Document text
5..
._ ' ""'.= _ ..*=§T*.~
V V 1 '_
77".A7i;-
.3;
..-.'-is
tee
*?1_'-;'~*-f.**
.-0-19 Riv. 10-39-S1] '
_ U
to limit the Supreme Courts
Jurisdiction over appeals.
' The Home of Delegates, gov-
,ernlng body oi the ABA, com-e
pleted a two-day winter meet-.
eing yesterday by adoptin: aj
resolution opposina a bill in-
troduced in the Senate by Bene-
tor Jenner, Republican of
Indiana.
The Jenner bill would take
from the high tribunal the
right to hear appeals on caaee
involving congressional com-
-lmitbees. executive security pro-
; grams, State security programs,
lschool boards. or admissions to
|the bar.
The resolution opposing this
. proposal was amended from the
1 oor to provide that rnemb s
i the ABA reserve the riaht o
riticize court decisions a
at they do not approve or d -
. prove them.
92 Asworiginally drai'ted__hy the
___ ..';. t.~* - - 5;?Y agglmeti_ . -t*- ;.,.. -,§f. '._ ' L
' 1!
|-.ll 2|' "Hi:
37°
641 MAR 181958A'ILAN'IA. Ga.. Feb. 28 M.--;ABA'5 Board of Governor; at in September. served as DeputyTh Am""*°'"'* 3" -5'5°°1 °n lithe suueltion oi Senator Wiley. Unlil 9"-W6 A"-"me! G611-does not mt conga to h'.rRepublican of Wisconsin, the-"1 in 19523' He '" m"'t "'T e
._____ _ . _.__.i...--.i____-_..---
Malone eoeoeedl Che":-tel Q.Bo|rOpposes Jenner Bill #,;1e;;ghr,_-gm;Tci urb Supreme Court #11153 °" "°' "" '°
Mr. Malone. who will be ll
bmmn; -resolution oppoaed the -Ienner|'_:'£:.:l ,,§,.,,,. §h,,,h the SJ,Ihill without expreasirm any tice Department consults with}opinions on court decisions. ithe ABA as wouellcai-hm MiBefore ending the meetma,i¬::]p3 d ::P;mt°°' mmcredthe House of Delegates elected! i-_-"1
Rose L. Malone of Roswell.'_
N. Mean. aa the ABAa presi-r
dent nominee. Sylvester C
Smith. .ir.. of Newark. N. J..
_waa chosen nominee for cha
man oi the House oi Deleaai, The election will take om '
in August at the ABAs ann l
meeting in hos nngeles. .
O3N Mo
arson: .._
Rona __._.
Tumm ____
Trotter _
Clayton ._
Tel: . Room
l-lollornon _
Gondy __
it/ ¬P
@;/ L 0
-t
s J" 1a
1-
Wosh. Post and .
Times Herold
Wash. NewsWash. Star _-Z
N. Y. Herold _.
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-__.
. American
N, Mirror _.
_Nl Y. Daily New
N. Y. Times __.
Dclily Worker __
The Worker __
New Leader _._
Dote
FEB 2 6 1953
1.92
It; 2 -|_s_{;"' 23,
.,._,.5!
,9-_Q?
Page A1795
Bu-512 -29-55! 1IfAlIl$IQllIlL
0]6¬ Memorandum - umrnn sures oovsmwsnr
J7
T0 = The D|_"2'.'.'!9! BATS:
1'!-ml ' J . P. Molar
39313171 = The Conqreeaional RecordO<St1FYemeJ@0uM} t
_.1,. ,_ ...,
Senator Talmadge, D! Georgia, requested to have printed in th
Record an editorial entitled "Curbing Supreme Court," from the
I February 22, 1958, issue olthe Augusta Georgia! Chronicle.
It is stated in the editorial "There should be full and tree discussit
~ in he Senate of the Jenner bill - S. 2646 - to limit appellate _
___._.__.._.__,__ 92juridiction of the United StatesO§upreme Court. The bill has bee
offered as a means of curbing a recent tendency in the court to
assume powers that are not authorized by the Constitution of the
United States. . . . . . . .. . In order to undo the damage already done
' Congress wili have to summon up supreme courage to deal with the 'c rrent situation in a manner that will reestablish Congress as the i%tions lawmaking body. The Jenner bill is an effort to achieve
s' ch a restoration of congressional powers. It may need some
modifications to make certain that proposed limitations on the powers
of the Court will not act also as a limitation of the right of the _peo le
~ to appeal to high authority, but there is no question at all about th
E-3'- ne d for restoring the Supreme Court to its original function as
PI IELLUI U1 L118 92..,Ul1bt1l.UL1Ull ld.Lllt.'I l.ua.1l 4 lcgrala xc uu _y'.
Ido? 0? 7~§ 95 /4 /
_ ;.-' _=::_ t"'+-em." 'I. J">. 1:m1TL%{r§:°5 ?3°se°'_____ii_.,l..__ ._: LL_ n..._..., :&-.&l.-_.. ..,..»i-....., n-..-92.. .. 1.".-4.-92,92+a",92 WI 1' -t ta L1 - u -
aw
'r6:tt,»»~j§*~/
e
o-in in". e-1-se!Q
64MAR1' _.i1ituie?: Jii§ti¢;e~s.qge<|i..ro*r mgr. <_:w.-{ii
v -3--
atrongaupport.t , ,|92'
~ This plan, which the ABA approvedinprlnciple at it Oil;-i
has Atlanta meeunc. would re- -' Ieril enemas rteeeeepq Alliance - A m
theamericanleraaaociatleniiaedeciaredaleinah
Jenner Bill, which prolroeel to curtail the lnprme
_ er Q override eon;-realinnal ltate auihwiilr ll.
come up vnth a auezeltion ct its earn which II! Iellr.
mr. gun n1;;e.g'nqnb¢;- pa;-tieb ifqualliled thenaelvel. fem H
nation in decisions oi all cases.
This would be attained by ore-
ition oi a panel ol iudlel
drawn from among the 5'1
members ol the ii United
Bi-ates Circuit Courts of Appeal.
They would be called up for
L'.'.':mre..-'3' ante: on i-¥..92_e Qu-
preme Court aa needed.
Whenever the Bulireme
Oourt was ahorthanded, or
when aittin: iudeea remove
themsclvee -from consideration
oi a. case becauae ot personal
diequalincatione, the court
could summon one or more lub-
stitutes to fill the bench ior a
particular lawsuit. -
The Bar Association a-creed
wholly with the disadvantage
;oi i. ii§l.E hi which am
judge can withdraw himeeii.
.wil.h the eect oi cousin: the
Supreme Court to render some
of ita most important deci-
sions with lese than the mini-
mum ve-memher maioritr
voting either way.
Lem Stud! an
L But the association appointed
_a committee to study the legal
ibili of brin n in aub
quires all members or the Bu
prerne Court to be appointed
by the President and confirmed
by the Senate, and the same
principle appliea to all other
Pederal iudiee.
_ The question is whether a
flower court iudse could be ad-
tanned temporarily to the Bu-
preme Court by iezislatlve en-
actment and. if mt. lust how
aueh a transfer could be et-
tained legall. It could be done.because he nae leueenee the-
anti-trust action in queatiqa
ea Attorney General under
Preaident Truman and John.-.
ialarahail Harlan became
had been an attorney fer the-
1DuPonte. A-aeociah Juetiel.
Whit:-a..ker could not vote be-
cause he arrived in the court
too late to lleten to araumenta,
than - overall maiority inevit-
iudzcs or the hiah court
n The DuPont indictment tor-
criminal disobservance of the
ant!-trv_-st leer oecurrn in
1949. It was late in 1954 when
United States District Jtldil
Walter J. Labuy oi Chicago de-
livered the rst decision in the
case, exoneratin; the DuPont-I.
Ellht Years hid elapeed beiere
the Supreme Court acted the case. and then it actl-lea
settled nothing. ,
Nefotiatlons Bi-lll OI
For nine months ainee then 92pg t -..atitutea. {rue cengilzfiulen re-laud" 74 "? 1"-' J50" Mll-.ti=ti.n: tor :. wnaer dc"-c% but
with everybody knowing that
meither side will yield without
carryinl the cue back to the.
Supreme Court. Probably it will
be two years more baton the
tissue again reaches the .119
preme Court. and thee. cen-
ceivably with e aleert attend-
ance on the bench. n
The men Point of lunnme
Court abort-hendedneal Ila!
conducting the Huramblrl leat-O, mum _,,, :,,,,_,m ,u;;asm¢leu Justice Jioiien waron i . , __
A recent striking illustration
ct the eect ed an under-
manned court was the 4-2
llllinl rm June ihat_I.ti.
du Pout de Nemoura dz O0.
wan in violation of the antl-
ttuat law because oi its as per
cent holding oi stock in the
General Motor: Corp.
Two lllsquailiy lelveawar trials, Chiei Juatieeltne
died suddenly. . _ .
Even before Justice Item!
death. 16 eases had been act
for rearzument because the
. available Jugiles divided ieur te
ur ._' [Io .Q .
F
In that case two iileticee di:!- 1 4' '3' 5-.'e'-ifdti bx I-1/.7
-=1,/Q5
. .51: e" 'r 390.;!
in the case. . -_
The crucial point is tint III. I
Supreme court deciaion bi lell '
ably continues the lawsuit un-;
abated until at least ve,-
be assembled on the eame side-.
have been in ll when. Vii-II...II
Toleon
Nichole
BO¬Ildl!ii_ n
Be
M __._.___
P aona
Rolee ___.._._
Tonan ..;_...._
Trotter __.-.__.._
Nedle _...._._.._.
Tele. Room _._
Hollomcm ___.__
Goody _....i
@=?_=1- T5.../.7 '4. . T MAR1-= £5?
Wash. Post and __.....__
Times Herold
W . News
N. Y. Her cl
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-____..____..
American
N. Y. Mirror i._..i_.
r.'92
3___. ,v..__..-_.__.,..._...-_._-__..i-. --------
0 I9 Riv. ID-29-57]
I
I
64MAR 18illllii Bllisiil i
_. Br mu 3
i
§ cripple" the Supreme court!I
Iannual eonterence or the New____ i. ___ _____
sIs's"rI92'iIIsIs sass; AA
i'1ilwA'1"l"""
Editorial. wriih-,_ Hailed byf Liberties Union, Warns of
' Crippling High Tribunal
A warning or attempts to
and to erect spite vvalls" around
it was sounded yesterday at the
York Civil Liberties Union. g
The warning was given hyfIl'92."iI92I 'l"li'llils92rl -dlfni-ill urrifar ----3 -----, ta...----. .---.-Vlor The St. Louis Post-Dlspatchn
after he had received the Flo1-ins I
La'sl-ter Civil Liberties Award of '
$1,000 for outstanding work in
the field of civil liberties. '
Mr. Dilliard told the center-i
enesls luncheon session that
Senate Bill 2646. submitted by
Benator William E. Jenner, Re-_.
puhlican ot Indiana, was intend-i
ed to "cripple. the Supreme
Court" because ot recent rulings
favoring civil liberties. __Vindietlveness Charged '
Speaking in the Roosevelt-,
Hotel, Mr. Dilliard declared that
the Jenner bill "would have,
Congress vindictlvely retaliate;against the Eupreme Court for '
some eight civil liberties de-
cisions." i
He said that the proposed
legislation would bar the court;
"from appellate jurisdiction in i
ve important elds. Such as
Congressional investigations and
Government employment in loy-
alty investigations."He said the bill also would Q Ila"block the Supreme Court out '
in cases involving teachers and
lawyers caught in the same
net." Hr. Diiliard continued: 92
"The proponents of the Jenner
bill and the many other pending
attacks on the Supreme Court
would have the American people
be! ve that our high bench to-daifis packed with irresponsible '
jurists of one reciciess rnind.
Actually the nine jurists who
make up our Supreme Court
now are probably more repre-
sentative than the ors Bupgeme gain c . _ - J
34°
.958{r m miou to
liberty, but properly restricted ix
O J '
!lr.'Dilllaednotedthat§the92
t Supreme Court justices
President Else er, three to
%siident F'ranll.ii.n Ti. Roose-
an and two to President Harry;I. Tr1.tn92h1.n. . 1-I4 geolared thatpop-ap cally e justices
were "more widely representa-
tive ot the entire nation than,
at any time in its history."
Spits Walk less '
Altar pointing to their widely
I-snglng qualttlcstions tor the
pour-t, he said: , _e notion that such s._p of men, so variously as:-Wrieno and es.~eml:'.e:i, would!either deliberately opposed
to or thinkingly blind to the
security of the American peo leis rldlmlous on its tsce. {let
than an those among us, in-cludinf the sponsors oi the Jen-ner hi_!, who ere trying to tree
that notion to erect spite walls}
around our highest tribunal." [
A panel discussion on "Wire-
tapping and Eavesdropping"
followed the luncheon session.
Btsnley J. Tracy, Washington,
lawyer and !o!'m_..er ustet...-etl
director of the Federal Bureau
oi Investigation, said: Uncontrolled wiretapping l
and eavesdropping constitute si
substantial threat to individual?
these activities are essenti, it
not indispensable, to both na-
tional and individual security."
Edward -Bennett Williams.
Professor of Law at Georgetown
University and also a Washing-
ton lawyer, said that although
Congress had made it a crtne
to tap telephones or to use in-
formation obtained from taps,
"the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation has been and is contln-p
uously engaged in this illicit
act, and-iL.has, gone and-so-gdg
unchallenged. ,it 2 -
' N31 RECORDED
l '7 MAR 12 1958/
/L/l'l.='5.'" ~
fl '¥iumii7elmont __
Moht
GISO
oson Tomm -K--Trotterz
Clayton _
Telo . Room
Hollomon ._
9292? __@/li.<%</4%..
mi.
Welsh. Post and
""lliii¬'§."H¬Tc'iTH'
Wush. News ._
Wash. Stcir L.
N. Y. Herold __
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-_
American
Y. Mirror ___
Y. Daily Nev
N. Y. Times _
Daily Worker _..
The Worker _..._
_ A _ ..' om. _4e...._ ..____.
I n |
a
| 1
//iv} on Q S1-3
i54 ISAR 24 mu 3/ 9//byl. _. . ,. . ~
;:ll.;¢;_.T.§v'.-T-1l|..l by
iboriies iiwams of
1-~p<'»__c by '-I-ow
nnnr.o"er=vu "
it was sounded
ennusl oonferenoe
York Civil Liberties Union.
Flu warning was given W
|I Dillisrd. editorial writerL Bt. lnuis Post-Dispatch,hehsd received the Florian
HD8381 Civil Liberties Awnrd of
$1,000 for outstanding wo injtbéleld or civil liberties. .-~ . nlmuo tom the cooler-
92enoe'| luncheon amnion thatf§|.te Bill 2646, submitted bysenator ¥il_lli=:n E. Je:-..-ier. Re-
, blieen of Ludius, was intend-
- {,9 "cripple the Supreme'*" " ---_-.41 " -... . _
__ i 92 . W 'm._ 1- on... ,»¢vM=¢é p t _ _ _ _ Ml. on
. 5"? . WT '1
. ll! Ju oht ~---
ug Non ¢'
Mn P"s"" i .
10%:
" because or recent rulingsfavoring civil liberties. - . Zq-5'-*
L
m. :_[|_>92.
]i||GIuIlI--
_._-----""""':
92_-;_-__."" " '..---|
-l/..-
. airing in the Roosevelt?t1:Mr.Dillisrd decisned umf
the Jenner bill "would have, 92~,
ling:-as vindictively retaliateagainst e supreme Court tori Q 30mg gig 1; civil liberties de-I i.
cisfoxu."He as-id that the proposedé
,'1e[isls.tion would bar the court
,f£rom appellate jurismction in
ma important elds, such as
Congressional investigations and
Government employment in loy- _
alty investigations."
~- - Court MlkeUp Hllled _
He said the bill also would-
imam the Supreme Court out
in cases involving teachers and
lswyeh caught in the same
net." Mr. Dillisrd continued:
"The proponents of the Jenner;lpg1;en¢ the many other pendingiiuielis on the Supreme Courtwould have the American peep}:-believe that our high bench .
clay is packed with irresponsible
jyts of one reckless mind.
Actually the nine iurists who
hide up our Supreme Court
-mi: are probably more repre-1
sentstive than the members ofA 3
i
mi previous Bupreml-_ urtch." 92 - -A panel discussion o $
and _ Egvesdm
10 luncheon session.
--lie? J. T-racy, '"-----Fmer and :¢m¢§ :.-L§'§i§L'i
director or the Federal Bureau
'lIl.JEn ti t d:
liberty, t properly restricted,|
lilese activities are essential, if,4-hrtnindispensable, to both ne-
onal and individual security."
' Edward Bennett Williams,Q8513"
s gs non, sat I
fU ntrolled wiretapping
_ cl ea pping constitute el- .Fgbstan threat to lndividusl; '
~4ArI
r
. U}o4'¬o
I0- Rev. 10-20-sn 'i -7 'is J !92 .4
t. I -v .13.: L . l" V}-N d W Y-i;'tr"i}'n# * "" _ - 1' F 1-'1-. 1'- '9-:I-*'_ '- i -' .- -k . -
ervice Rec0rd_Ri1leTl'w, .- -. e . '92 . E . .- .nly iDisl' :harge Basis. V upreniel Court ruled s ;Until yesterday 5. court had .5; .=i.;..'... ti.to 1 ye &e Seere- interfered with the milit ml-vi itail-y or th?diA1my Clllllgi and See.rtat;ariestdisc1:itiri"iiscilili £9;-an Both Gangs 1%-$2} s ersso erspre- uc onin ensure ' e. ' 5activities in deciding the na- Frgleral courts are nowar 'h° °"b1° 41-"l"1'8¢§. 5°!
ture of his discharge. notice that they can. llld lJl'0-Glmlllllliil l¢T-iVi-By ruling on the two cases Be B order es before they were drafted.before it, the Court also threw "' - Chnraes wins! Harmon
o the Government: srgu- The Courtordered the Dir also included s letter he bad
in nt that the type of dis- trict Court here to review in written after induction urging
c 1-ge . sewicemmareceives the light of tliis o inion casesnancinl help tor the defenseis ot subject to court review. involving John Rptarrnon I1-Ii0f Smith Act cases. The Jus-
=.___________________ - ____ tice Department indicated itL!? 'i'elt this was s trivial charge-Presiiinsbly, both will now bei
;{_Qrm D15-ei-¢r;e_§given honorable discharges.
5 Lawyers for the two men
said close to 700 other servic
lien have been given less-than~
honorable discharges solely
because of pre-inchiction sctiv-1
ity. Presumably they, too, will
be upgraded as, s result or the
decision. ' - -
i e Army Qomment
The Army had no comment
on the effects of the decision.
Several months ago, however,"it stopped considering pre-in-1
duction activities.
The Court in an unsigned
opinion disposed of the juris-
dictional question quickly.
