◆ SpookStack

. it is directed to the lew enforcement problem raised by the Supreme A Court decision in Mallory v. united, States, 354 U.8. 448. Its scope is A narrow. It is aimed at one legal problem. Its effect may be anticipated. Ta the Mallory case, the court ruled inkdntdsible.a confession made during a delay between arrest. and srraighieht which the court considered to be unnecessary. The bill would provide that evidence, including statements and confessions, otherwise admissible, would not be inadmissible solely because of reasonable delay in taking an arrested person before & com missioner or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States. We have no objection to the enactment cf this bill. A third measure which is likely to be placed before the Senate would amend Title 18 of the United States Code to authorize the enforcement of State statutes prescribing criminal penalties for subversive activities. This legislation is directed at the effects of a specific court decision, Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497. It provides that certain Federal statutes prescribing criminal penalties for subversion or sedition ageinst the United States or any state shall not prevent the enforcement in 4 state court of a state statute prescribing penalties for such activities. In the Nelson case the Supreme Court held that a conviction under the Pennsylvania law of sedition against the United States could not be sustained because the Federal statute (Smith Act, 18 U.93.C. 2385) had pre- empted this field of seditious activity.*-8.654 overcomes the effect of the Nelson case by specifically providing that Congress does not intend to pre-empt the field to the exclusion of state law in this area of subversion and sedition. We supported similar legislation in the last Congress (S. 3617) and reiterate that support now. Another bill important to state-federal relationship although not to any recent Supreme Court opinion and which I have been informed will be considered iftth R. 8361, a bill "To amend section 2254 of title 28 of the United States Code in reference to applications for writs of habeas corpus by persons in custody pursuant to the judgment ‘of a state court." TO et ee ie ee gee ee . Section 2254 of title 28 of the United States Code now provides that no application for ea writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a State court judgment shall be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the. State courts or that there is either an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights of the prisoner. It also provides that an applicent shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the State courts if he has the right under the law of the State to raise the question presented. H. R. 8361 would add to the foregoing the provise that application for a writ of habeas corpvs may be entertained only if a substantial federal = constitutional question is presented which was not theretofore raised and determined, which there was no fair and adequate opportunity theretofore to ; raise and have determined, and which cannot thereafter be raised and