair comment to characterize the language of the majority in the Sweery decision as pure sophistry. The individual citizens in America must fcel frustrated and helpless in the face of such reusoning reaching a con- clusion contrary to the literal right of the governed to self- preservation. Democracy has the right of sclf-preservation. Freedom does not, and cannot, mean freedom to destroy freedom in this country. Preservation of academic freedom and the American way of life does not require the judiciary to con- stitute the campus an insulated cloister wherein the relevant question may not tread in seeking to detect the presence or absence of a virus that would potentially destroy both ace- demic freedom and the American way of life. We are lawyers. That we happen to be attorneys general for the moment is either our good or poor fortune, as the case may seem to each of us. As lawyers, we must have re- spect for the law and confidence in the integrity, ability and enlightenment of our judiciary. The situntion of the law in the field of federal-State relations, and particularly in the field of subversive activities, has never in the history of the United States descended to as low a point in terms of lack of public confidence as It has reached today. | i 8, MEWS & WORLD REPOST, Acs. ~ mae co, aR vor caused “dangerous instabi fa in our law’ t w justine, f must be apparent to anyone with » balance wheel it that the recent decisions relating to Communism and the Communist Party; the tragic delay in disposal of the Subversive Activities Control Bourd orders relating to the Communist Party registration under the Internal Security Act of 1980; the requirement that confidential fles and reports to the Federal Bureau of Investigation—which may include clas- siicd material-shall be open carte blanche to cross-examina+ tion in all criminal cases, including prosecution for subversion; the decision that the board of bay examiners in New Mexico were required against their judgment te have in their bar association a man who had a record of previous membership in the Communist Party and previeus criminal activities; the decision that the California bar may not deny membership to eh et oe ht an anolieant who refiiees tc answer an applicant who refuses to answer whether he is presently a member of the Communist Party; decisions relating to exten- sions of federal control in the water cases: the decision requiring compulsory transcripts to the indigent in a State court in Hlinnis, aud decisions in deroga- tion of State labor lows not touching {interstate commerce—all these have brought about a dangerous instability in our law, a lack of confidence ie govern- ment and in the judicial structure of this nation. That this has been accompanied by such spectacles as those recently presented by the abuse of the Filth Amendment by Dave Beck and his son for purposes for which most assuredly it was never intended doce not help this uuhappy situation. What are peuple to think of the law when they read about such couduet on advice of counsel? What kind a a low do we heave that can pennit defiance of com mon sense to the extreme that i cannot sufficienth define ai omalat dn testiniony suficientl, define a polut iv testininy at which the Fifth Amendment begins to apply? Must a lawyer always tell a client, “You can't even admit to knowing vour own father Jest urler the doctrine of the Rogers case you may be construed to have waived your right to chim the privilege"? This is nonseuse. It is bad public rela- tions for the law. It is in the interest of improvement of the administra- tion of justice as well as restoration of pubtic conficeace in Government that, at the earliest possible time, there should be a decision clearly, rationally and firmly spelling out that the Fifth Amendment means what it always should have been plainly held to have meant, namely, that a truthful y Rater te hin enth, helices al iby th, bly furnish a link in a chain of evidence which might lead to his conviction for a crime not outlawed by the statute of limitations, and nothing less. The Fifth Amendment is not a shield against informing nor a barbiturate for twinges of personal conscience. ~ VOT, 12 ndnesiy Geneve by inc . . . Co-operation between the Stakex aad the Federal Govern- ment i a two-way street, H the Federal Government wants co-operation from the Stutes, then the judiciary shoukd permit extension of rea) co-operation te the States, for the proof of the pudding is in the eating. . Jf the bar association of the Stute of New Mexico does not want a former Communist and a former criminal as one of neereccenes ——— ee ——*