Federal courts have authority
to construe laws under wt-'_ "
discharges are awarded to --
termine whether the Secretary
exceeded his power. it said. "U
he did so . . . judicial relief
from this illegality wduld he
available, said the Court. '
2 Once this was settled, theml overnments case evaporated,ustice Department lawyers
d conceded reluctantly in
rl'l"213uinents Isst_-A _*- _..,.=.| .- ,-- 'I-"III?
§$III-D
gBelmont
Mohr
Neos
Pcirso _..._
Hos
Torn ...._...
Trotter ___.
' Clayton .-
Tele . Room ...
Hollomcm _.
Gcindy ____
_ wreed pal-induct!
'tIescouldnotbe'camid 1
"WI think. and the Cum
. It U1¢WM of dischsrg 'issued is to be dtttflllil
=1: hr the soldiers niilitai
O1-din the Anny: .-.-,1: .:-_
pp ' Lone Dllleutes-,'j'.'
flu ti " 'r ic. cut} lion: disglgnter. He tel?
W the intent of Cong;-95; 1i e the executive bi-snch c P1 jurisdiction ever
c ges. 92 _
Clark also diered lrom Lb
'! 'j°mY _°P 115° 05 lire-indur
t1on_activities. The gum",creating the A1-|n_, Ravi";3°l"'d. which reviews d1;
'°h*-TSP !DP¬als. Provides t~i findings shall 133.433 .
ll on "all available recur '
F Army has on the mI'll: said the majority
ed "I11" to "some.". ¢-..,,,g.4
i
Wash. Post ondk
"1'i'imes Herold
iflcsh. News ____
Yish. Star ____
N. Y. Herold _._..
Tribune
N. Y. Journcil-i
American
N. Y. Mirror i
N. Y. Daily News
N. Y. Times ___
Dciily Worker __..
The Worker ___[IL * . .. /4 New Leader __C- F"
. u -
into several categories, wan :
,-In
won't do this extensively, because I don't think the objections to the
require extensive answers. But there are a few points I want to make
before this record closes.
- 5
76MAR18195§Mr. Mr.
' ' 5 Mr.
kl Mr.
1'.s-nan nrn *:.!_sE_NA1B92iIgLLIJ1If1 E,§_,1E7=I1 IER £ 5,1;
Mr.
Before Senate Internal Security Subcommittee Mr. liearings on S. 2646! .- i/ M1" C1=vwn_-, §~I8.l¢h 5, 1958Tale. Roem___
Mr. Hol1oman_
In nine days of hearings criticism of my bill S.
I t to discuss these briefly, touch upon thTolson__'
Boardml
Belmont]
Mohr
N ea?P s._ i: aa
Trotte-r_..92
Mill Gandy.._Z646 has fallen
--i--._.g._
in objections to the bill whiclfhave been advanced, and answer them. I
@ - 091 57¢-'
All of the objections to this bill fall into two main categories:
! those which involve the claim that the bill is unconstitutional, and
-ose wl1_ich adardt the constitutionality of the bill but object to one
_ .h ..
or more of the features of it on some other grounds.
Let's look first at the constitutional argwnents.
The constitutional arguments against the bill fall into three sub-
classes:
he argument that the language of Article III, section 2, clause 2
does not mean what it says. This is the argument first advanced by Mr, Joe
Rauh when he testified representing Americans for Democratic Action. This
is a completely specious argument and has been repeatedly refuted by expert
witnesses during the course of these hearings.
! That the grant to the Supreme Court of original jurisdiction
over cases having a State as Party encompasses a grant of appellate juris--
diction over any case in which a State is a Party, and that this includes
cases brought in State courts and involving State statutes. This point not
only does not involve any good law, it doesn't even involve any good logic.
" - .1
q 0 1. : _ E." _
NOT nEc'c'>Tfoeo
-4MAR 1s 1958
U -2-
As Mr. Frank Ober pointed out yesterday during his testimony, original
jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction are two separate things in law,
and are treated quite separately in Article III of the Constitution,
! That the provisions of Article III, section 2, clause 2 of
the Constitution, respecting the power of the Congress to regulate andp
I . I . al '92'l .. 0 _I__92J , I ___ _1I J . lI.___--___ l'92_____J- 14-5-_
make exceptions to tne appellate Jurisdiction ox tne supreme court, nave
been somehow negatived by the adoption of some amendment to the Constitution.
Two amendments have been suggested as possibly modifying the cited provisions
of Article III. They are the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment-
Now, the Fourteenth Amendment can hardly be deemed as amendatory of Article III
of the Constitution, since the amendment is concerned with actions by the
States and Article III is concerned with a grant of power to one of the branches
of the Federal Government. The Fifth Amendment, of course, cannot be said
to repeal Article III, and is not in any direct and apparent conflict with
the provisions of Article III; the Fifth Amendment does, however, protect
certain individual rights and if one of those protected rights should be
directly interfered with through an exercise of power under Article III,
it is conceivable that such an exercise of power might be deemed unconstitutional.
We come then to consideration of whether anything in the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution can be deemed to render my bill unconstitutional.
Principal proponent of the contention that the Fifth Amendment to the
Constitution might be considered as a bar to enactment of m bill was
Mr. Tom Harris who testified representing the AFL-CIO. Mr. Harris did not
say that my bill was unconstitutional; he simply suggested how a court might
92
'" " " " ' " '" 1 * - .. Hie........._..._.__.._.,__
O _ I!
find it unconstitutional. It would be necessary, Hr. Harris said, to find
that one of the categories in my bill represented an unreasonable classification.
Mr. Harris did not express the opinion that any of the categories in my bill
was unreasonable; he just said it might be possible for a court to decide
that one of them was. Mr. Harris gave some examples of what he considered
unreasonable categories-such as a provision which might seek to divest the
Supreme Court of jurisdiction to try'a case involving a particular named
person-and none of the examples he gave was anywhere close to any of the
provisions of my bill.
Those are all the arguments that have been made about the constitu-
tionality of the bill. None of them will hold water.
Now we come to the opposition to the bill on its merits.
The American Bar Association passed a resolution opposing the bill
on two grounds; first, that the bill was contrary to a position previously
taken by the American Bar Association at another time and prior to some of
a
the worst of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. This is of course
a self-serving action. It might be well if the Bar Association were reminded
of Emersonis warning that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little
minds. The other announced basis for the Bar Association's action was that
my bill would be "contrary to the maintenance of the balance of powers
set up in the Constitution." As I have already pointed out in a public
statement, my bill only proposes to implement one of the basic check and
balance provisions of the Constitution; and I fail to see how the use of a
constitutional provision can be deemed to be contrary to the spirit of the
Constitution.
92basis upon which I have predicated this bill. They charge me with seekingI - L
1.
I92 I
0 11
- 4 -
a Various witnesses and others have assumed the right to declare the
_ I - _ _ 4- . In II! - 1 l.92ll-_.__ .e__ __I_..l.e.@J_- 4-1-J-'CO P11111811 U18 SIQPQIID UO1.lI l5¢ .L WU921.I.Cl 110111 DB HHVBPSU £0 8.U.m.l.Ct..|..I.1g ulia " ""ULIIIJBU Q
if it were true; because I think some of the recent decisions warrant
punishent, at least to the old-fashioned extent or being required to
stand in the corner. But punishment was not the objective of the bill;
and in fact, the bill would not and could not punish the Court.
The Supreme Court has no vested interest in any case or any class of cases
that comes before it. The compensation of the Justices will not be affected
in any way if my bill is passed. Working hours will not be affected. If
they are held in less repute by some of the citizens of this country than
fhav fnrmnrl 92.rnrn_ this -i-, _-_i.-_y i---, -i__ is net and will not be the result oi my bill, but
rather the result of the decisions which the Court has handed down. No,
the purpose of this bill is not to punish the Court; the purpose
of this bill is to utilize one of the basic check and balance provisions
of the Constitution for the purpose of restoring a balance which has been
seriously upset by the actions of the Supreme Court. The Court has
repeatedly sought to legislate. The people of the United States are un-
G O
United States. I concluded that the only way to check this trend was to
utilize the provision of the Constitution which I believe was placed there
for the purpose of permitting the Congress to act in just such a situation
as we new find ourselves in.
It is perfectly clear to me as it must have been perfectly clear
to everyone who has examined this question in any substantial degree that
enactment of the bill S. 2646 will not repeal or reverse any of the decisions
n .1 .-e n . Q . 92 - I Ir ... .0 _ O i4I_1_____'l FHL:-or the supreme Court about wnicn I-among many others-nave complained. into
kind of an act cannot reach and affect a decision of the Supreme Court. It
0
may be that by a different kind of an act or acts, the Congress could for
the future effect a change in the principles declared by the Supreme Court
in some of these recent decisions; and so far as this can be done, I want
to see it done, and I will help to do it, where the change will restore
the Constitution to its real meaning, where the Supreme Court has warped
and twisted and misconstrued it. 3ut I have never thought that my bill
would change any of these decisions or any of the Court's interpretations.
A innu-
on ll T awn; -:n 4- -at--Q1 _ .____.- ll_--._4.. _..L --I 4.L_ .l'£_.l.. PU 1.3 LU pun; P151115 92aUl-I-I'D UU-B U1 Lilli: 1.1.8
of legislation, and back into the area where it was constitutionally in-
tended to operate. My bill is not punitive; it is wholly remedial in purpose
It has been said in opposition to this bill that, if enacted,
it would result in the possibility of diversity of decisions. In order to
consider this point intelligently, we must take note of the fact that several
different situations are covered in my bill.
G 1"
- 5 -
with respect to judicial power over congressional investigations,
my position is that there should be none; and if my bill should be enacted,
and the appellate power of the Supreme Court in this field should be curtailed
we would have none. Lower courts could protect the rights of individuals
without attempting to police the investigative powers of the Congress or to
assert its legislative powers, it has been the Supreme Court, not the
inferior courts, which has sought these unworthy ends.
with respect to the Federal Employee Security Program, I think
nearly all of the cases would be brought in the District of Columbia, so
that the court of last resort for cases in this class would be, to all92§ffects and purposes, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
f Columbia Circuit. ~
respe ~ * enactmer ~ - ~ ~' - cc duct of
State investigations respecting subversion, with respect to the control of
subversive activity in local schools, and with respect to admission of
individuals to the Dar of particular States, I feel that a federal1y~
imposed uniformity is extremely undesirable. These are matters committed
by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution to the States, they should be
controlled by the people of the various States through their elected legis-
OW 1.
- 7 _
It has
"freezing" the
would affect.
that all lower courts would be absolutely bound by these decisions,
cases where the lower courts might consider the decisions to be bad
This argument is just another way of saying
make law which neither the Congress nor any other court can change;
1-he nnn-wean can An nnf-I-uintr fn nhnnnn 2 '|n|_._|' .n e- g. -- _n -- n-.n_ , -- -n._,- _ -- which the Supreme Court
made, and that the juge of a lower court must adhere to a decision
Supreme Court rather than to the Constitution as he understands it.been argued against my bill that it would have the effect of
various Supreme Court decisions in the fields which the bill
This argument depends upon the assertion or the assumption
even in
law.
that the Supreme Court can
but that
has
of the
I say,
that is not the case. The Congress can act, in any one of several ways,
and my bill is one of the ways. And a lower court can act, in a way contrary
to a Supreme Court decision; because what the judges of our courts are
sworn to uphold is the Constitution of the United States, not the
f_1__Q______ F92Q__._ Q Q 1;: Q QO UPFEIHC DU
Before I close, I want to refer to the letter of the Attorney
General of the United States, delivered yesterday and placed in the
record yesterday afternoon. First, I want to call attention to the fact
that the Attorney General was requested by letter of the Chairman of the
Committee on the judiciary, under date of February 3rd, to appear and testify
0 0
- 8 -
want to come, a written report would be all right. I take that to mean that
the Attorney General did not in fact want to come up and testify before this
committee, and subject himself to questions; he preferred to file a report in
writing and have it sent up here by messenger.
We have been trying to get this report from the office of the Attorney
General for some two weeks now; and the word always has been that the report
was in process. They were "working on it." I had visions of a long and
carefully-drafted and well-documented and erudite report, that would give us
some help in our consideration of this bill. But no. That is not what we
got. we got a two and a half page letter addressed to the Chairman of the
full Comittee, which starts out: -
"Dear Senator:
"Because of the importance of the subject, I am taking the liberty
of stating my views on the bill S-26h6. . ."
That doesnt even indicate that the Attorney General knows he has
been asked to testify on this bill. ihat sounds like he was te -5 us
he is sending us his opinion voluntarily. How can he be "taking the
liberty" of stating his views, when he has been asked in writing by the
Chairman of the Committee to do so?
Well, the Attorney General's letter goes on for another two pages.
The second paragraph summarizes what the bill provides.
Then the third paragraph starts off with this sentence:
"In the first place, it is clear that this proposal is not based
on general considerations of policy relating to the Judiciary."
l
O Uh
-9-
Now where do you suppose the Attorney General got that idea?
How can he say it is clear to him on what basis I based my proposal? He
has not talked to me about it. The Attorney General goes on?
"It my proposal! is motivated instead by dissatisfaction with
1 certain recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the areaacovered and
represents a retaliatory approach of the same general character as the
court packing plan proposed in 1937." .
This is one of the specious arguments against the bill which has
been repeated by various thoughtless witnesses; but I never thought I would
[hear the Attorney General of the United_States repeat it.
I am of course interested to hear that the Attorney General dis-
approved the "court packing plan" in l93?.
Now, let me point out what the real relationship is between the
court packing plan and my bill. In the first place, the court packing
plan was an effort to influence the Court so as to bring about a
particular kind of decision. M bill is an effort to halt the
incursions of the Court into the legislative field. The court packing plan
advanced by President Roosevelt sought to influence the Court by increasing
H11: slain nn l'.hn1r'¢='hv nhnnoinu I111: 'nh1'|nnn'nhv. Mv h'l1'l nal: nnf. nnnlr +.n_' *5-| J3 1* 92'..i *-."-' fig *-_-°1"'.O '-' -7 rl-111-9 W-J I I v "iii 1?-II U-i 7 -"51. Tin
change the philosophy of the Court in any way - I do not believe that to be
O Q
-10-
possible--but rather to set up a barrier against the philosophy which the
Court has been evidencing.
One more point needs to be brought out: the liberals who favored
the court packing plan in 1937 have been making a good. deal of the fact that
they appear new as defenders of the Court, in opposition to my bill. But,
they have not changed their position one iota. The liberals opposed the
Court in 1937 and favored the court packing plan because they were anxious
to secure Supreme Court approval for social and other legislation which
would change the face of America and lead to increased centralization
of government and the destruction of_States' Rights. The liberals who oppose
my bill today are doing so for exactly the same reasons. It is theSupreme
Court which has changed its position in the interim, not the liberals, and
not Bill Jenner.
Well, now we come to the fourth paragraph of the Attorney General's
letter. He says that the Congress has only enacted legislation of this kind
once before, that this was in 1866, and that "because it realized that this
was a mistake Congress reversed itself, restoring the Jurisdiction in 1885."
I do not know whether the Jurisdiction which the Congress took away from
the Supreme Court in 1663 was restored 17 years later because Congress
realized that it had made a mistake 17 years before, or because the -
situation had changed in the intervening 17 years. I can foresee the possi-
bility that if my bill passes, another Congress lT or 20 years from now might
see fit to restore the Jurisdiction which this bill would take away, on the
ground that in the meantime the Supreme Court had learned to stay within its
proper orbit,
O 3
- 11 .-
and could once again be trusted with matters in these fields. However that may
be, I do want to call attention to the fact that Congress did on a previous
occasion make use of the same constitutional provision which I would
make use of through the enactment of my hill S-26b6, and that the Supreme
Court of the United States considered the matter_and held the bill to be
constitutional, and bowed to its provisions. The Attorney General
apparently does not think that the question of constitutionality of the
bill is sufficiently important to receive any mention in his report.
On page 2 of his report, the Attorney General raises the question
I have already discussed, with respect to the possibility of different
rules of decision in different circuits and in different State courts.
I have already spoken about that question, but I will add this:
There may be some argument for uniformity of decision among the circuit courts
of appeals; but there is no logical argument for uniformity in the decisions
of the courts of the States. The State courts are exercising residual powers.
The Federal courts are exercising only specified powers granted under the
Constitution. we do not demand that all of our States be alike. We do not
demand that they think alike on matters of public policy. There is no reason
for demanding that their courts think alike or adhere to identical rules of
decision. There are in fact many subjects today on which there are different
rules of decisions in the various State supreme Courts; and no one has been
suggesting that there should be Federal legislation or Supreme COurt legis-
lation to force uniformity.
0 0
- 12 -
The Supreme Court does not make it a practice to accept all cases
which involve decisions of the courts of appeals which may differ from decisions
of other circuits.
The Attorney General goes on to declare that "Full and unimpaired
appellate Jurisdiction in the Supreme Court is fundamental under our systen
of Government." That must be the Attorney General's opinion; because it is not
the Constitution; and I guess we are supposed to consider the Attorney
General's opinion more fundamental than the Constitution. The Constitution
contains the provision in Article III, section 2, clause 2, giving the Cogress
the right to make regulations and exceptions with respect to the Supreme Court's
appellate Jurisdiction. That certainly is not "full and unimpaired" appellate
Jurisdiction. So we have this situation: the Attorney General is declaring as
fundamental sanething that the Constitution not only does not provide for but
specifically provides against. Personally, I'll take the Constitution!
The Attorney General goes on to indicate that he regards the Supreme
Court as the "final arbiter" in the maintenance of the balance contemplated
in our Constitution as among the three coordinate branches of the Government."
But the whole theory of our Constitution is that there should
be no "final arbiter"--because the Founding Fathers understood that if any
one branch of the Government got coplete ascendancy, we would not have a
government of checks and balances, but an cligarchy which would lead
unquestionably and irresistibly to tyranny. The Constitution did not make
the Supreme Court the "final arbiter"--nor did even Mr. Justice Marshall,
92a_.._.1._q-| __9s92 .n_'|_____ ___ __ ll____._ _____ll .|._ ..cin §'I&IbE1F'vf' _ . Madison. Marshall saiu. tnere were "some cases" in Which
I , 0
J "4.-I
. 13 .
the Court should consider questions of policy. He did not say that the Court
should consider questions or policy in all cases. Now it happens that the
case of Mara v. Madison was tried without a Jury; and, therefore, naturally,
the Court was allowed a much wider latitude than it would have been if this
had been a jury case. .
The genius of the Constitution is that it does not provide for a
final arbiter; it does provide for checks and balances which may be used by
the different branches of the Government, one against the other, to guard against
or to repel encroachments. It is this very system of uneasy balances which
gives the citizen his best guarantee that his rights will continue to be
observed. For oce all power is put in a single place, so surely as "power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" the individual rights of
citizens are doomed from that day on.
at the top or page 3 or his report, the Attorney General says:
"This type of legislation threatens the independence of the Judiciary."
