◆ SpookStack

Fir, aiid ne tate x e boast lye ee a at: i O-. 0 Frov. 1-28-59) - ” ene ger gp eee ee et THE-NATIONAL SCENE) 2 > i ~ Fundamental Right - Tackled by Court ; Tt undamentals of freedom written into the First Amend- a + tive for 168 years provoked justices of the Suprenie Court to s ts-of judicial passion, often recorded in pungent degalistle ; rose. p The solemn language of the first article of the Bill of Rights _ Pledging fteedom of speech and press, of religion and assembly ‘is regarded by most Amertcans, lawyers and laymen alike, as the _most Important paragraph of the Constitution. — a ee free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate,” wrote the late Justice Cliver Wendell Holmes, jr. The extent to which the rights of the individual as delineated by the First Amendment can be abridged and subordinated to the national interest has peen debated exhaustively in the controversy over the tactics of congressional committees in the much-tilled field of Communi{sé investigation. The issue, intertwined with in- vestigatory rights of the legisla- tive branch, has figured to some degreé in almogt every subversion case before the Supreme Court. But while the high tribunal Jias narrowed and defined the con- étitutional prerogatives in a series of controversial decisions ,that have invoked the wrath of many members of Congress, it has never met the basic questions head-on. Drawing the Line - Last week the Supreme Court moved a substantial step closer to drawing an unequivocal line be- tween the investigatory rights of Congress and the constitutional privileges of witnesses summoned before its committees, It did so in two 5-to-4 decisions that dramatized and deepened the sharp division of the court on the crucial issue of individual rights and the manile of pro- tection offered by the First mandrnsane Amendment. The majority opinions clarified | and, in some eyes, adulterated the court's celebrated rulings in the Watkins and Nelson cases. But more than this they stated in clearer languege-than the court has ever used before the Con- Stitutional rights of both Con- Gress and State governments in : bversjen. eld: aae 4 1959 ‘If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperas , tively calls for attachment than any other it Ls the pritifiple of reerse a former en at Vassar College who refused to answer questions of the Howse Un-American Activities Commit- tee in 1954 about Communist S50- ciations. upholding Barenblatt’s cbn- tempt conviction, the high court ruled: @ The committee’s right to con- duct the investigation was “un- assailable.” @ The Goverriment’s interests outweighed Barenblatt’s protec- tion ‘under the First Amendment. @ The Watkins precedent did not apply because Barenbiatt did not raise the issue of pertinency before the committee. Justice Harlan wrote the ma- jority opinion and was joined by Justices Frankfurter, Clark, Whittaker and Stewart. he four dissenters were Ja 1 is Black, Douglas and Brenf:an an Chief Justice Warren. Spekk- for the minority, Justice Black declared: “Ultimately all the questions in this case really boil down to one —whether we as a people will try fearfully and futilely to pre- - serve democracy by adopting to- talitarian methods, or whether in accordance with our traditions and our Constitution we will have the confidence and courage to be free” Majority Is Challenged The bitterly worded Black dis- ' sent challenged the majority view that the protections of the FirsPEC- sg ‘Amendment could be outbalanced by the interests af the Govern- ‘ment. It sald the real purpose of ‘the Un-American Activities Com- mittee is “exposure and punish- ment” of witnesses rather than i on for legitimate legjs- lative purposes, el Ae ae - ne sufficient reason.for: a witness “to refuse to answer. the commit~ ‘tes’s questions, :-.'" : Thus they would extend to its ? broadest possible scope the ruling . Of the court In the Watkins case “ that questions need not be an- swered uniess they are ‘“perti- ‘ nent” to the investigation. - Here, as at almost every other _ point, the majority and minority: . views were in irreconcilable op- position. In one of the most sig- nificant siatements of the major~ . ity opinion, Justice Harlan as- serted: . _ “Sea Tong as Congress acts in ‘pursuance of its constitutional power, the judiclary lacks author- ity to intervene on the basis of the motives which apurred the exercise of that power.” . In blunt language the majority opinion said that Congress had complete authority to investigate subversive activities, that it had conferred this authority on the Un-American Activities Commit- tee in vague but still valid in- structions (to investigate ‘“un- American propaganda”) and that it was not for the courts to ques- tion the committee’s true motives. The Witness’ Right Where does this leave a witness .who balks at answering questions because he does not consider them pertinent to the subject of the in- vestigation? It leaves him with the right to demand of the com- ttee an explanation of what it | dfiving at. As the Supreme Court said if Watkins case: ° “The explanation must descr! el ‘ ty ~ fof AT f ‘ een The Washington Post and McGuire Mohr ons am Trott WC fun Tele, Room Holloman Gand 1a ee Limes mera The Washington D The Evening Star New York Herald Tribune -” ly News _ New York Journal-American __ New York Mirror New York Daily News New York Post The New York Times an dee. The Worker The New Leader The Wall Street Journal Date \ ars ui 46 JUN 23 1959 a eel Juw i 4 1959