◆ SpookStack

ae ees C] ope re eR ST a « Y ASES DEALING. WITH COMMU- C NISM, subversion, and sedition dominated the Supreme Court's 1957 term and ted the controversy which mow. surrounds it... — - . + He -._ “As before in its history,” writes New York University law professor Edmond Cahn, “the court is passing through a hostile phase when criticism becomes strident enough to seem substantial and extreme encugh to suggest alarm.” : - Tren ' a » etal On June 36, Representative Josepu W. ” Martin, Jt., (R} of Massachusetts, House mjnority leader, declared over television ° that recent decisions had “crippled. the investigating committees’ of Congress.. Other critics raised their yoices in storms _ of unfavorable comment.--. ° .° *- ose who liked the new. direction of. thé court said little. There are signs now, fwever, that the gale force of criticism S somewhat subsiding. Congress quickly passed legislation to protect FBI files from promiscuous publication, Further- more, closer study produced a tranouilliz- tie, E2Oeer stu sOOMESR & Hanguiuz— ing effect... .- . no . What seemed to be happening was that : after a generation of rulings that tended . to favor the state as against the citizen in the turbulent world situation, the ma- jority of the high court. was now grow- ing anxious lest individual freedoms were in danger and was bent on shifting _ the balance. — ; . oo Five cases typify the new’ direction. - 1. Jencks Case ° eeerci TAF #2] The use of secret FBI information ac- cumulated against a defendant has been a difficult problem for judges. The court held June 3—with the sole dissent of Mr. Associate Justi¢e Clark—ithat the gov-- ernment must either dismiss its charges against Clinton ©. Jencks, a New Mexico mine union official, or make available | to him or his lawyer FBI reports about which government witnesses had given ofl testimony, * The burden ts the government's, the uurt ruled (not to be shifted to the trial dge), to decid= whether the publiz prejudice of allowing the crime to go unpunished is greater than that attend- ant upon the possible disclosure of state bat bre tn} secrets and other confidential informa- _ . tion in the government's possession,. This case‘ broke down barriers that” have long shielded FEI reporis in court: gislation to prevent the alleged danger f wholesalé exposure of FBI files buGits ction still left the Jencks icial mijlestonay. "sy et . _ In his sharp, lonely dissent, Mr. Jus ; lark said the opinion gave crimin ee ED aes ba ‘ ' ; of the questions, rosecutions, Congress rushed through - - - upheld its constitutionality aay” OMe ... Vital national secrets." Harv School dean, Erwin N, Griswold, ever, declared it “simply blueprints cedures used in every criminal court.” OW 2. Watkina Case ee This historic case defines and limite the investigative power of Congress and throws safeguards to the man inveatl- gated, It was written by Mr. Chief Jus- tice Warren. The only dissenter was Myr. Justice Clark. The court reversed the ‘lower court conviction of John T, Wat- kins, an Illingis labor leader, for con- - tempt when he refused to divulge to the ; House Un-American Activities Commit- suspected of communism. . Mr. Watkins had generally cooperated with the House committee but charged that some of its probings were vague and irrelevant to legislative requirements. The Warren opinion held that while the power of Congress to investigate is broad “it is not unlimited,” and that there “is no congressional power to ex- pose for the sake of exposure®’ In the specifie case the court ruled that the committee had fallen under the ““vice of vagueness.” The opinion upheld the authority of Congress to inquiré ipto and to publicize “corruption, malad- ministration, or inefficiency,” but it ruled that an inquiry must state clearly to the witness its purpose and the pertinency tee information regarding past associates This Geécision upheld the minori views in the lower court of Henry W. Edgerton, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District gaelcta— te of Columbia Judicial Circuit, It roused -some_ congressional ire by limiting so- called “fishing expeditions." The style of ‘the Warren opinion is unusually broad and sweeping in {ts criticism of the abuse of the investigatory power, and it has brought some eriticism on that account. 3. West Coast Communists © ‘rh Gots ine punish conspiracy to teach or advocate overthrow of the government by force or. ’ violence—is one of the most controversial laws enacted in modern times. It is the © only. sedition law passed by Congress since the Alien and Sedition Acts of John Adams’ edministration. - vi, A divided Supreme Court, 6-3, in 1951 the origi- nal Dennis case, but now in » second look thé court drastically red it and whittled it down. Messrs. Black and Douglas went even further and cot hate eo - Roman holiday for rummagtn: through Law ne penn erm ee ee ¥ Pr Pe ee errs 7 a pinith Act—a federal statute to~ cy ' a io gether. The new Harlan opinion empha- sizes the difference between teaching the overthrow of the government as an abstract idea and of advocating abijon to ing 2 ad 41 ste -1 that end. Mr. Justice Clark filed the iy ‘dissent. The court ordered acquittal five Communist defendants on the ground of “palpably insufficient” evi- dence, and sent nine others to a new tial. in California, ik : ri : fal Fol * Sweery Lase ~= =. : This dealt with an appeal from a state conviction for contempt in New Hamp~ shire where college professor Paul M. Sweezy refused to answer questions re« garding alleged subversive activities. The inquiry was by a “one-man legislative committee” under the state attorney general > The United States Supreme’ Court ruled that ‘there was nothing to connect the questioning” with the “fundamental interest of the state.” In a concurring opinion Messrs. Justices Harlan and : Frankfurter added that “the right of @ citizen to political privacy” must be bal- anced against the right of the state to self-protection. Mr. Justice Clark dis- sented and was joined by Mr. ystce Burton. ; ree, . 5. Communist Disqualificatids A series of decisions limited the legal penalties and, by inference, the social odium for past association with the Com-, munist Party. The court seemed to be arguing that former Communist mem~ bership is not sufficiently related to moral character to jtstify permanent ostracism of the individual or his dis- qualification from certain offices, Thus the court ruled out efforts of New Mexico and California to refuse admis- sion to the bar either because of past Communist Party meme > or be- cause of First Amendment refusal to answer questions. . © |: These decisions and othchi like them produced wide controversy. One point should be noted. In order to vindicate a generalized constitutional freedom it was necessary for the court in many cases to free a particular individual who held unpopular or even wrong-headed views. This brought charges that the court was being “soft” to alleged subveraives or actually “sympathizing” with them. "=... This seems hardly fair, The court, by’. its function, is not interested in the Wan as such, but in the precedent. From beginning it has reversed convicti deemed unconstitutional, however he nous the individual defendant, It does not Me stetl Geils fe ae GOSS .,Wanted to throw the Smith Act oullalto- .. love offenders but It hates bad procedure. . Pa ee es \