That statement simply is not so. This bill does not threaten
the independence of the Judiciary, and it does not threaten our system of
checks and balances. What it does threaten is the imbalance which has been
created by decisions of the Supreme Court in recent years. It threatens the
power to legislate which the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself during
those years. It threatens the status quo, the situation which favors the
growth of big central government and the decline and decay of States'.Rights.
There are a great many people in this country today who favor
that status quo, tho want to see it preserved, and we must now assume the
e
0 D,
silh-
l.
Attorney General o the United States is one o them. But that does not
Justify him in confusing the status quo with the independence of the Judiciary.
Well, so much for the report of the Attorney General. I wanted
to mention it, because I think that when the Attorney General of the United
States expresses an opinion upon proposed legislation, it should be important.
In this case, I think he has been badly advised.
In closing, I want to repeat in new words what I have
said many times before, and at least once here: I introduced this bill not
out or any spirit of retaliation, but out of a deep concern for the preservation
of the Constitution of the United States as it was meant to be, and our American
way of life as we used to know it. I have introduced this bill in an effort to
secure action by the Congress which would help to restore the balance between
the respective branches of the Federal Government, and to restore to the States
a measure of their rights, guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment of the
Constitution, but which have been stripped from them, notwithstanding that
guarantee, by Judicial legislation. I am not wedded to any line or word of
this bill. There have been sme suggestions during these hearings respecting
possible amendments to the bill, and I am willing to sit down with the committee
and consider any of those suggestions. If the Cannittee can agree upon different
language, even representing in part or in whole a different approach to this
problem, but which will be effective in achieving the objective I have sought,
the Connittee will find me ready to go along. I will support this bill or any
other bill which I think will help to limit the Supreme Court to its proper
sphere of action, to restore to the Congress autonmy over the con duct of
92
.Hh- "W I '* .. __.,_,_,,.,_,_______
ntl ,_
c ., 92
-15v
its own affairs, and to preserve for the States the rights and powers which
they reserved when the Federal Government was created, and which are guaranteed
to them under the Tenth Amendmnt to the Constitution of the United States.
I think my bill S. 2611-6 wiJJ. go a. long way in tha.t' direction, and I am going
to be for it with all the force I can muster. If you can show me a better
way, or even another good way, to eccoplish the same purpose, yon can count
on my support. I have no pride of authorship. I am not trying to pass aI "Jenner Bill." I am just trying to get a. Job done--8. Job that urgently needs
I doing.
F
ll
I12? nuxlville ow M_ ___H_ _ __ i i A_____ ._. __ _:__,_ _ +_______ ,1 ._.. ._... _....._. _.____»..-_._ ..-_
ff'I-IU Mr T norm:
_ i " iMr Clayton-
Tele. Room._
Mr I-Iolloman
Mus Gandy_.
___.__._._.._--
_ ,,_ iii -k cc ' i ii a f__r .. .1"7 nor u iunwauza was #6141:-sesiitll e SI-92iu.n| a. saws JR. ' W! L 811113n , 92 _ . ._ - 1 i
O OPeople Have Reason To Be Mystified.
When High urt Calls One Right 'This week the U895? rerne<_.-3_L1_;§ astonished the co
re]ecting the appeal of 23 Holly-
wood actors and writers who had
originally sued for some $56,000,-
000 in damages because they were
red, and they charged blacklist-
ed by other employers, for having
taken. the Fifth Amendment under
questioning by the H ou s e Un-
American Committee. The Cali-
fornia state courts had ruled
against them and the decision of
those courts now stands in view
of the high bench's ruling.
We say the country was aston-
__nail1 -H ~' iv .2:-M :__ Fiusuished because in recent months the
Supreme Court through a series of,
rulings has manifested the tender-
est kind of feeling for assorted
criminals, in clu din g the Com-
munists and fellow travelers who
have manifested certain segments
of our economy.
In this case, of course, the Cali-
fornia state courts were deadlright
and so was the high court. The
point is that many of us are so
accustomed to the court's whimsi-
cal and irresponsible rulings that
when it gets right on one we are.
mystified. '
W 7.;??J *4
it ~- -;-_. rm
Ala in -l loht:dltorlal
_n.. *- - ~_.,_,__ _--._ __
lg ---.-"._ A-...,..._.__._...-_-._
13' 0.19 Rev. 1o-29-51!
:1 --F --1-I'
l o;Na¢_gmiArr9_in l---.
.,' '
n_n_nnrr92_Imt on Qt; Q! imhn "V, _...... ___ __ _ h*__Judge Hand Seen Debating
Y CourtsT Legislative Bole 1
Br9£E§j;l"" EB¬¢?£L!i%" WABBIFIGTON, Mas. neat Iqrkablei
- eet I-ee o! !iI.I.e re: the mregei
Qgrgmeoniueoutum-uup¢miuesmewTu11?iif¢
a legislative chamber" has cane trula Judie Learnedretired. ">1 ~'= a- ,"-/1 . is
' e B one otth most respected andi mosttamoua memberioi the Iederal bench.
'I'he threeleetureeherecently delivered be-l
rortheliarnrdlaw Bchooihaveiustbeexn
published by the Harvard Unlverstu Pruai
and they leave no doubt that in his opinion
the Bnpreme Court oversevoed its powers
in the way it ruled in the
cases. e
Tn an Ian! III ll92awn _I1_4-in-an Il5_vgrl'a inn, 92 __ ..... __ -...- -,- -_,__.¢ -.. _--. W l
IDOWU.
their persuasive interpretation!
of the "law oi the land."
Judee Hand nds himselt
iperplexed by the decisions in
the "segregation." cases. He
says it is curious that the
Tsupreme Court failed to men-
tion Section Three or the
Fourteenth Amendment, "which
ollered an escape from inter-
-'e:92.in:. to." it emmwers Con-
Iress to enforce all the pre-
cedlni sections by appropriate
legislation. "
On Court: Role
Judge Hand. after endeavor-
ing to one-lzrae the supreme
Court's 1954 opinion in the
"eesresation" cases. says:
I must therefore conclude
thlspartoiwhatlhavet-osay
by acknowledging that I do
not know what the doctrine is
as to the scope of these elausea.
, I cannot frame any denition
that will explain when the
court will assume the role of a
third legislative chamber and
Ihen it will limit its authority ed "=~s wi,,3thority." Iggy !
Q Q fl92__f 92 =have been the subiect oi mueh taver-
eonnnent at the Capitol here among
who all along have felt that the
supreme Court has been usurpinl 1oI1lJa-
Known as "Liberal"
Judge Hand sat for many years on the
Du-id fjwmnw United States Circuit Court oi Appeals in
New York City. He is known as a llber ,
but he is also known as e fearless ludze who did not all
considerations oi political expediency or emotional ieelingsijlmpair his reading oi the Constitution or no study of the ha c ..!e~:'-edents established by the courts in previous years. In his
day, Judge Hand's opinions were usually accepted by theV Supreme Court because iii?-
! ate. He ask: whethershould em " bu bl-I811 t third leg.
_""b;¢ldo need e no.-e. tsboiamtiiieuemeTitre?-or of olnlos." magnum mm"
rm In Alieolntmeg .-Yudae Hand. however. doubtsi"ml-11==' my iudse shouldPtnnm to nerve as a eem.monal mentor and deplore;
my wider form or judicial re-view that is based on the"moral H "diln of court de-
Judre Hand ya"me the Btinreme ce:}¢°g,°,°:',
We is not foilovlnz the Con.if;- 1*n"°= "I:-3: P1'f_<>er>te of the
_ 1 "ton-u legislative mm l her. Judge Hand doesn't want
92 I-7 die Hand aayg,i he has never been a 1:I0 nderstaml" Q '1-at $2 Supreme Court Idop= e ew that it may gem;
her. adds: ma mmh
aervina by appoint-
ant.
He writes: ' __""""
For myself it would be most
irksoms to be ruled by a be?!
oi platonic guardians. even if I
knew how. to choose them.
which I ueuredly do not. It
they were in charge, I should
min the stimulus of living in:
a society where I have, at 191-ll;theoretically, some part in the'
direct n oi public attain. _i 5
1 "01 course I know how illu-
sory would be the belie! that I11!
vote determined anythinl: bot}'nererthe1eI, whim I to to the
lpolia. I have a ntislaction in'7!-he sense that we are all en;-J
_ -_-_
___92; l
is._'m.. .._.. .._ YBwi
an cnamn=. '_ '
tinue to
pending
in: held
ate Ju
tions by3%r Tolson
ease
Parson
V Chilton 1-
Tele.Fioom _-_-
Hollomon _..___
Goody .__-_-i--
Q
I,,,, ___.._._.-_. H. _.. -..... W-.. ..__. ___--he-. - - ----------iv-' f
0;1.% llil 10-ZI-57!
ZSH.......="'vJ: -; ._IIllI*{=;.f'__."'¢!._.
Senate isunuimm;
iitteejhas received as intr-Eestiniaranle_olie:e1'Iqlit
1-{la witnesses on Sen. Wil-
-liam 3- J¢- TI. i1ner'a. 1-. ..;»..:92 hm curb I .1....,=~=. lurIéo' II of l5 t ll e sucreinc 1 - ..
cases. it __-.§§A check 3 J§'§;=.¬;;about mu meE:j**~w"' "
letters re-
.ccived by thee,-'!intema1ss;- A » .=curity u - 1fc ornmlttceshmedyguns tar thbill an __guropposed. rm:
were from private citizens
_ and patriotic societies who
gfelt the Supreme Court has
it made things easier for sub-
lversives and should be set
down. Half the Ietterswere
= from Texas, California and
Florida. Most of those came
from Dallas. Los Angeles and
I St. Petersburg.
completely ' difterent
of response was report-
and put in the record of
e hearinll by Sen. Thomas
C. I-Iennlngs Jr. D-Mo.!,_
statmch opponent of the bill, 'who polled lay-school deanslnd leading 1 wyers. "
. I-lennings wrotf _ to 100
Y" deans and 50 lawyers and re-
ceived replica from hali oi
them. All the practicing law-
yers and all but four of the
deans opposed the hill. Those
opposed included e n Leo! of e n ran '
Ui1llVEl'Sl Lawt School in
Jenner! home state. -
g§hers ogscg _included e S ofarvar aw c co; QMa senior mem-er o e ashington law
firm of Covington dz Hurling;
Arthur E. D American4rep!'Ese'll1'I1've at the Pan-
1II1lil'ij0Hl peace talks in 1953
:and member of the New
York law firm of Sullivan &
Cromwell. - . -
. rnz BILL would strip the
Supreme Court of authority
to review cases involving the
power oi Congress to inves-
tisate the Federal employee
security program, state anti-
subversi e la hool v we, ac
lboards' anti-subversive rules
and admission of limping"BUM-Elli-ive. . 0es biTt a
4* _
-u
l1
1
92
l
l
l
l,h;__;l_-i,.r" l'
_ n ernal Security Sub-
conrrdittee brovsit endorse-ment from a of ul-
tra-conlerv_a-tice spokesmenp ad ogosition iron: -the Jus-e pertinent; American1:; [Association and manyn ppapers including the
co.-liersatlve Chicaio. Tri-
huiéie. Thé°plr?tI::'$£hlb;.-J.||. 4 Ir! mm may act
mIJ2tt§?au' both slderfollow a gengl pattern. Those
in favor of the hlilieel the
Court has helped the cause
of communism by decisions
.lika_Watkins which held a
congressional committeemust tell a witness how its
ouestions relate to its legis-
lative function! and Nelson
which said states must get
out of the Iommunist-hunt
ing business because the Fed-
eral Government preempted
the eld with the Smith Act!.
They propose to prevent what
they consider bum decisions
by killing the umpire.
SEVERAL of the letters
favoring the bill cited the
-Mallory» decision limiting
powers of Federal ofllcers to
question a suspect before ar-
raignment. The Mallory
rule is not involved in Jen-
ner's hill. Most of these
letters did not read like
lawyers arguments. But
they were not the identical
form letters often produced
by a pressure campaign. _The
Subcommittee stall said _it
had some of those and had
kept them out of the record.
Those opposed to the hill
usually made the ariunieni
that the hill would create
" '.ega1 chaos" by removing
the one Court that can inter-
pret the law for the whole
country. They say it would
destro the ,1ast nd Y a most
important step of the cher-Iell.to*£url» - V V _ ___- _ t . .11 .--.-...,,.__-_-;_-,!___.,,____-.; __ --/' ~ -- - -
O
' mama, enme-
uc"l'- - ' -
it in can-Q2: attaehtosii
an Federal I! -Om M Gov-
leroment." he said, threatensIi _ a
Noose "
P rson
an
ltsr ._._.._.
Clayton __,_i
'i'e1a.Floom .__V Hollomon __
- Goody _...._i
lllhdohondence or our in-4Jlssinns-s Quad I-aissalsnl lilo. ml H, -I-I I-Il92liIll-GI ill iL all considera-
jlona at personal freedom. It
1-is so slreeplnl and so shone-jy at odds with air c::ns'titu-ssional ate as cas graveTo Jlli92ll'y5l'-l Iii: constitutional-
. it? "
92-,- The Constitution permits
Congress to Nilllli-9 U19 IP-
; peltate jurisdiction of the
Court. But the Constitutionirnust-be read as a whole. said
O'Brien. He said a law en-
acatcd under one provision oiFthe Constitution could violate
others.
F The Jenner hill, said
O'Brien. strikes at the heart
of the Supreme Court's func-
* tions as one of the three co-
ordinate branches of_ the Fed-
eral Government, as impartial
srbiter oi Federal-State rela-
tionships and as historic pro-
T uector oi the freedoms of the
é. individual. - _
WROTE Dean: .
I " Jpdic1ai review of the acts
"of legislatures. governmental
bodies and oicials is one 0!
. the hfndamcntalsofour
"American constitutional sys-
;_tem . . . The Jenner bill!
I. seriously infringes the doc-
"; trlnc oi iudlclal review as weHalve known it since the daysoi John Marshall . The
supreme Gout 0! the United
States is the only court in
our system which can per-
form the important task of
judicial review in all its as-
pects, since _ the Supreme_Court alone is empowered to
review decisions of both the92
r
l .
I
+
1 _* I
-|-I-II "'---.
s
Wash. Post and B
Times Herold
Wash. News _._._.
ac-*1
-yr».
J;
éF
rmenace is
real, said Dean, "hut-lilac
nestion is whether we'-amulet change our own-his
to:-tea! instituiionswthat have
worked well or reasonably
well for about 170 year:
daecause ye "are faced with
evils. He thinks not.
Dean Griswold of Harvard
-oalied the bill, probably eon-
stitutional" hut contrary to
the Constitution: spirit.
"lt is of the essence oi the
Constitutidh, he wrote, that
we have any independent
judiciary. We win not have
an independent judiciary if
the Congress takes jurisdic-
tion away from the Supreme
Court whenever the Court
decides a4:ase that the Con-
gress does not like.
'He compared the bill to
Franklin D. Roosevelt's
Court-packing plan which he
considered equally "unwise
and unnecessary." _ -
The Supreme Court is an
essentially conservative insti-
tutiou, said Griswold. It is
in the nature of things that
t should be the subject of
ontroversy, since the qu
ons which come before t
e didlcult and import t
ones. But the Court is the
balance wheel in our Govern-
ment . . . it keeps us from
swinging too far one way or
u>._.or-has rm-<>u'g1ru1rr'51irhls¢¢'71 the Court hos, on the
whole, performed well the
essential function of keeping
our Gov ent on a sound
middle co e . . ._l! the Su-
preme Co is onm made
iubservlen to the other
branches! great conserva-
tive inuence which has
played a key part in the.suc-
cessful functioning of our
7/92
s.' [J J,
§;'.£i § " ;,....~*.. .-*-n....j-" ~=>1-'*EEversons tree-to '7
cite the Coo:-ts '7
said Griswold. _ _
they deserve it i _'But to take aw
authority in I Ellltively area of the lat wow
said,soIvenop1-ohlen
ould turn the law of the
_iand Into a "patchsrorL'~_;
"'rF"_-nnsmm News-S81} o l --" y
lA Scrippa-Howard
Nlwlpapar
M. ca cameras
El P009 Will ldlUorlLII92i.Kllt||QOI&Find Their Own 2.! Walt uuareh avianWay ranpnma a-an
__I':1l92lre|Im'la at___tha U|ulad__§ma. _¢_t_lnd-allll Q -I --_I.I III N Allin IIIIMAII --.__, i-5r,'=--b w _ - - n --5i-'T- ---*a?- ----P Tel In and AP N and NILreaiam. fine awlpleturl
By carrier 50: weakly lama me. I7 mall.any. a1s.ao'p- par. sat uuiamau. mmIt YQI-'-
HDIlUUG$&h
1"
I|,, |E LOYE W. MILLERFRA'::"E"::fERs ' ase a a1nstSe William Jenners0 3
@.
cclting g .
| . GEN. William P. Rogers
ade out a good legal and judicial
Sill to strip thepSugrerne Cog;t_ of
some of its iiii.i1tTIIu.y.-N
Sen Jenner would take away the
court: authority to review cases
involving congressional investiga-
tions, state rules governing admis-
aions to the bar and security
|charges againstpublic employer.Mr. R 0 g e r s procperly reasoned
that this bill woul threaten the
balanced s y s t e m of govemment,
based on our traditional separation
of powers. And, since it would per-
mit Iesser Federal courts to pass on
these questions, it would lead to
. conflicting judgments and h e n c e
the utmost confusion.
nrausiqavrrwu a o 1 so - 1mviusuvnn, as ne saio, U115 IS a
retaliatory measure, arising from
t e personal dissatisfaction of Se .
nner and others with some rece t
preme Court decisions. Legisl -
t _ n passed in an atmosphere of r,
venge seldom is sound.
l We, too, have disputed some of
these decisions. But we must as-
sume the court expressed its hon-
lest judgment. And in some cases
'ithe trouble lay in Congress own
5, acts, not in the. court: interpreta-
ij tion. -
92 In any case, the Senate is_d'i-
rectecl by the Constitution to ad-
vise" as wen as consent to appoint-
ments to the Federal bench made{by the President. That doesn'tV merely mean patronage a civic e
p from the Senator in whose state a
judicial candidate may live.
INSTEAD of passing a punitive
law, directed at the present Su-
preme Court justices, the Senate
present general tendency oi the Ei-
iennower Aummis""-tration to cnoose
for the Federal courts the ablest
men available, preferably by pro-
motions for the circuit or district
courts. .
The Jenner bill is a form oi court-paclmg in I%92i8!SB, and the Senate,in t at nota e battle of 1231,
jerked-ee1u't-paclu'_ng_i1_i_princip e.1' .w ould do well to encourage the
I L 4 LbMr. Trotter___
Hr. C1lW°-'-L-
Tele. Room_.'.....
Mr. Holloman_.
Illa GHQ!-
A2'<>'£/5/ ;.
. L.
_ "92.92l ~
THE KNOXVILLE
NEWS-SFINTINTL
Knoxville,
Tennessee
3/10/58
Editorial Page
L.____....__.92
r. Belmon 2~' 1', ' 0
Mr. - I -' 3Mr. at -.. . Roacn- -"
Mr. Tamm.av
92_.:.I-0
._
1
-.-.'-'
. ,,-J;-9.;
.4
'- W,
.1-'0-19 Fllv. I0-25-57!
i
I
l
l
_ willti D 2% l9.I
1!
1_ Iy AlscclstolPrao| 'lvymg |n uommmeei. s - bill Senator Jenner. Re-Hluhiican or Emma. to curblths power or tn upreme Court
is reported to w t:
the Senate Judiciary Com-mittee. ' l
Sources close to the commit-1
tee say that a majority of the
.15 members now opposed the
controversial measure, although
the possibility oi a compromise
was not rulai out. _ yf A Possible showdown vote
pm the issue today was washed
out when the committee: reg-
ular weekly meeting _was can-
celed because several members.
will be away.
The bill has been denounced.
by opponents as the most seri-
ous assault on the independence .1
oi the judiciary since the late?
President Roosevelt's 'unsuc-
cesslui etrort in 1937 to enlarge._'___i_ Q11- L
applied only to sensitive jobs.
Amendment. In another case.,
ilt ruled that a school teacher.
cannot be tired |c1¢ly.hecause
In still mother controversial
decision, in the Watkins case,
the court said that connec-
sionai committees have no
power _oi exposure for es-
posure's_ sake" and cannot
compel witnesses to answer
without showing their questions
are pertinent to a valid leads-
-iative purpose. . _
Under Senator Jenner's hill,
the membership of the Supreme.
Court with his so-called court-
pacl-rim: plan."
But Senator Jenner. accusing
the court of usurping legislative
jiunctions, contends his bill sim-
{piy makes" use of a congres-
sional check on judicial power
that is expressly set out in the
;C01'iSl.ll.Lit1Ofi as part oi the sys-
tem oi checks and balances.
Limits Jurisdiction
What the hill would do is to
liimit the Supreme Court's ap-
ipellate jurisdiction by with-
drawing its authority to review
lower court decisions in tlve
categories of cases.
3 These are cases arising from
l congressional investigations, se-
curity rings of Federal em-
pioyes, State anti-subversion
laws, regulations oi school I
boards or similar bodies con-~,
cerning subversive activities by
lteachers, and the admission of
lawyers to practice in State
courts.
In each oi these elds. the
Supreme Court recently has
lhanded down controversial de-
cisions.
In the Nelson case. tor ex-
ample. the court threw out
State anti-subversive legislation
ion the ground that the Federal
[Government had pre-empted
the eld. In the Cole case. itlheld that a statue providing
for summary dlsmi $31 91 Ed-I|eraT'?I5'D'I''!rs as scour ty risks
FIB;-! -no appeals could be taken _to
he Supreme Court on all future
ases in these elds. Instead
he nal decisions would rest
ith the highest courts in each
oi the 48 States and in the 11 Iederal Circuit Courts oi! b J
Appeal.
This is what has arivento the argument of opponeqi:
that the hill would ca e
legal chaos." that we wo
have not one but _,59 BupreCourts." - - -- '
42-4?¢"f"4
VI J
_ A. '__, -- ""l l esirionisiii
/Ac: no
J Thecourtfalsoioundintwo M 'm"'
.i.;..;" =11 ;.i$'." .3 -1--Room -
charses of past or present sub; i-iollomcmveraive mm violates the ltthi Goody _¬.._..
.01 invokirur his rum amend- p,, _ A
lment protection against leii'- "0!
dncrtmination.
" Questions Must Be Pertinent _
rt
Wash. Post and
Times Herold
Wash. NewsWash. Star
N. Y. Herold mu
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-_...._._._
American
N. Y. Mirror i
N. Y. Dolly News _
N. Y. Times _._._
Dolly Worker _._.__
The Worker
New Leader
i_
Date
Mi? E 7 1953
QS:-' .K-P 2_M _,_,... .-_ ,.._ .-..e_,..-1 _
__. - {--_.%---~-_~- --'-~""-"*" --""""'
Waikins e
r I: noweno 1.. oiiritm -
Omar em! wrim
The n'hn been,
hon". oi eontzovereisi ruiinaitasked n "judicial chriiicn-<
in m ,-i tion is urgent- Suc clar rice. _ii needed for the" n.dministra-
tion of Justice in the lower
0ouri;."' the hilh court woo
told in a brie! ied by attor-neys for Lloyd Baryenbiatt. 35,iformer Vassar Coi use D5J'oh0l-
08! instructor.F
|
ZIn the brief. the attorneysi
are seeking Supreme Court re-i_
view oi Barenbiattfs conviction;on charges of contempt of they
House subcommittee on Uh-.
American Activities. The edu--
efused to answer a ,cat-or had r _{number or questions. includingwhether he was a Communist.
refusal was based on the
First Amendment safeguard of
freedom oi speech and belief.
Cour-ts Specication
In the landmark Watkins de-
cision. the Supreme Qourtheidi.hat witnesses before congres-
sionai committees must be__
told clearly just whet is being;
investigated and exactly howthe questions asked are perti-
nent to the investigation. E
> The court also, in the opinion.'FitC8n by Chief Justice Wer-n. sharply criticized the reso-
ution setting up the House
ommittee on Uh-American
ct-ivities es excessiyeii broad kid vague as to the'duties oz
i. e committee.Because. of this criticism.
some lawyers and judges have
interpreted the Watkins deci-
sion as meaning that no con-
viction of contempt of theHouse committee can standzbecause oi the aws in the en-
iabiinz resolution. _; Other students of juris-,p1-odenee have termed the biastit the House resolution instidictum--the expression oi the
:0Oi.i1 f.S viewpoint on one facet
oi the ease but not e, viewpoint
ibpee-i'n{! "Bn u1unuo.n--4=i=-=r-
iminntion.trict was-nl tide opinion mt
-Ymwr "vhmw it airmed
3l!¢l1bia,tt'o:oonvintion. 5 to 4.
The meiorigg opmmn, yr -I hr Juan waiter M. Bu- deciued iin pe.rt:t"v92ge
iabeiiege toqt ii the court om
* Jntended to strike down the ree- oi§§ti0n..-it would have egg! go.ineomenyl;'o;d|,,,_-r ¢ 'But Chiet Judae Henry
i _ .f§3[;,Qnd Judie Devil! L. . _ moo they mmim-ere: ,Wptimu decision as meem~ hj_§ Committee h.ul_.; . I wow we-. in *=~*-....,...;;:.*=;~ -N 1, rom Con-'4CPI?!-. -.;,<,Tip other 1uo;ee{13!"? but on diernnh i
. _s., _ 1 1.1@$-a;qis'&eii_;'qtie¢uv5 _ YP £516-resolution setting up meV use wmmittee empowers it.<Mk; lenemi. to izmstinte the;;nl "~*1 9' "im-A_i'nei-icon" proo-<~.lIeni'l$- and activities. .
i '~ i The. ult-L1'92.££.e out-eo.roe or nine i| iF eimtemot appeeis now awaitink?q.rg'1m1ent_ in the United States
court oi Appeals tor. the Dis-
gtriot are linked to am Sum-eme
:Court decision in the Baren-
ibia-tt case.»-
i. '1.£moi_i:.these cases, to be o.r- -"@:i1gd'1,';Iie*~ after another on un-Y dates next. rnonthl1m-e the contempt convictions oi?
"P19-Ywtiitht Arthur Miller; Li-
orexien Mary Knowles of Piy=I1mou§.h.Meeti.n8. 91.; wan
92 Pr , New York. newspo. to i Herman Liveright. w
I O nix ii~ie'vision'i execu EV G ie Watson, Iormei P 5.-
. .de1phia' school. tepeher; Shei-
1 ;ton Roberts, ew York he s»-
{f:>nnerp5a-n: "Norton A. Ru ,
. scientist o! Y%w' " Q'1i. Ohio; John Goior-k._.%X1 l__~9292.E1;tricai Workers ores _'1 I-ternard De-H-1-h. BMW
gut; etuden' moi states Attornevi _£2"; Hits and Herold R1135-
$3 e:<¢.2z,<i;t.:!"-/1*km wiii I§PIE5°17_92"'_.mbi
. MR 2611958
E7».-138 i Wiuh or I-enneyivanil 0%t. Assiiti _U _!
it QNeda
Pore
e
1/ Won .._._ " Te e.Roorn __
92 Hollomon ___....
Goody .__.._....
5* i
C.»
Nash. Post
Times He
Wash. Newr
Wash. Star
N. Y. Herai
bone
N. Y. Jour
America
N. Y. Min:
N. Y. Ddi
N. Y. Tin
Daily Won
The Worl
New Leo
Q.-_----
Doie _
NiARl-
o is Flee to as-sn " M.
J - 92 J p
" F s " /
7'7 _ , 2 '1 ' T l. it-Wa~ M,__ pk ;;,;1_f,___j t_ it Supreme Ooerfe» rear-tuber
Gaslight ease umefonly two
_ _ veleattng diseussedpwayl{eventing-such evenrdiviaions on-the hill j_our-to-four decisidli undoubtedly creete'a _bed
lIIP1'¢lI10I1- They leave the country's, Iitilllh
decider of legal issues on the fence. 'I'hejvariou|,renaediee which have been prpposalto essuge nine-
-justice participation in all cases ore the Oeurt
might, hgwever, cause more diilculty than angeccasional four-to-fourdecision. t E j .- ' "
,_ It is well to remember that an even split tn the
Court does -not leave case undecided. The
igect is to make the lower court decision pre-
veil. This is not very satisfactory to litigantslwho
have carried their_ case to the highest tribunal.
Yet the ilternative cou_r-sea must be carefully
weighed; Mr. Keating has suggested three possi-
bilities:-e! Creation of a panel of judges Iron:
the United States Courts ppeall which uldbe drawn upon to give tlrvS 2t
judges in every case;_! the use oi retired
Supreme Court justices for this purpose; and !
authorization of the Supreme Court to sit in three-
92judge panels in some cases; , .
- It would be possible also to name an alternate
justice who would ll in when regular members
.are ill or "disqualify themselves. But all of these
proposals create practical or theoretical difiicultlek
Who, for example, would choose a circuit judge
to sit ininy particular case? The person choosing
the substitute judge might in'"£ac't be deciding the
case. This problem would be minimized by us-
ing retired Supreme Court justices, but Lin many
instances such justices would not be 'evailable.
The idea of having the Supreme Court sit in
panels oi three, as do the circuit courts, seems
to be clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution
established one Supreme Court, and the'nature of
its function as a nal arbiter should preclude any
attempt at splinteringi - - i - c
An alternate justice, serving the same purpose
ea-do alternate jurors in some cases, might have
the virtue of simplicity but would Sive rise to
other objections. This would be a difficult role
to ll satisfactorily, and a ve-to-four decision in
which the alternate joined might bring as much
criticism as a four-to-four decision by the fegular
members. Sometimes critics of the courts are
inclined to say that judges should not disqualify
themselves, but this would mean the participation
,,- inf judges who inltheir own minds doubt theirf 7- 7 7 objectivity. cal-tinny nothing should be" done to
discourage disqualication where reason for it
exists, Perhaps the answer is that_an occasional
four-to-four decision is less disadvantageous-than
any oi-4R0-pllesently suggested correctives. -Hosen
Tnmm
Trotter ....._
Clayton __._
Te1e.Fioom _
Holloman ....._
Gundy __..__
Lz
r - -|.-_.. ~
*
N01 as-oosnsn
191 maze 1958
Wash. Post and E
Times Herald
Welsh. News ._i
Wush. Star _.__.
N. Y. I-ierctld i
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-__.._
American
N. Y. Mirror __
N. Y. Daily News
N. Y. Times _
Duily Worker
The Worker _.__
New Leader _._
Date __.___i._.._
/92_./
.-"""'L
|92D-ii Rev. in-so-an ,
Tpil 92-I" I ' "W'7' 77 H ' " * " H ' dr . t-Q; . . _ 95"- ._ I _ ltflrn '5 ,5 . i G XI mun 1 E - Balm-en-. 1°.oni
F»w~ Disp-t¢dHighT'#*.'e.."*..:..*'-. s %I:.°.s.'?_
Senator John Marshall Bill-f
ler R-Md.! yesterday -sus- yested a Eden-ant approach tothe Jenn Bill's goal oi uni
$1 the elects of recent
euprerne Coir oecisioni n:
l¢¢uHE cases. , _-
N Instead oi stripping theTCourt of its power to review
five types of security cases as
bill reversing tour major de-
cisions and taking away the
in one area--state standards
for admission of lawyers to
practice. - i .
Butler oitered his proposal
at a Senate Judiciary Com-..
mittee 'meetin3 as amend-
ments to Jenners measure. No
votes were taken. The 60m-
mittee will consider the bill,
again next Monday. |
Butlers amendments ' would
reverse the eects of __tne'
Court: decisions in the N elaon,
Cole, Watme and Yates cases.
Separate hills to reverse most
*oi them have been filed in each
-house.
The Nelson case struck down
42 state sntisuhversive laws on
grounds that Federal Govern-
ment had preempted the Com-.
munist-hunting field with the
Smith Act. Butler would re-F
.verse this and any other like
case by stating that no Fed-
eral lavr shall exclude states
irom the seine eld unless
CdI!l'I.'sI-so specifies.._._William e. Jenner tn-reap!Jwould do, Butler proposed a
lCourt's appellate jurisdiction;F Th cl e islo in t-ed cit-i%&s¬'°a é°séi$'-it
limiting the Federal security
program to sensitive positions.Butler's amendment would ex-1
J tend it every Government
-".u'?he Watkins decision pllllll
limits on the investigativeIpovver of Congress and said,among other ings, that wit-
nesses must be told how ques-
. tions put_to them _sre_pe_rtl-
'92nent to the Com-nmittees lei-
islative purpose. Butler pro-
posed language stating thatHany question is {lertinent ifthe body conduc ng the in-
lquiry says it is. _ 1*§ The Yates decision made
:5mith Act convictions more
jdliiicult by narrowly dening
-its terms. The Act makes it
In oense to teach or advo-
rcate or organize any group
which advocates overthrow 0!
,ths Government hi iorce.
The Court said "organize" re-ferred to the founding oi! ti?
C0mbr:Uni51ij and éouhd ot, .s p e ersonaw 0bras; in new embers.-distinguished hetvieu ed-
iv acy and teachin as anattract pgllhlvli '1
action eort
utler'a amendment states
r snize me s s con-iging gperaticr. c92nbriH£1I!£ I ._lqnew members aniihst -as.V "<3? Ind teach 3*" is g
crime regardless of u in,
mediate probabl ag-1;gsuch action. Q Q at
390t by c/
»=t- =.!éB"
191 APR 2 1953
a-ip-ii-___,_|_Hollomnn _..
Gundy ___
Wash. Post on Q
Times Her
Wosh. News .i
Wash. Stur ._..._..._
N. Y. Herold __
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-._.__
American
Y. Mirror _i
1 Y. Dolly News
N. Y. Times ___
Daily Worker __
The Worker i.
New Leader _.._
Date
1; " . i~'.-"ea 25 1958
o-is tn". 10-as-511 ! I
*1 M3
/0 ,
oi the Jenn: bratnsln '
_ tler'a_ own derlqa {ova pllshment of at least part dt what the
fsenster sought? rue Butler plan, except in the,
of bar-admission cases, la to change the
, statutes which he insists the Supreme Court has
fmisconstrued. There k nothing,[ or course, to
-~ __prevent Congress from modifying any Federalt G5, pstamte it the Court has rniscdnstrued the con-
, 7 .gressionel intent. But esm % of tm sort ought
-~ gs to stand on its own merits or demerits, and in
the Butler list the demerits greatly predominate.
C Certainly the ldea of assembling a group of un-
related alleged grievances against the Supreme
Court into a hill to take the place of a very d1er-
ant kind of measure is in itself a monstrosity. " ~rln an effort to overrule the Court tin the Steve
F it...
Nel n case, Senator Butler would se up 1 ep-
tug ew principle. In that case the Court ali-
dat d Pennsylvania: little .Smith Act" o the
ground that Congress had occupfed the ld of
control over subversion against the Ljnited States.
- Senator Butler would provide that no act of Con-
grass in any eld would operate to the exclusion
.~v-~*+; of y state law on the same subject rnattereunless su act contains an express provision to that
ed t." I'he result would be to leave itate lem-lation in eeet unless it could not be d:'"~:~I t7 " -~:. ;l.
[5with Federal law in the same sphere. ' e
if _Congress Wiiiii exclusive control in I fr:
in which Federal and state regulations have been
traditionally intermingled, it would certainly he
L well advised to say so in very positive terms. We
~ an see no objection to Congress saying by law
1-. at when it does not say so specically, it does
k ot intend to_blanket out all state legislation in
!_ he eld aected by its own act. But. ii such an
" act were passed it should obviously apply onlyEta future legislation. To apply it to the past, as
Seoetor Butler proposes to do. would 1:2: the
Feffect of upsetting many delicate Federal-state
trela ' nships that are not even in controversy,
_ ort. there is no excuse for Mr. Butler's substitute, and it ought to be consigned
5 n along with the original-wlelrner hill, _7-L'"?-
..' -'.';.I.".
. 3 99
Tl I '6-uOI
~e!
""5 vFii- ' ' "P it Tolson V ' ~»';'!~ _+_k .-_»92m_;_i__._ - _..q_..g;~-B _.;. 7-.f;.-';§7?. Boardrnun-Jr"'t..-- '~ . 4.» -.-IE7-'. 1, ~ .1. .~Q§;92¢ 1, ,"§92- _. ,- - " is - . e . - 1
_.....».~.%_.'i '.»':;"t.E;">.~-v.2!-_... . ' it ~ -- --
J llisssuaals qualssllspn I-III!» ill; Pqfggnl _,_._
Roeon_..__
' Tomm __._
Trotter .__.._
Room ._.
I-lollornon .i
Goody .__.._-
106/
I079
_. . _;C92 ."*-
N, . . :.i;".;"",
191 era 2 i¢5r °
"WCfsl'lt'P riSt!¥I='6_
Times Herald
Wash. News __..
Wash. Star .___......._
N. Y. Herald i
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-__._
American
N. Y. Mirror :___
N. Y. Daily News .
N. Y. Times __.._
Dolly Worker __
The Worker ..__._.
New Leader _i-
I
0-20 : .-_A
. Toison
. Bourdm
. Belmont _i
. Mob: - k
. us I -T32, . h re."
, ._ . D
imi-
"
T010. H - '- -i-
Mr. Hollomn __..
Min Gundy ___
. . A - , ; - -- - =.*'-:1Ina A . - . ' A
I
emu:
N. tn nu IIIITTII A mu a at ton 10 um j1 -- I hf I I IIJJIIII Pnnvic mic: c|n:s1'¥o|:||: or 1i£=$i.¢
It L IE8 n outcnon non ennuiIllllvgt m kl-nut" nun: 11' colnzu '19 -W §-A mun an an can IIILI nu cusmmnc. .M III II mu: an ant nml: an wean:IASIIIGT on nouns rm I: us IIILI no Lon:flvggj II. vonn Ill courmxu IICAISI or A
tn: In mlrlzssnu snu in tnon our slur ' *~ uzcamz an an muzmn uussgu as muzucz-1:. FIlIl:L so mmuzs rim curuslols nu. III ll: mu saw
r U1-E: IUSPIICT IIIFOIII IUESTIII I11 III II I01 -IICIT HI I'll! HUI} ITS III II USED ' VIQ
III - - _ ' ~
TIE III at A srrcm. incur: It Ir Lm nu tomm s uzczslolsu 1 nuns: A j V.
I l cm. tn: nruuu uucrnour. rm: 1'0 1|:nu ct nu: nuzcnnmr In 1;: "nu nu: rut» m-on mu an onerraun rs : zen: to mane: a auras: mu. n n.Ln:u.,'k tnmnu . » - -J
W..q All-er-liixiu - < »~ __--
% QM
i
I .p_'E;
P
".'.;
M_
Ii
1_ __...._ _7_---~~* *4--i"*" ' "' ' "" " A"'**A_+- H *7 W i I 92 92
.3 , 3 , W!iiégsn. Midi;/I»VI.llI.bl_Q_ u"-inZ .ls.st slini1iiers
if teprrtheel-Illhts hh Iror-some
jigr the thinss mid. elneeisny by tumm-itingtggstices; Irouid zhlve curisdsthe
_ oi se "iiber&i92-who opposeddury
_ p incivrdgiitezdcti-,=<ieq=i.
'1 The ease before tiremqurt involved
_ _. Oommunists--Gilbert Green- and
Henry Winston.-They were among the-11
f;-Go_m.muini-st leaders convicted under the
ilmith Act. After their convictionhad
Fbeen upheld by the Supreme Gun-t.they
-lirrnped ba-sand wean into= hiding.ghee they surrendered iivglyears later
jhey were charged with criminal 0011-
ftempt for violating slower court order,
?tried withoutjiiry ind sentenced ts serveares additionall years. -The 1n_aj_prity
apinlon conceded the right oi Congress
in provide for Jury trials in any or all
criminal "contempt. prosecutions. "But
Congress had made_no such provision in
this type or case, and the-,92m.a1ority up-
here the conviction. -- - .v -.
, Justice Black, loined by Chief Jus-
tice Warren and Justice Douglas, wrote
1 powerful dissent. Justice Black said
__the facts oi this ease provide a striking
example oi_ how thegreat_=pi'pcedor§92I,iafeguards of the Bill 0! Rights are i'iow
easily evaded by ;the ever-ready ..a'nd
boundless expedients of a judicial decree
and a summary without jury! contempt
"proceeding." He, contended that in -all
s:rim.ina1 ooniempc prosecutions, whether
{Congress has agreed or not, theeaccpsed
is entitled by the Constitution to. be
tried by a jury after indictment by a
grand jury. _Then Justice Black added
1 _ -__ -
1' ' Slimmer! trial of criminal contempt,
as now practiced, allows I. sinsic tune-
tionary of the state, a judge, to lay down
_ the law, to prosecute those whom he be-
lieves have violated his command as 111- '
terpreted by him!, te sit in "judgment"
on his own charges, ind then within the
broadest kind or bounds to punish as he
sees tit. It seems inconsistent with the_ most rudimentary principles of our sys-'
, tem oi criminal justice, e system care-
" rullr developed snd preserved throughout
centuries to prevent oppressive enf0roe- '1
F ment of oppressive luvs, to concentrate
- °flm=...nLth=Itete-_ ,,¢-ii H01. H3-IO-5154 !° J
/M _ e @1232
gll Whicl:i_1n.ijI}i $118.15 te~cues in
*Ih1ch the penalty _ '_ 45,6571 in or . am nee:.+.*.s- * l i
The lrzument is oi this
n eomproiiii|¢'was=Jthe92-I_92|§:ernf esoouldnotbeirusped-ifoconvi the
guilty. But vlustiee Black scornedthis
jirgument. "use-us? payknow? Wm iii tisittthe
5 justices are reactionary, or tiiat"the'$"'tiI
not concerned with eiv-ii iihertiesi, "I!hs;y
not say.-this i! they I' l].l__read the
"opinion. _And is MP9 lelwiil -reed t,high they do it may clear their
l,0! some of the nonsense they w _
"s utinglast summer when thejury '
2 debate. -7.1.-:1"L ewasupnpr _,___ua,_
92'
. tit gt!
this much power in the hands é A 7 -V/E" A
Pmlf ?""'3
14 APR.17 1953
oUAPR181958F/7; ____..._.3.fin, i 3 oé? umpoum " inthe..- Tcrrnm
_,;.! if Trotter ___.
' Clayton _.__V Tole . Room _.Hollornon _....
Gandy ..._..-
b7"
J
Wash. Post and _
Times Herold
Wash. News _--
Wosh. Star _B_Z
N. Y. Herold .__.
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-___..
American
N. Y. Mirror __..._.
N. Y. Daily News
N. Y. Times i.
Dolly Worker .._
The Worker .-
New Leader ___
-i-m~i'-ii
Date .___-
APR 2 1953
0- l9 HOV. 10-29-57!
1
y.-. 192
K, _!
- ' we .-92-lofmggsiinh Court 1 Ill
$15-e-..etor.!
New York. yeuterdu warned
anleenetelninlt
mtwomm
+cou:rt oi! its leeltirnete aowerl.
ir_Hrilunen=se!-osqgoin
Attorney General Rog-era in
opposing such measures es the
ilenner bill to keep the SupremeCourt from reviewins most se-
hourlt? cases., Mr. Rogers on Tliesdsr
ihermed as In oath ad-.ministered recentl! at s Sen-
mte bearing to 1 Federal Juduelnominee who more he would
iu
tophold the oath be will he
imodity the Supreme Court!Plnllon rule wu 1 Good ues.§. A hm rlllrted to the_.oo'r
by the House Judiciary Com-
mittee would prevent s oon- vfesslon from heirs: barred in
- court solely beeause of the time
lapse between arrest and -e
-"r ent. The bill ste ed
.1 the Mallory deeisio in
on 5 conression was t n
o -0! court because 01 a d y
. ore arraienment of I551
ibours, termed "unnecessary" by?
Ithe Supreme Court. -
J Sena-tor Javits said legisla-
tion opposed by the Justice De-
partment threatened the hal-
ence or power between the
judicial end legislative branches of Government.
"I lee! it is necessary to speak
up before some of these me-l~
ures come to the Senate oor."
Benator Jsvite sold. I want
to record myself now. We ought
tq,,J.et_thg people know what:hi afoot. g-Q
1¢.r 92é 7L I. Q I. ' I , _ -' ____ ,{ 1. -Q-.-:.I'= _=
"' YERDED
191 APR 9 1955921
r
NousParson
oun
omm
rotter ___.
oyton ___....
T IQ . Boom _..
Hollomnn __._W Gondy _..__
required to take lster be-lore ¢
unending the bench. The At-
. may General also mid. the
Justice Department is not Yet
vconvinced the legislation to
Wash. Post and ....
Times Herold
Wash. NewsWash. Star _.___ 77
N. Y. Herold _'__..
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-___
American
N. Y. Mirror _._
N. Y. Dolly NewsT. .. /we
V o-is Rn. to-as-51! ~
" lhi compinh division is m in
the nationaiity nasesribciiisd ust_iionda? leaves
nuchtohedesirei Inihe'1'ropciaethe Court
ruled 5 to '4 that Congress overreaehed ITIKPOWGT
when it tried to deprive gieserters from the mill-
tary forces of their citizenship. Justices Black,
Douglas and Whittairer joined in Chief Justice,
Warren's opinion; Justice Brennan concurred sep--
arately and Justices Black and Douglas added a
brief opinion of their own. Justice Frankfurter
Wrote the dissent with the concurrence of Justices
Burton, Uiark and Harlan, .
in the other major nationality case, involving
Cleinente Martinez Perez, Justice -Frankfurterspoke for a bare majoiity of ve, and there were
three separate dissents. In this case the Court
concluded that Congress had authority to deprive
Peres of his citizenship because he voted in a
Mexican election. However, the seeming contra-
diction between the two decisions is more appar-
ent than real. Some vital distinctions can be
drawn.
The Chief Justice made a.powerful_ case against
that section of the Nationality Act of 1940 which
would strip a native-born American of his citizen-
ship for desertion from the Army. "Citizenship,"
he pointed cut, is not a license that expires upon
misbehavior." The Fourteenth Amendment con-
fers national citizenship upon all native-born Amer-
icans. We do not think that basic right to obtain
rights" can be taken away as a punishment for
criine. So drastic is this total destruction of the
individuals status in organized society," as the
Chief Justice concluded, that it amounts to cruel
and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth
Amendment. Incidentally this decision completely
undercuts President Eisenhowers suggestion in
1954 that Communists convicted under the Smith
Act be_stripped of their citizenship-a suggestion
which Congress wisely ignirred.
The Perez case turned on very dierent facts.
Born in Texas, Perez had lived in Mexico 23 years
before he returned to this country claiming to be
a native-born Mexican. He shifted across the
border several times as a workman. When he
nally sought admittance to the United States as
a citizen, he admitted that he had voted in Mexican
political elections and that he had remained in
Mexico to escape the United States military draft.
The Court held that the power of Congress to
regulate foreign aairs was ample to permit the
_ nuilication of the citizenship of one who votes
in 'sl"i'i!i'Ei'gn election. -'--'
6 6 Aria 16 1958-> -!
T '1 11-" "<.-""" _ s I "'-."§¢"'=l';' lfihliliiideeiigs Tolson " C "Y5 °» .f.»'li.'2" " atittiiiirf
MohrAA. = an T isifs inconinteer was d u_ reaulttn toss oi that+IIatns.f_ iviatioll ofmigrantrcoold scared! insist thatonea o ' _/It
TommP. . . r _ ' rum!v netlonlllty lsthlintalned through any and 111 gly-
];omatances.# It is not unreasonable for Congressifb law down /rules for the iorfiltureot citizenship
fit? nliive-horn who have clearly tram-
Jarred theirallegiance to another country. _ T
1' The weakness cl, the statnteiin this particular
.11 that it I .-_ . lossvql ciusenuupthe price for any o'!'~92l.ing in aioreign election.
ivhetnerii may he reasonaiaiy con-
§ strued as a sign of transferred allegiance. Aliens
5 voted in our presidential elections in some states
until 1928. Perhaps the chief conclusion to be[1-awn from these cases is that Congress oughj6-Jrn - --s-m -4.--{"1 1-L as -IA. --_-1---'l_ __ r Hlll I ll-IUIIJ 92JLGJ.I-ll QJUIL I. 1|; |;j{|:|,g5§1,
ared statute of 1940 before the Court nds i
necessary to whittle more of it_avray. J _
92'/
Trotter __.__
Clayton _._.
Te1e.Room _
Hoilomnn
Gondy
1/9}
197"
Hugh, Post and J
Times Herold
Wash. News __.._.
Wash. Star _._.
N.
I N.
_ ,, W./, A ill
u W a ~-
Daily Worker __ 1+ 1'-92rR lb @258 -Y. Herold _..
' _lL___- _ll'1DU8
Y. Journal-._
American
Y. Mirror _._
Y. Daily New:
Y. Times _._
The Worker __._
$ New Leader -
i
i,,Z-.1--1--''
Dcite ._.-._---
APR 5 195
O 19 HIV ID 29-57|- " -i ! '3
1...... /L rdma
01"t.
Mallory _ Rule?
Advice
A transcript oi the advice
which United States Attorney
Oliver Gasch and his staff
gave toselected police om-
ciala on how to act underthe
restrictions of the Mallory
rule will be distributed later
this week to most other po-
licemen who deal with this
problem. . -
Chief of Police Robert V.
Murray said yesterday that
the transcript of the three lec-Glve i,
lnust arraizn those ey arrest
without unnecessary delay. In
the Mallory case, the Supreme
.Court refused to allow into
evidence a confession obtained
iiuring an unnecessary de-
'19
In his lectures, which were
llargely prepared in answer
to questions submitted in ad-
vance by police, Gaach tried
to explain what an unneces-
sary delay la. -
a general order telling the
force that these are the views
of the United States Attorneys
Office and that they should
[be followed.
Ga.-sch was asked to talk to
police in an effort to bring
their investigative methods
into line with requirements
placed on them by the Su-
preme Court! interpretati noi the judicial rules oi crii:gi-
nal procedure.=6-ncier= those rules; poiicei
- -_,
m
u 92 _I'turea will be accompanied byk His interpretation has beenhat the normal PIDCESSIIZQrom arrest to arraignme t
an be interrupted only byde
ays which are the results of
actors beyond police control.
elayl of this type, Gasch
said, probably will not affect
the validity of statements
made by those who have been
arrested.
The delays which Gaach
considers necessary are -those
which might occur when__a de-
fendant is drunk, critically in-
jured, or when n mechanical
failure of police equipment,
such as a at tire, slows down
the arraignment process.
Murray laid yesterday thatcopies of the transclapt Will
be distributed to all recinct
officials and to all detectives
on the- urea! .-..---
92 c Y ' 117 .-.NOT naconnan
A"? 1-'
'"I-I-----alumni. a.,__,-.-4--~ ' " '
Belmont _-Z
" Mohr Nens
Parson
Roaen
Tnmm
Trotter _..._.-
Cluylon _._--
Tele. R0951
Hollomn --
Gondy _-_--
it
Wash. Post and 8
Times Herald
Wash. News __i
Wash. Star _._
N. Y. Herold _.__
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-__
American
Y. Dull! News
N. Y. Times _.
Daily Worker .__
The Worker i_
New Lender _.._-Y . Mirror ___
-_ .' _. ......_....__........._.-_..________,__ ___ __._ __F _,_.,_. .__u_ _________ ____ 4__________
' _ 9-16 Hun 10-20-s-n ' !
1
_ ; ' _A SHARP Dl$AGREEMEN'I_'d- V _ A _ W
~4TheMa'|°rY...Dé¢iSiW<i.5='
OD!!! _.
B1 I_...-
...... W~//M/~v</HI
wo Experrs G|v,eT&hef||f
u ._ ___ . ._.___..+_..A._ _,___ v1 =""*d<=' Legisslqmi|$N@eH¢d'92 W6
."':;:92 ___
. 1"P@#e<=*s°~riibeWr*ie¢' L
.-- '.-anr 3-1.,
. -_92¢
1...es;-. _ Wash. Post and _.
1 Times Herald
' Wash. News:__:____ H Wash. Star gP 1 N. Y. Herald ___
§ Tribune g N. Y. Journal-_...
92'1.r American
92 N. Y. Mirror
N Y Daily ew
N T1|-
'92 - . . N s
, ,___'_ .Y. imes- 92 | -. '1 . /- /~ / ' /" Daily Worker __
92 92 -@---- --- u--1-1The Worker ___._
NOT RTGPORDEDH7 { _, _] New Leader I .. _4. . .92is
_i_i..._._--
1-#11--ii__, Dc|te___--//9 ma 61958
APR 14 1958
LIT P -F. Y-W; i 1 I"
,__ _." 3;: on thelth day 3
. M11137; his
dketdtlef
' which she lived Bbe bad onetheretcusethe washing miéiine.a_- -__ a92.. a____.a_ :1"provmeo ror we us.-.~. Mallory was ,.:z:.ed It 2:30
- p.m._ the following day. He denied
the "offense -Seven and one-halthours e1a:§d between his arrest
and his oral confession. During
the interim the police Questioned
others believed involved.
Mallory was questioned by the
police for approximately two
hours. "The Jury considered his
confession free and voluntary. He
never disputed this. The victim
ccuid not idmtiiy her assailant.
Because of the delay between
arrest and arraignment the ~fol-
iowing morning. Mallorrs con-
fession was ruled inadmissible.
Without the confession, the Gov-
ernment lacked suilicient evidence
to seek a conviction and lsiallory
was released.
The Mallory decision requires
the exclusion from evidence of
confessions made by persons un-I der arrest unless there was com-
pliance by the police with Rule
5 a! of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which re-
quires arraignment of arrested
persons "without unnecessary
delay." _ - _
Prior to the Mallory case the
law in the District on confessicm
permitted the jury to give to con-
fessions such weight as it felt was
merited, provided rst the trial
judge made a determination that
there was evidence that such s
confession was voluntary.
The Basic Test
Voluntariness ls the test for ad-
mission or rejection of confessions
in most of the States. Confessions
shown to be voluntary are trust-
' worthy. Under the old rule delay
between arrest and arraignment
did not necessarily vitiate a con-
fession unless the delay was so
protracted that it could be said
the delay produced the confession.
in which event the confession
11g1'lIi DIS I92'2§l1'Cl.ElJ. ll LHVUALLUI
tary and inadmissible.
In four instances the court said
the basis of its ruling was an in-
terpretation of the intent of Con-
gress in authorizing Rule 5 a! of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Pro-
cedure. It would therefore appear
the decision rests in an ares.
wherein Congress may legislate if
it feels that remedial legislation is
lustiiied and in the public in-
wrest.rn92._ _-_a _i.__..|q_-_.|. _...-an---Jill! IHUDII D-l§ll.Lll92JH1lI| DCi.i92l¬ll92.i¢
in the Mallory decision, to me. is
- the sentence found at the bottom
of page 4 of the Court: opinion;
The requirement of lulu 5 cl ll
I port of lhs procedure devised by Con-
gress for safeguarding individual rights1
without hampering elfeclive and in
telliqent low enforcement."
This sentence states the are-old
92..
-' .. ' n k _92 s
H: H 1 'n | 3-ii a _l"T . I II V " -1»-ion "1
e it . __Balance must be aenlevu-"".'d:e'. -. rights to be balanced areonrhand those of the
and on the other those of our lii-'
abidlns citieena to be P!'I_'|IWBd
from criminal violence W
most eectiyei law enforcement
possible. TIf too gush emphasis is given
Ito the e ciency of law enforce-
ment. the rights of the accused
may be impaired. Similarly. if we
' concern ourselves only with safe-
guarding the defendant's -rights.
we shall encourage and allow to,
go unpunished the erlmlnll abuse
oi iaw=bidlng citizens. Balance'must be maintained I1 we'are to
have equal justice under law. _
What righm are involved?
First, there are the rlshts of
persons accu of crime. It islour duty ad? responsibility as
law enforcement officers to be
ever alert to protect the rightsoi the accused. -
Second, it is at least equally
important for us to consider the
who reLr upon us for protection
from the criminal. Those who
live and work and visit in the
District of Columbia and who use
the streets during the day and
night have the right to eective
and intelligent police protection.
No one would contend that maple
here in the District are entitled
to less effective police protection
than persons living in New York.
Memphis or Cincinnati. I
Third,"we should consider thelrights of the law-abiding citlzenir
I rights of the innocent person who
[has been accused of crime. As-
sume that such a person has been
arrested on probable cause but
that the police in their own minds-
question the identication by the
witness. Perhaps they are im-
pressed by the ind.ividuals protes-
tation of innocence. They should
have an opportunity to check
further into the case before stig-
matlzing the individual with a
criminal charge and an arraign-ment.
- inin-d-I1 d-haaw- in 01-- -ileil--II 4. 92.-an ma, u-soul. u an vnu yang ;
situation of the innocent victim.
Some of these innocent victims of
rapes and yoke robberies are
literally afraid to open the doors
of their homes or apartments to
a stranger. They are afraid to
walk the streets alone. We should
not forget these people in our
concern with the rights" of the
accused.. I
Legislation ls Needed
Experience under the 1-Mallory
rule indicates to me they desir-
ability of remedial legislation.
In most oases brought to our
attention,by the police there 1;
ample evidence beside confession
evidence. In some cases. however,
the Mallory rule appears to
hamper effective and intelligent
law enforcement--murders. rapes.
and yoke robberies.
K-I-in-and . » 4e-1=.-leer --
the rishtl and diraitr1,, __ individual have ;, ";§?'_p:tetIo. melted snd:'axnll.ri.vX_ili gas Belem: la . cl . -at-Q";
tbesement of the apartment in .llllllllile.
livid
burden
II InII . . *
re tedrages evi
forced to"
contrary to
Mallory case. - "f _'.-= ~- :1Trial judge; '
terpretatio to be
lory decision. Home he
a liberal interpretation.
have not regarded themselves es
bound by what they consider dicta.
Others equally experienced have
given the case a strict interpreta-
tion and have rejected confessions
made 30 minutes and 50 minutes
after arrest, respectively. These
cases involved brutal yoke rob-
beries. Victims havwdimpulty ub-
derstalidlng why such crimes go
unpunished. Mr. Justice Cardoaos
admonition should be recalled:
". . . Justice, though due the sc-
cused. is due the accuser
Three Important Reversals
On appeal, three important mur-
der cases have been reversed be-
cause of the use of confessions
secured contrary to the interpre-
tation of the Mallory case.
0 Watson, the confessed murderer
of Miss Tigiirt in the Scotti Ho-
tel, cannot be retried for this
murder. -
O Carter. the confessed murderer
of a 14-year-old girl, cannot be
retried because of the restrictions
of doctrine. 1-lis confeasion.
completely voluntary and trust
worthy, has never been repudiated
by him. Orally he confessed about
four hours after his arrest.
O Starr was convicted of the sec»
ond degree murder of his wile,
There was ample eyewitness testi-
mony, but among other defenses
Starr pleaded insanity. He had
given the police a statement in
which he denied stabbing his wife.
The statement seemed to be trust-
worthy evidence of his capacity
and understanding at the time of
the incident in question. The re-
,viewing court, however. reversed
the conviction on the authority of
the Mallory case because it felt
that the introduction of such an
exculpatory statement was preju-
dicial to Starr: defense of in-
sanity.
A iiew days ago our Court of
Aiibeals denied a motion to
remand in the Milton Mallory
case. This defendant is a nephew
of Andrew Mallory and had been
convicted of the charge of carnal
The defense moved to remand
the case for a new trial because
of the delay between arrest andcry-s:|rrr92I'!'!.lr92+ 'T'I92Q .l92rn1y'I"l Ilnninl nf -aa-.9.-.----nu. QOO92v -an-a-a. -.-92.a--. --knowledge oi an 8-year-old girl.
this motion was predicated largelylupon special and unusual facts.
Milton Mallory was so intoxicatedL
uni-.. .-92~ ' ' '
a .-a; . .r: I: .. ' "' -' . "it; . ."--1%".-je .~- 1' it -.1? *-"*.- 1 I
' " ~.-';_z:.- 1 1.; ,_.'_,:._fir! I ;_kz
F9.
hall
defense _ _ruse. ., i -_
The oonollnr views on the t
Mailer! decision are presented
Iiereinartieies written especially,
for The Star bl! Hr. Gasch,
United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia. and lilr.
Williams, a leading Washington
hirer. _ I . __ _ _
.
rnent before a commissioner or
udge would have had no signif-
icance to him. When he was92 at the time of arrest that arraign-
ober the following morning and
hen confronted with the char geQralnst him, he admitted his
guilt within ve minutes.
Under these circumstances .lt
does not appear that the Court
of Appeals has changed or liberal-
ized the Andrew Mallory doctrine.
Justice Coils for Action ' '
We have had many conferences
imp the chief of police and his
so."-ei-visors odicials. We have met
with the detective force on three
occasions to lecture them on the
principles of this decision and to
answer as accurately as possible
their questions. Certain practices
formerly considered essential to
elcient police work have been
abandoned.
Legislation which requires warn-
ing the individual before ques-
tioning by the police but which
would authorize the admission oi
confessions shown to % volurrtar','
and trustworthy would be in the
interests of Justice. It would serve
both to safeguard the rights of the
accused and prevent the hamper-
enforcement. ' ing of eectlve and intelligent law
-'v-any
Q" wh I, - _ t /WI
r F
r
lO
M
0
eatbepoiiee-sttponah ";i'oaee'oihu'h-1 . ="- 1- "~
"if
-.. 1,-'1':---. -c-.-L!-
3"=c'~%rnt'-eue- . . .. .. -, '&.-he pportunity to questionmr-rested ._eee_mclioe of e private erhbe I ___hare _in-1 met _reiributlea." -r _ or.--_.iena.torButlero!Mai7le.nd _ iivtdnmme 'raonl in order to develop prob
hie cause." they are reeliv askin
or the rightto arrest 119° lus
icion. They are asking 1301'
right to arrest at large and inter
rogate at leisure. This is a prac-
tice which has been universall!
adopted by totalitarian states.
I1 the police want the riiht in
make draguet arrests they should
ask for a constitutional amend-
ment. As long as Rule 4 and the
Fourth Amendment remain on the
books. however. we should demand
that our law enforcement oicers
obey them.
Bills Before Congress
Two bills are now pending be-
fore Congress to repeal the
Mallory rub. H. R. 8600, which
was introduced by Representative-
Keating of New York and which
has been approved almost in its
original form by the House Ju-
diciary Committee, provides that
no confession shall be inadmissible
solely because oi a delay in taking
the defendant before a commis-
aioner.
This bill is a license for lawless
law enforcement. It leaves un-
changed the plain commandment
of Rule 5, but it invites the police
to ignore this commandment
whenever they need a confession
to validate an invalid arrest.
Thirty years ago. Mr. Justice
Brandeis penned the classic in-
dictment of any system in whlc
the police are above law. H
wrote: .
"Crime is contagious. H the govern-
ment becomes o low-breaker, ii breeds
eonlernpl tor ion; it invite! every mun
to become o levr unle himself; it
invites anarchy. To declare flint in
the edminisiroiion oi the criminoiI
;tioning before anyone advised introduced a mu which u ahn
-as dangerous as the Keatiug bill.
B. 3432 provides that the police
'f_.'_muet take the accused before a
commissioner within 12 -hours of
1 his arrest, but it a commissioner
-cannot be found within that pe-.
riod the police may continue to
hold the accused until arraign-
"-ment is pomible. ' .
wait literally until the eleventh
hour before making any eifort to
take the accused before a com-
missioner. It puts e. premium,
moreover, upon intmsive interro-
gation to extract a confession1.1111; bill mviteethe police to A
1 before the deadline.
Under this bill the police could
i hold any suspect incommunicarlo
fill 12 l'iOl1I'S DI COfltll'li.lOi.l8 QUES-
him of his right to counsel, his
privilege against self-incriminan
tion, his right to bail. .
It has been suggested that these
bills would protectinnoccnt peo-
ple from arrest records, because
the police would release anyone
who appeared innocent after in-
terrogation. The fact is that 5A record must be kept of all arrests.
. Once a man is arrested and taken
i to police headquarters he has an
arrest record. His reputation
cannot be further damaged by
taking him before e commissioner
who will advise him of his rlgh_:n. in most cases. admit him ,to
a . -
These bills will. however, dis-
criminate against the youthful
and uneducated suspect. The
hardened criminal does not needWould Disc rimino to1
i
92_; was ' ' "
camera-isieinil-esthat[_=Mallor7 ease -is *Bills were introduced in
lo nullify its eecte. 'Ior
years we have lived under
Metlabo rule, however. -and it has
released few, it any. dangerous
criminals to prey on society. The
latest statistics from the Depart-
ment oi Justice show that II
per cent of the criminal proce-
cutionr initiated by the United
States during 1956 and lili ended
in convictions. It is a safe pre-
diction that the Mellory rule ,wiR
ve no discernible eifqt upon
ese statistics.
mall Price ' . , _
The occasional release of
ilty man. moreover. is e
price to pay for a society where
the police are under the law. The
business of ferreting out crime is
often competitive, and the police
are tempted to forget than an un-
solved crime is not the worst of
all possible evils. p
A tree society can survive the
occasional acquittal of the guilty.
but it cannot survive the convic-
tion of the innocent. Nor can it
survive dragnet arreshs upon sus-
picion and subsequent deten§p
for investigation. ' . s
Historically the real threats to
civil liberties have not come fmen of had faith. We have new
been alert to their designs. e
great danger has lurked in insidi-
ous encroachrnents by wel1-mean-
ing men of zeal. who have
orgotten that a good end does
ct Justify an illicit means. Th
eci_ _ = a Commissioner to advise him of ' anon decision B mud Sm
his rights--he knows them. It
is no accident that the Mallory
rule was formulated in a case
involving a 19-year-old boy oi
limited intelligence.
i Our Court of Appeals has re-
versed only three convictions on
, the basis of this rule. It is like-
. wise no accident that one of these
Leases involved another 19-year-lold defendant of questionable
. mental capacity and another in-
volved an 18-year-old defendant
with an I. Q. of '74. .
These are the people whom.
Rule 5 was promulgated to pro->ause it rcasserte this eleme
principle. _
0-20 ';_ !Y "To1son _ Mr. Boarclm '1
Mr. Belmont
Moh: J
Mr. Nous
ML Pcnso
Mr. Boson M
Hi. Timv-:-'
M. Trotter ___._
_ Ni. Clayton ___.V Tale. Room __--
| Mr. Holloman __
Miss Gancly __.._.
_,_-
=. 155' ! b7 /
_ __ . 4.. ._,____ ,_V_ A_... __._._. __________ _.
Q umcxnn » $9!!! $29.51! 4139191.!!! I'='!!!!I!"!'!!_I ELILQEIQ All PIIIPAIIB ?ODlY I'D BISlllblg IIIG IUESTIOIS IIOIT TIE APPEARANCE II I IITIIIISIVII ITTICI UTI * ..GQD_IT ll PIIT OI IECEIT "lILllIIGI' IT TllIIIll1'I-IITIIIIL
SECURITYTIE I It! OI 1'IIJ:DIEIlIY CUIITTIIQ IQTI ll; ", luau ll: In . - E ;I nuwrn A! I 'Arru|u' to tn: .cs on rut uruun am. to urn nu: amu:1:11:11», an nmun Pu: sunm: can-r u ano now. c .11 tn: an usnacl ascents. E
snarcl" ovrrr 01 .T!E'!!!_:!!-Il'!!!'_L!9! 59'LIIU G SILIATOIS I! IIIEIIICII 1'0 IT II tn; nuwia-nii.im nmucs. A sure: 0: 11: IILARIIGI an new nmcn: VH} '1}? Igg: -- I I. -- tn: "nun" us nmnouzn to an
E mzcuxu ms ml: us tn rim column or
tn usmncu Assoc 1 nun I1 nmnmc :1 no-coumun nctszus an cut:an n. mucus or cuun tn umn rm run:cou tn nos: mmru n|1'm.l.1 nqmunnxv umngggggsg span co muums. .was 5. liiiiiiiiii = 3 CH5! - Icousrnunouu. n cbmrr 1
o nu: STUDY an wens or
HUT» » -
. - VI--QDIQI - _A :_
' E '~. F.
- ' E » //E A/ E 24*//a @éf¥§ ° +
_ _ , ..._____________.._._..___ n___-_...._.._.- _ -.._-....M.
0-Ii Rev. 10-29-51}
92}/
= /.4
YII
1l .
A
l
|L! e»
Holtzoff QM
Tlieosupreme Court held
unanimously yesteEa§ that
Jistrict Court Judge Alexander
gu
i'.=."=
rlé
!he
qthe court proceedings. HeHoltzott was wrong two years
ago in refusing to let a inan
charged with a shooting change
his_ plea £1-om guilt! to not
8111-y. l
The defendant was Clarence-____-_.._. .92 .e._..
. . 4 I.B§Dandridge, who was |en- fl
tenced to 3 to 9~yeara for.
shooting a man in the shoulder;
Dandrldge said the victim had
beaten him up the night before
and he was afraid he would
again. Alter a courtroom con-Tference with his court-appoint-l
ed lawyer, Dandridge pleaded
ilty Five days later, but
wrote Hoitroii asking the?.4 A. 1°15?/ DOi.l1l'l'iCIIF_.__."mg 1 nt U l'l1O
Mohr
Nous
Pars% HomeTumm
Trotter .____
Clayton __.-
Tele. Room __.
Hoilomun _._
Gondr .._-_-
W
fore sentence was imposed. 7 _ '7 ef /fl 1"
be permitted to change his? %__ '_""'- '1'-Iplea. _ , .. ~ l Bk _92392 N01" nroonnnn~.:2: 3::*;.:";*;.:'e-*en; ~ 191 APR 11 we
added that he had since identi-
fied witnesses who could help
his case. Federal judges may
permit a change of plea. Ho1tz-
off said he saw no reason to
do so, and refused. '.
The Justice Department.
told the Supreme Court that
Dandridge had been hospital-
ized and might have been
sick. They uggested that théi
case be sent back to Holtzo
to decide that question.
, The High Court went tur-
ther. It reversed the convic-
tion and sent the case back to
Holtzoi! with directions to let
Dandridge change his plea.
This means the Government; __
Wash. Post and Q
Times Herold
Hash. News ___
Wash. Star __...._
N. Y. Herold __..
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-_._
American
N. Y. Mirror _
N. Y. Daily News
0-20 ll: 2
J
urni " -
-. ma 1 nmcnu nmn »
IINNIIGS IIII TODIY if iii iiiS_§C92iR§l"l 8UlC0llHl1"i_l2I nnmu: orc 1:1! IPIDID I or 11': IECDIT Bah HISSOURI mncm an II
luv: nil ructl nl u: IEGIILAI vonear so um 11' com.» an tnnunm A
IENNIIIGS All onnzns In outstlonzn
Ilsnumrr° ta: "nTHE SIIPIEIC COURT IS
SP1 IE8 CI ASSOCIA92 znagggx ___ _I I I SURE H 3
tn: suaconurrtn: In
ummlcs, lcnmnstun? Ill nu: urn!
"nu: aussounr sunR couuszn. J. c. soumml
won or scuou92:su1r.'
'1 us cum: asronus
mums: 11 szrnmzu,
1.IVII%i;'/.A.To1sonMt Bocrdm
.Bo1m0n _____-q&£mm74:UV M: Nae _. id!ll '3'. n
';$¢M;r1'9;/' " Ipl G!!! B
. ION -" '
. Clayton ___
Tale. Room ._.__.K Mr. Hollomcln _.
Mia: Gundy __
w~
W@
. I _ 92
---.
N I-an-rs-_:||r|'tIiAL
TI UI
:;c:¥tu.1. 11 s'£§nmzmznm harms!-
or A mm n|1'm.n Qnu. CUIGUIZSP at nu: 92utt Ill um nlnllst N
an !I!!!._81'!Q!I!2! Iunln
rmmus or ta: nocunnrr. _.
mansion 1'0 IICLIDIZ nu:
n comntu uuznnc ru. I.: couu nut AG!!! In! guacomrutImou or -run 'u:snncu nocumn as Iaumuuc nun ' lnnmncs sun.-r 111: suncoukrm: lxcnmrru IT I!
ucs ma. V ..
1,-I _, I-' '0-20
§t,'.i£¢
HEELS
run THE
ECUIIVESTIG
THE
JEBNEI K
SEN.
S OPJ
PLAN!
T UPPCV ' EPRI
J
F mzmsaASSDCIAT
E$830__ J
»E»l2Mr. Tolson ...._.._
. . ¢ .
I um, a;__turouun.1 %
IIET OF H
INC
EPA
AS
P? 92 -HE!
ALSO ATTACKED THE
-N;[N BY
S
[P Bl[RS "HAKE-NC BONES ABOUT E2!
THE CGUIT CF ITS TPADITI AL J
THEY DC NOT LIKE CERTAIN DECISICNS THI C
'UHATfV[R UE HEY THINK CF A PAPTICULA
i .PCPULAIITY 6! UNPCPULAIITY IS HARBLY A
SUEEPIRC CHANGES IN THE JUIISLICTIOU OF
l11l"TS2h2P .N9?
hi H
SIGN
BASI
cpun1,
rTl0H TN
H
um or III
I8 T0 " -
want _} :
ILITIVI '
um
In.
-L
ZN?» 574/
** '@,./-9-2. :??". H~ §r92RzconoEi "
1
J
86981
» {V
92
L,
~~.
.li
W PHILADELPHIA ,
, la -I-92'rf92'|'r T1! E13
- _L192i<¥.U .1..l'92.l2|H
3 BULLETIN
DAILY NEWS _;
l';"r92 1'r1'1r"D;_.l.'.1..L um.
I ITLE E OISE
#q_?
-
Q!
'1'
5 7 ulv 14195892 ' r fWes/92
I u
I
-you . - - -- -,q»II;_'_ 1n~II:§q.- _ Q
l¢.g.92--- ' I -_ e__...._ __ A,P Cheer, Cheer for Olcl Hoffa Dame '
"Ana-me txlnndpasselnlllboucbdown st'_t:ise University yum Dame. ; ml F, 5Hr. To!lon..
Mr. Bosrdm
Mr. Belmoni
Hr. Mob
Hr. N
Mr. Pa
Mr. Rose .
Hr. Tnm
Mr. Trott--r
Ml. Clifton,
_ Teie. Room
., Mr. Holloml
" Ills Goad},
'.n1QNOiI'eDI-mQIAIsdl0OlI0il,OIl1i'li0dlI't0OBl'- I Iits dean says are honestly nistsken?"vie;Is
aympoliumoa the_1-ole oflo,&% Ceea-t. ' 1---=.e.-.=-es.-2-.=tit:.'*.m.el eye:-+¥92.I..
Four constitutional experts are taking the day to ou"'.="..- "
their cues against the proposals oered by Sen. Willir.-n
E. Jenna R-Ind.! to put limitations on the high courl.I l_ The discussions omter on the carzent oonlzoversy Lstem1ningfromtheCourt's1954sehoo1oetr¢£i92tionru1in::: rb I
' and last yea-s decisions involving FBI les, testimony
- before the House Un-American. Activities Committee,
Smithhletoonvictionsandothermajor uses.
, 'l'hsJennerbi1Iwnsnoneeivedinthemi.dsto'!talk
of impeachment of the court justices. It would pmohibit
' the Court from reviewing uses arising in ve iezai l.l'¬8-8,1
including certain issues in security, subversive ca-as and
the power: Ind functions of_o0ng're8l|ionn1 investig'ah'n¥committees. - ' - .
' Notre Dame is throwing a hard block" against this
anti-court climate, mumbling the hiih eourt ho run with
the hell. -. ' >_
An Dean Joseph O'Hara expresses 5:,
-A We don't want to stop of any specic Court
decision, but we believe the Court: right to make the
decision shoqld not 1;» _A|.'fue Ule_lll_!!Dil¢'I rs!-
lng it you will, but don't change the rules or the game.
I Accusations and clamorous demands are calculated
to weaken public condence in the Court and thus diminish
- its inuence as a symbol and spokesmen of the ruh of
' law in an increasingly lawless: wwid. " . _.
Our discussions are beamed st people w are hon- __ DKTE _:k. l______.92 5'5 ostly mistaken about these matters." - at , '
Q: EDITION 1 *1,.v-
PAGE 1
COLUMN 3.Presiding over the symposium is Qnvi __ __eIl, ofPhiladelphia, immediate gt p_'gesiden_t___0_f g92es_K1_13e1ficanBar Associa.tion_._ _Tho K's polio-y-mak g- House of
Delegates li"o'u record Against the Jenner bill. T
Let hope with Dean OMes.rs that the signicance
of the Notzre Dame meeting will carry beyond academic
circ1esat least to Washington. For the messwe ill
obviously aimed at Congress.
And "cheer, cheer for Old Notre Dome for becom-
- vocal about the attack on the Court. The bar in!eral has been much 109 s_ilc¬5 _ - , 1I .-~--0". 1" -
W42 |¢@;1-7'75f5 -'in~.@+..~~
3%
b!</
Q
-'3
--4.
L2?
IiI/
L "'
¢. ' ~
NOT Rnconnonw ., E ,-, ,_-_ sumo-in -I;-.1-HHDLxEI % 6 sinufg_T;__ __:I:|l!: .....----
~92 I '92"vi J C*"7;*¢'A rm - g!_m~.4~o:~.g;*_I5_____
q_".....
.1
1
1
1
I
¢' s
Jolthzcrsxo0-20
ungé '
INTI- II
IOULI CIAIG
SH.
LIST Hill
WilTi§
0 iurcl us nu count can I fin:
..5. 5°15 Eli! ~" _._!9!§'"1__!TL!!_3!1J| _'!§l
Ill!-II III TI PIQPU5lL Iii TII IQ -Pl].
m: ammo mmovs 1. nus nu: s
an ADMISSIONS to rm.-nclz
I258 IIIIOR
glitz H1
s CAI:
or rut covmnnznr.
Jim?-_.'¥%-E5 §$§=E§i§rnorzn llI'l'I0lITY¢'
ll1"1'I33lPBourdmunMb Beimont .._._
Mohr
81'.i.._-
Clu on_._
R III
It Ho11om;__.
Mina Gclncly _..__
ISIILL "TLII I
IEIICIII IAIT G
IIIAL SIGUIITY
"éE=§¢%l'=3}'%1HAVE IATEIED Nil IIFOITI fl ¢£'Il'l.
ACTIVITI?nu xulnnncD__§§!LL
1; slnsscgzgs r!;1
II IIIPIIIE COUIT G-III
HI "III IIIIVIIIIII
pl II11-II IISIIII HULL PIOVIIIOISO
I I IILIII Ill-L IY
ICU 1'! LIGIILATIN
ITUDIID I
COB TN ll,
IIILIIG
Y IIISSTIU
OIIIITTIIII I Q I
[lI_§QI'[QIl!$ ll EIOUS L
U IITIIZI TIE IIIPRIE QUIT OI:8?!-Ill tut I18 no ALSDI nunn t. Jtllltl n tunic: Al:h[..m..
__ _ __ _____ _,_____ _-- .:_, ----» -_---.___;_-_ ._.~ .- --it----l_.-..._ _ . ,_,_92.. u-
0-i9 Rev. 10-29-57!J
r'~"J - U
.
1
iOut
_ ' ' and leper!-Ir _ -
Nine judges of the United States Court of Appeaisti
here split at least three ways yesterday on what they
Supreme Court meant in its Mallory decision last |
r'i'EFI'FIt,_I" all practical purposes, the division is -
terpreted to mean that confessions are inadmissible
criminal trials if they are obtained by police throu .
questioning designed to el_icit incriminating evidence. ,,re-A igo.
Self Criminotion_ V --= - By JamesClayton .~
92
only two of the judges. John T " WT "AT
A. Danaher and Warren E.
Burger, accepted that inter-
pretation of the Mallory case.
T Three others, E. Barrett
Prettyman, Wilbur K. Miller,
and Walter M. Bastian. said it
is too tight a restriction on
itnc police. What should
Ecount. they said,_is the charac-iter oi the questioning, not its
purpose.
i Judges David L. Bazeion and.
Henry W. Eclgerton said it is
[too loose an interpretation.
5,They were joined in their dis-
position of the particular case
in question by Judges Charles
Fahy and George T. Washing-
ton, who chose not to say what
Mallory means.
iDana.hers Stand rimsns
P The result, apparently, is to:
5 jmalte the Danaher position
determinative of future cases
the Court of Appeals .or thei
Supreme Court.i until clarication comes n-umi
ii In the Mallory case, the su-preme Court said that a con-
ffession obtained during an
T "unnecessary de1ay" between
arrest and arraignment is not
to be used as evidence in a
criminal trial.
The three interpretations of
this rule announced yesterday
-are: -
i ' Judge Danaher: "It ls not
isimply a matter of hours, one
'way or another, but of police
purpose and conduct in the
ight of circumstances . . . An
accused is not to be taken to
police headquarters for the
purpose of extracting damag-
ing statements. . ,'."".l'l"'lT!'is.
any -'.'U'fiT¬l'§lBn is inadmissible.i
ii P Judge Bazelon: To me,
it s rule! means that_eo s-
ns obtained by questio ng
arrested person before us
reigning him are not d-
issible in evidence. J
I Judge Prettyman: A de-
Ilay is to he judged unneces-
sary-or-not upon a realistic ap-
praisal by the court of the
circumstances oi the delay."
A suspect may be questioned
, so long as the period ol de-
tention and the mode of the
questioning are reasonable . . ."
iltobbery Conviction
The case befoiie, them in-
ivolved the thremfobbery con-
victions qt John ,2. Triiling=
!Danaher' and Burger poised
your Bazelon, Edgertuu,"1_r;sy,
Washington in reversing
itwo"ot them hut with the
other three judges in affirm-
ing the third.
Trilling confessed to one
robbery at about 8:20 a. m.]on Sept. 1, 1955, after a short
period of questioning. It wasthis confession which was:
held admissible.i He was then questioned 0!!
Illld on all day while police
sought ties tb a murder
ase and many other rob-
beries. He confessed to eightEybberies in that interval and
1-rat J ment at about 3 p rn,Co1r,vgi:t.iona-.whichas taken before a judge tori
so APR 24. is5s,§QLmendable." ' ' 7i: " Tolson .7; aaidli " ' B d""°" s summer 7M ill " It Ill Mohr
K Nana' - as In thororm a ompt
L owledgment by illtngL llladiilllléwhen he was co:-' nnaerpriuz e -- chand therefore was ad- =-s e. - . .
v The other two confessions,
Jae expiainednvere clearly the
result or questioning designed
to produce incriminating evi-
dence. Thus, under his inter-f:1l$t.iua, they were innite-
limes: of Compulsion
M rue om confession, one-1
ion said, did not come span-,
taneously but only after con-,
alder-able questioning. Any
qtlE5i.i0n.i prior 1:0 Q1-1-gign.
ment, he said, ll wrong be
cause police cannot arrest,
merely to question. They or-
rest only to bring defendants
to court. p
' The real utility of question-
ins, before arraignment, he
charged, is in the element of:compulsion which an arrested,
Person feels under police
scrutiny. 92
_ The argument for pennlt.
mg the use of coniessions oh-
T-Imed by questioning beforearraignment . ~. . Comes to this
that society's interest in con.
victim; the cuilov lllsties the
gsainst the guilty and theinocent alike, he argued. ,
T Prettyman -contended that
TlmiIlZ WI! done in a coer-
cive manner. The procedure,
M Bald. was proper and com l
In the Mallory case, he ex-Nplanned, the Supreme Court?i18h_t_to convey an idea of
< inquisitorial injustice. "The
character oi the questioning is
a key factor," he said.
A suspect may bg ques-
T-i°I92Bd. 116 Said. in a manner
and for a period reasonable
for the purpose of obtaining
information. Police cannot
question so as to extract acou-
£es:io.n,hhe _adde<i'.. _ .. _ -t at, Prettyrnan+i_t?rea%*dth.i!anaher. Dan-lilo »he1 that the purpose oi;.i3G.uh11e§t£0ni1}¢ -ls the key.1fPrettymun ;the character, la decisive.
T "The outlawing or the con-
duct oi the police in this case."
i'Prettyrnan concluded, will
unjustiliably and materially
impede the enforcement of the
criminal law in this jurisdic-°n.|FIiIi L11'-ISG of a degree of cornpulsio
none of the nuestionlng otrurso
en
T in
Tro tor _._._
Clo n __._._
Tele . Room _
| Holiomon __b& Gcmdy _...-
~+
.6 .1 /sf-.A
. nits-' - "1
. "__,-.... 4
Wash. Post and E
Times Herald
Wash. News __i_
Wash. Star __.
N. Y. Herold __._
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-.._..
American -
N. Y. Mirror _i
N. Y. Daily News
N. Y. Times _.._
Daily Worker .._
The Worker __.
New Lender .__-
Dute _E£B_.L8 lg
tgéi-;?U-I9 Fiev. ll!-29-57!0. WIr .J92
f flgoolity Issues A, itéilf
01 fln Butler Bill on» ourts ,. 0
I110 Butler nullify theeets of fom e Court
decisions in the'e"lH 'o!""Ill'!l'-'
zersion would pose serious con-
ltitutionnl questions in the
opinion of the Department or
Justice. . _I. A letter from Deputy At-
torney General Walsh to Sen-
ator Wiley. Republican of
Wisconsin, a member of the
Judiciary Committee, set forth
specic objections to the pro-
posed measure of Senator But-
ler. Republican of Maryland.
One provision of the bill
would specify that any question
asked a witness before s con-
zressional committee is perti-
nent as long as the body con-
ductin: the hen-in: rules that
l is.PO! this Mr. Walsh said
that to withdraw the issue' of
pertinency from court consider-
ation presents a constitutional
question and is not a matter
to be dealt with in an all-
embracing bill.
I Upsets Doctrine
Another provision of the bill
would allow the States to legis-
late in the same elds in which
jhere already is Federal legis-
lation. This would upset the
doctrine of pre-emption which
holds that the elds in which
the Federal Government has
passed laws are exempt from
_Stnte laws.In opposing the Butler view
here. Mr. Walsh said "the ex-
tent of the havoc this propo
would cause . . . may be caused
by its eifect on interstate rail-
-roads which are now protected
from inconsistent statutes by
compliance with Federal stat-
utes. . . -. He pointed out that
farmers and marketers of agri-
cultural products, now, by com-
Dlyins with the Pure Food
and Drug Act. are saved from
Prosecution under numerous
State Laws which set up diner-
ent and varyina standards for
compliance."
Bight to Fire Employee
Another facet of the billI.
under the security prolrsm.reaardlesa whether their Jobs
were sensitive or non-sensitive
in 1 security sense. .
Mr. Walsh sulaested that
any action on such s proposi-
tion be held up peni-line com-1
pietion of a report by the
esident's pommisslon on
vernment Security and the
ins of a stand by the execu-3;
tive branch. i »
The Butler bill would. in
contravention or the Supreme,
Court, make it rcrime-under
the Smith Act to advocate.even abstractlm the violent}
overthrow of the Govei-n.ment.q
without any proof of actual}
citement to action needed.
Needs Careful Study
"Improvement of the present.
Smith Act! so-itute may bei
possible, but any amendment
would require most careful
study and should not be im-
mersed in an omnibus rejoinder .
to recent court action in diverse
elds," Mr. Walsh declared.
Opposition also was voiced
in the letter to another provi-.
sion of the hill which would!
deprive the Supreme Court of 1
power to review State actions
in barring persons from prac-
ticing law within the State.
The letter. mailed Thursday,
was in answer to a request from
Senator Wiley asking the
views of the Justice Depart-
n the Butler pmngsala.llToison
B rdrncm
moniMohr
Neoae
Porso
rot r _Z___
ioyi n ___.
Tole. com _..
Hollomun ___..K Goody _
0
we
~10
Wash. Post and __
Times Herold
Wash. News
Wash. Stor E
N. Y. Herold Z.
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-__.
1 _.-_/I '._'l»Y_ American
NOT RECORDT-ll
117 if-2 1;-1 - P
_-.--:1-_-s-sIjB"-?-
would give all Federal depart-l-inent and agency heads the
int to discharge ernpioyesW -i-Ii-us-
I
L 6 /W 24 195eé%Y. Mirror __._
Y. Dolly News l
N. Y. Times
Daily Worker ____.
The Worker __.._
New Lender ____
DllP£ _LEL195a-_
,, y H ,W'.._'920 19 {Riv 10-2}-51! ,
_ep. _He_,p._ _ 1; _ - :1 . . menr
A Solomon would stagger away,
talking to himself and shaking his head,
it caliedupon to explain what the Mai-
lory rule means in the 1§Iation's Capital
It has been almost s. year since the
Supreme Court handed down its _unan-
imous decision in the Mallory casea
ruling which threw out the confession
ot a convicted rapist and resulted in his
release. Mallory had been held by the
police for 71,5 hours. The reason for
the reversal was that he had not been
arraigned "without unnecessary delay"
ls required by Federal Rule 5 a!.--
We dhought from the beginning
that the Supreme Court§ decision was
unreasona e e circumstances of
the Mallory case and that its meaning
was unclear., Others disag-eed, con-
tending that the opinion was both
proper and its meaning clear. '
Now, almost a year later, comes the
opinion oi the United States Court of
Appeals in the case oi John Trilllng,
an eager-beaver saiecraclcer. This ap-
pellate court is composed of nine able
and conscientious judges. Yet they are
in hopeless disagreement with respect
to the meaning of the Mallory rule as
applied to the Trillirig case.
The division among the judges is
cited here, not in any needling spirit,
but to illustrate the massive contusion
which prevails. Judge Danaher wrote
what becomes the opinion of the court,
afhrming Tri1ling's conviction on one
count in three indictments. _Triliing,
in three trials, had been found guilty
under all oi the indictments. Judge
Danaher was joined in full only by
Judge Burger, and we will return to
Judge Burger later. Judge Bazelon,
joined by Chic! Judge Edgerton, would
have thrown out all confessions and
reversed the one conviction. Judges
Washington and Fahy came to this
same conclusion, but, perhaps signi-
cantly, they did not Join in Judge
Baze1on's tree-wheeling opinion. Judge
Prettyman was Joined by Judges Miller
and Bastian. He agreed with Judge
Danaher as to thecorrectness oi the one
conviction, thus supplying a majority
of the court on this point. But Judges
Prettyman, Miller and Bastian thought
that all or the confessions were valid
and that all of the convictions should
have Been amrmed.
'92.4
. I5. -_ I
.. .__.. ....... ._ law in the Distii the Mallory ruling _
mm, prosecutorIpected tp mo-|r_vhi
e -Let: get back to J
I brie! statement in
reluctantly with Judge Danah
he thought he was "compelled" "to do
so by the Mallory ruling. He would have
preferred to join Judge Prettyrnan be-
cause what he said "makes sense and
ought to be the law." Then Judge Bur-
ger said this: "Rule 5 a! should be te-
examined by the rule-making processor by Gongress." ' -
- To this we say Amen! although
we believe action by Congress is preter-
able. This community, in which"the
Mallory rule hits with full and crippling
impact, is in desperate need oi help.
That help can best come through enact-
ment oi pending legislation which pro-
vides that mere delay in arraignment
shall not serve to invalidate voluntaryc-'11'essions. We earnestly hope the de
c ion_ in the Trilling case will furnis
t e'extra push needed to get the b
ough Congress. _
0M0111 All 7
2: oi
ylon
Tele.Hoo _
Hollomon _..
Gondy ___.
ii
G/tr /6'1
Wash. Post and _
Times Herold
Wash. News ____ / Wash. Stur £_3_§_1 ';l_ // §_ if _N. Y.Hero1d.____ _ Tribune
NOT RECORDED - - N. Y. Journal-..__A99 APR 29 1958 '
92 F 0-In-n -uni-.American
N. Y. Mirror _._.._
N. Y. Dolly News
N. Y. Times _
Dolly Worker ._._
The Worker __,__
New Leader ___
i
0-20 _ 1' 92. ; AA V !.,- L; ' Mr. Tolson é
Mr. Boardman. Mr. Belmonl
_ ' Mr Mohr -
Parson
I I'll ii-
Trottcr ___.__
M Cl Ii n G O i.-
Tale. Room _i
Ml. Hollomcln .__
Miss Gcmdy _..i
IP10! ' 7 . . -
Tl! in}? Oil? lPPl.§Il TIO IIJCTIOIS IllIIJ Ill OI IZIU¢I Ill UPI!!! G0lll'l"l IIICIIIG
HILL DY III. HUM I¢ JIIIIEICI. H. JOIN HISIALL IUTLII I-lib!.
I IIILIIG Q HY II IITOLVIUGA
Giiu
I IITIIIZSS IIIFOIE I COICIESSIONIL
ll TIIOIII GUT IT Tl! CIAIIII
lIGllESl'_o
ll TIM IOIILI IAVI lI'l'DlDlZl.1'II
OVIINIIIINT KIIICIB INSTEAD
SENS JOBS DIPAIT IIIITS IS IEFDISIZ llll I
TTIE "TIE II I U11-II" Inll! T9 JIl§:l" OIIGIIILOT! vtisggzglq TI lII§I@§ T TIE IAl»ll:¢'l'IOI III I'll III IITIE OTIEI 1" VEISIGIIS IFIIIIEI II TIIT JBIIIIZPS Ill-L IOIJLD ll! ' TLITLY PIQIII IITID TI: CUURT 11°! Ill]-II * Y CASES II itCQIGIISSIONIL IIVESTIG HDIIRAL IZIPLOYII ICUIITY IIIZLDMTlt UFEECT OF IIITL REIT IOULD E 1° IE'RITi THE Ll II
I ! YIILI TU Iii! Q [I II IECIIT II CQUIT CASES.C@CII$$1 HEP IT TI: G0 Q DECISIQNS'lTEI[§ ' S FIR IHOII TI HlK£I$' INTQTQ$0 J I, TIE CIlIII$ I TIE CQHKTTIEIOULD OI 8 QF TI -IIIIIIEI I IEISUIES ITIT It EST IA! Ill!! TQ I Tull TI!
UT IETIIG MD :
I DI T 11' ILL T PIQPOSILQ
1'0 ll-L$ IS UNI ENTIIEI" SUCH -' 0 HIKE Tllsl T":
UVEITII Til! T I I Cl-EllQB": l I01-. éQ?<>» I
COIN!
.,,....
g
._ ,.. ;,
._ £4!-Z"
-1- _
Y-5 t '-:1
ra-
- "4.,1 -.. - 6.: '.
_,, -
":1: .1_ .j.'.,-.
r=:J1-P1
, . -
."§~¢_'r_-
I_<.9 19 Rev. 10 29-57!I '3 "._.. L.
~92
5|-?__..w
1'
3
I
I
1
days absent, don't dock them ior punk decisions. N
A ' . I . dv,-'2'i
92
Tolson _.._...._
Georg-ge_Sppelvl|r, Ame:-lean: ' . g,°f;=l:f" -I I . I T um
Pféas
Here is another autobiographical chapter in the life of George
Speivin, American. as reported by Westbrook Pegilr-!By wnsranooa reopenTHERE IB a new kid on our block, the teac er sent
the little bum home for cheating, it was a com-
position about Wyatt Earp. the kid copied a write-up
out or the TV section and the teacher recognized it
so she sent him home with a note. ,
Well, so Dreamie is always taking up with strange
kids, especially boys, cake and ginger
ale and stuff, so this character
dropped by tor his usual handout,
and the little bum brain-washed her.
She doesn't know right from wrong.
oh the pity of it, and now neitherA K. V _.
Q :'.=Q~§,;:.. 92_'-V e.fl-5;, . .-»- '3' t92 A -- l .' P..-st, * ~'- 1.2-~, _,_= do I, either. _ ._- t She said what do you know about' ' that? 1 said what? So she was me
' about this composition, she said the
__ , darn dope oi a teacher is living in ' " the past, it you want to succeed Gum these days you have to adopt modern
ways. I said like cheating? She said
well, do you call it cheating for President Eisenhower
to get up and spiel a recitation about ination or the
Whatnick, pretending like he wrote, it his own sell?
When everybody knows they have a special depart-
ment, about 15 characters on the payroll down there.
They call it ghostwriting. the department is called
the haunted house.
I told her honesty may be old-fashioned but it it
is living in the past, I do not wish to hear any more
brain-washed comments out or you, that kid sounds
like his old man might be a Soviet agent.
I tried to argue, I said alter all, President Eisen-
hower is a grown up man, this kid is nothing but a
little punk. Dreamle said I told him that but he said
what has size got to do with it? Can I cheat whenNous
Parson
Rocco
Tdmm ____._
"Trotter ___._
. Clayton ____._.
Teic . Room _._.
Hollomon _.__.: vi Gondy .____.._
E
92
.
Wash. Post and ___
Times Herold
-a
92
Dreamie said I do not figure this us anything so
very new. She said my Pop used to tell me all ab t
B e Ruth and Jack Dempsey, they were his idols a d
Io years he couldnt hardly wait to read what y
wr te how the Babe hit a iast bail inside, or Demp
gs Tunney the old one-twq. '
But long afterward Pop learned the Babe and
Jack did not write those articles at all, but some
skinny old guy couldn't hlt the oor with a tlatiron
would tell how he hit a wonderful home run and my
Pop would eat it up.
Dreamie said it seetns like they did all right. Babe
Ruth is still Pop's hero and people wave at Dempsey
wherever he goes. _
I said I heard Wyatt Earp was a wrongo. I heard
he shot some or the vigllantes and told the public
they stuck up the coach. '
Dreamie said, I dont care it he did. _
There is one character I know would never do
any ing dirty, absolutely wouldn't ever cheat, andI a Tsltting on his lap and smack, smack, smackll
stic -all over his lace.Candy. use. ling Intern lnnnm. nu. ' H
Mr. Peeler: next column appear; here Friday.1} R.- IJ" _!
__ ~"d___~____H________i___,____,,_,,,1....-.-.,--____. I .. ..._._... Q .-_,_. ._._
0-20 ' , Tolson
A/xi BoordmMr. Belmont2 M ' B
F§~&/! L//':%n;m. TQ1In Roam @
Mr. Hollomon ._'- Min Gc|ndY --
D 92 __ __,_4___¢92I! mF!92__;n"':_t :_>~ -.I.>i4eO]- V¢'7/r:7_gA: i 7 f? f
uP ,.M'..,. 92 A! Y.-. counts: o - - o - o
~ Anonnn omzm. no:-ans sun room: Ill-I ts conrxomr "rm: counts wouu:com: tuaoucn nu: cunnmt KILL tn: umnr muoo mscmuzn.
aoczns oavlousu us ammo:
r or s or rm: sum:court mo uuoo I-rs nuuncs an.n-mac to suovtnsxvr: acuvxuu. '
§1g;n;_u4v: arm mu muons II on: nzsxonz um: rs; ':.1u_. 1-asiiHT=IRE' nrmm: mo: oousxornuur uunwwnr mo nmY_POP aotwzs mm: ~arm nmown A1 oun coums Ill nu: was-r ' moons nu. oroaruunnx as noon rxczn IN ninon IAYS "tn: |.:o1su-rum: ansurvrn rum tulzsn nncxk smousu woven to ins: nu: JUDICIAL svstrn
L on n:'m.m': ncmasr nu: JUDICIABY, mo oun courts um: com: T0 mw: nu:l__ n£s_{_>:%T gun run. counomc: or "rm: mmcm PEOPLE-'
- rm coulrr Jusnczs mo own moors no assmauzo nan:roan 1-on a no on nocuu. »
oro_qur_gr_1g:_§;gg1;_1om1- count nzcrsross-m:c1s1ous UHl¢;l!7 _ oaag gag»; in 2:1 um most rnorouuo--um: 'mPoPuun or .V - n ram:-muozo°r:nson' no swans tut ulnonr or nricowrnv, Aat sun "nu. nnuz: nu: ruuommm. mo wozsrmsnuz cou'rnxour1on",_ um Til comers nu am: to nu: counters Pnocnzss. , o on: cnnlurl rrzcsn sun ruauc survom overrun YEARS nos crvm nut.815112! Tilt Juorrmnmcr mugs 11' lust rm: to an IHPARIIQL'L " ALL inznlcans mar izzr In inn ruin ou mm. sm:ounnos'~_,_-..-. ..-- -_ _ ._ 92. I - < -
no to norosns nrnovro av nu: sum:JUDICIARY comnn: rssrsaou wuzca IOULB cums nu: o n
- 1 TORNEY GENERAL HIDE THE REMARKS IN I BRIEF PREPARED SPEECH L~
BEFORE THE SUPRE
!-
'.;.. q
1. V»1.. - =:-7...--.'- i92f_§1 1'.
~~;*...".=* ..__,,. -
-.-qr.-.1-.. I 1....is - . ,_ W _1.13.;-.-'2'Y_I _k.;;.. 7;.
J-...;'.-'5"?92s"
.-;.'..-Q...
I '_-.-I
!~_',1_-Is. --
.,;'_é-i~r$s.'._
i' F
-if-.'--:' " er.e _._s ,- -
e755-.
'1-
Y
soil, is . _
....'.
-.'_~w . ..--M.5; 31
fr .'.__..
">10- I 9 HOV. I0-25-57!
ls. .
IAWRENCQ:
srble H
- Metodfbf ci¢»§rng'1u§:i¢é§'.cienci J.--ta . ...
Attornel oeceni
P. Rogers has his baseball
metaphors mixed up. He says
the bills being considered in
Co to curb the ex notoi upmme Co are
the resu _o _ sort
oi outcry heard from spee-
tators at s. baseball game who
shout, kill the Umpire! ' "
But what the critics oi the
Supreme Court really want
is for the umpire to stick
to his job oi watchins the
ball and abiding by the_ru1es.
The! don't think it's the um-
fpii-e's duty to make new rules
_ or to tell the manager oi the
feiub. for instance, Just when
rhe can put in e diiierent
pitcher. They dont like" to
"see an umpire decidins that.
é-when a ball drops outside the
;-foul I1ne,.it is a ioul ior one
jteam hut. when the "other
_tea.m hits the ball into exactly92
¢
the samespot, it isn't e. foul "
Fat all. In other words, 'the
jians don't want to see the
_umpl.re movlhz the foul line
around to suit himsell. L
.7 That's essentially What the
dispute is about as the Su-
preme Court ignores the rules -.
oi the game repeatedly and
mal:es_up its own rules that
are then proclaimed as bind-
ing on everybody--erfen to
the point oi telling Genera
what questions may be asked
in formal hearings through
which its committee seek to
set information to zuide
them in. writing new lsws.9292
Also, in kbaseboll lame.
Umpire ls. He aPDŽ.rs.1n full
tmiiorin and he has e rule
book to so by. In the Supreme
Court's work, it isnt always"
Possible to know who -the
umnire haopenstobef c , "
f Thus every Justice has two
law clerks, and the Chief
Justice has tour. These as-.
sistants dont have to be con-
grmed by the 5ens.te._'I'hs1
are not supposed to Q judges. .
.Y=.¢ Fh-~21 PBI'form_some ct the
work of theupreme Courteverybody knows who thei
it
Justices, especially in connew I
ftion with what are known
as writs oi certiorari." These__n, . H ._ c _ I
-.._. _..1.
Their Fitness end Power Quesiioned
are to the Sup:-me
Oourt to stunt an anneal from
the lower courts. It-the writ
ls denied. there's no appeal.
It means nnna-l Judicial do-
cisiori so tar as the citizen is
concerned. The Justice him-
seiir siims the denial or the
writ, but the basic Iudirment
which has preceded it often
comes from a young law clerk
imbued with all sorts of ideas
as to the role of the Supreme
Court in the Nation todar.
J Just s week aso. the New
Ycri:"Iimes. in its Bunda!
magazine. had an article by
a former law clerk to s Bu-
preme Court Justice who sis-
tcuss-ed ve'!'r,'!ren.!=.1y tlseroie
played by the law clerks.
mam oi whom come irom
the law schools imbued with
the viewpoint of the so-called
"intellectuals." The article
said__:- - . ; .
Law clerks, then. sexier-
allr assist their respective
Justices in searching the law
books and other sources tor
material relevant-to thesis-
cision .oi' cases before the
"Ih_e clerks often present
the fruits oi their searches to
their Justices alone with
their recommendations. They
so over drafts oi opinions
and ma? suggest changes.
They tend to see. s lot or
their Justices, and talk s
great deal with them. And
the talk is mostly about isw
and coses..1.."_, '
"wi~.=t is more imwrtazit.
the way tothe Justice's mind
was always open. There was
always someone-_i'resh from
_the immersion in ideas that
marks s law-school and law-
review career-poised at the
Justice's elbow. willing and
able to do intellectual com-
bat-'r
In baseball. embed: rim-
ing decisions on the field oi
play must appear in 92_inii'orm
as an umpire §nt_i__hl-s to be
seen. There are _noinvisible
LlI,f,".....:
Certainly ,5-hen Q lawyer
ht! 1111-led his case and sub--.~.'~_._r».~.'-i - , "'1'": ~_-. . 0 .7
1" 1 123-J.. . - ~ - I '.. "-:7 r'-'-' "_.:';~Court J1utlces..hs ousiat $0.:
have "I 'ri:ht- of r rebuttal .
aialnst my new points raised?
by law. ole:-ks," especio.l.l1_'.,
some 1'.!!'_.*-I-1% 1"--'t'.&i'¥;..l1;,e__,92 lootnci-es" in Bupremg,
Court opinions which have
introduced new materiel oil -
controversial. nature -never"
brought up whenitseitwss arcued. -_ T. . -.. form" . ... asr December in .
Uni States Hews ds Worldp.-
Repo said. _ , _ -'_'Aiter conceding a_wide.i
diverntgm opinion m'eng*=the clerks themselves, sad}
further. ccncedins the dll! ._+1
cu1ties._and possible inaocu--'{
racies inherent in political
catalocuing or people. it is -
nonetheless fair to say th_st.|the political cast oi; the clerks '
as a group was to the ieit p
or either the Nation, or the i
com-Lia - l , -
_"some ct the tenets oil
the liberal point of view J
which cor.-iniandm the %=. l
pathy or s. msioritw oi ms-1
clerks I knew were: Extreme"!
solicltude for the claims of
Communists and other crimi- I
nal defendants. expansion ct
Federal power at the expense
pathy toward any Gove?oi state power._sreot sYm- i L5/
R
Mohr Z
E GIIORS
Boson
Tomm
Trotter .-_.._---'
5*?
Iv
.%
/ Q7555-new
___./92|__,__,__?-1. . . "QT RECORDEDi.a=:;%';%'13 --n o e po
Iosophy now espoused by the .
court under Chiei Justice
Earl ;'v'arren." .. -. -
Surely the Senate ot the
United States ought to ex-I
amine the whole law-clerk
system tcldetermine whether-
perhaps these "clerks" should
be given "umpire status," gn-
st least classied as ' "as-'.~
sistant iustices. Perhapnio-r
stead of letting them change
from year to year, Congress
should provide permanent lo"-44 HAY 12 1953Clayton .__....._
Tole. Room _.
H
Wash. Post and .._._
Times Herald
Wush. News _z_._.2_.' ' Wosh._Siur ._..[:1_L...2._' J
N. Y .- Herold
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-.._._.._...-....__,i-._._.
J.
-, » .
. l.1. 4--..~
L.-3.;
~ 1
. J
. -_?_ - . .. eI
es- '1=e .;_-
fr -3.!4 .-' .1 .'.I'.".~ Y- 1-_i;_e._."E5'2""...
}i5'_92_'," -
Hi, 3*-"1;. . -_
...'- F;-. -»< .;_,,.'. A1"I '- .'-..
*3 l -'
. -ii.. 1 .1 1
1.
$1--!,-.-_"
'_,;,_-I/F ;or
1
I
I
I
i
1__.__ ____.; __ __-.- ---__ en. -14- _-. - e "e ~ ' __ .1-L +v~ W -arr *7 IIWWW - -sash--n11! 1--~1 ~~_@a|*'*~*~ _. -_....
A o i9 nu 10 as-an O
.> -'= 1; ._.§._.. - "=._f-71.!.:Con Ur cd_to_C|.1£'»¢k;v g M. g it . . . oi f pew»-."='1+.._--.' 1-- --1,».-ea-'.09. 5"Prenie..C911 .C1@rks@.. .. . . _>. . ....#....»»a.l..s.-v+;'"r*,-- by Dlivm Lsv'wnnucil;?.§-.1f- _ :_.._92.. I. -_'92 ._i ______y____,- g--7.-..
"..; WASHINGTON. Mai; it-littomei General illiam P
Rogers had his baseball metaphors mixed up. He says the
belns considered in Congress to curb the excesses oi the Bu-preme Court are the result oi the same sort of outcry heard;
from spectator: st s '.:ee.'-ebell :e.'n- Kill omInrnpirelf "»_-..». -z-= ~" A Y
; * But what the critic! of the Supreme
really want is for the "umpire" to _
,stick to his "Job oi watching the ball and s '-
abiding by the rules. They don't think iv: ;the umpiz-es duty to make new -rulu. orto tell the manager. of -the club; for"in- T
stance, just when he~can put in a di:- -- "
ierent pitcher. They don't like t'o see an
umpire deciding ilhht, when s. hall drops._ =,92_;V'_. _s 5%?
. -- .' . -: .- w :I -- -'¥ .-;~.., -= '<~==~ ~;-A
;team. but when the other; team hits the < "'° ~
iball into esactly the same spot it isn't s = --
| -loul at all. In other words. the -tans don't _. want to see the umpire moying the ioui l__ " _ 3 1
. line around to suit himself. 7- - ' ».=-. 92'=. 2 i l4'}, P ..
, Also. in a baseball game
everybody knows who the um-
Piie 1J= H! Q9989-1.! in !l1J 1111-1-
Iorm and he has a rule book
to go by, In the Bupreme
Court's_ work it isn't always
possible to know who the um-1
e Thus every justice has two
law clerks. and the chief Jus-
tice has Ilour. These assistants
dont have to be conrmed by
the 5enate._'I'hey are not sup-
posed to be judges. _Yet they
perform some oi the work of
the Supreme Court e iustlces,
especially in connection with
_what are snows is Writs oi
»:¢Gi'lil01l.l'1." '_I_hesc are petitions
, . .
92 .
into the Supreme Court to grant
in appeal trom the lower
courts 1i the writ is denied
there's no appeal It means a
nal judicial decision so far as
the citizen is conceriied,Justice himself 81858 the denialmoi the writ. but the basic ludi-Ment which has preceded
rI-11 nnrnll fslnin
clerk imbued withest" s- 2.2». _ fem Q 92 r I-
York Times," in its -sundaepire happens to be. -i - __ That's emally what the dispute ls
about as th upreme Court ignores" the
rules 0! the gs.1:ne-.|'¬ii!!'mi¬i7 and makes
up its own les that are then proclaimed as
body--even to the Point oi telling Congress w t questions92
may be asked in formal hearings through which its commit-*tees seek to let information tdsulde themiinp writing new laws.
F am I #.'.1.*"iii>.'i"-.~ll-sh s'.:;-1 u " __..__;:-
:7 " Lawrence
so-called "1n.te1lectua.ls."-_ 'lbe
article sald:* * '_ L. - _.--
Law clerks. then, generally
assist their respective justices
in searching the law books and
other sources for materials
relevant tothe decision oi cases
beiore thecourt.-l 5. l _.llII'I-- ¢'l___92._ _I.|._._ _._-§._'..s. s.92__.l..l..lG DLCIKI U1 ll-I PFCICHD tnl:
fruits ofthelr sedrches to their
iustices along with their recom-
memistions:I'her so over drafts
oi opinions and ins! silsiest
changes. They tend to see a lot
of their Jllsticee. and talk a
great deal with them. And the
talk is mostly about law andcases. .Y,:'92 ,-,- 1,-c. 1 ;,
fWhst is more important, the
way to the iustlcel' mihdtas
always open. There was-alwayssomeone-iresh'ir-bra the
merslon in ideas that marks a
law-school and law-review ca-
1E--l>0loed- at the l1ist1ee's
elbow, willing and able to do
intellectual combat.'_'-_p -1;; 1=
decisionson the neld oip
must appear in uniiorm as an
umpire and has. to be seen.
'l'here are no invisible umpires,
Certainly when s. lawyer
argued his case and submitted
Bazine, had so article by a It to the Bumtemr Court i ..Ear-rner law clerk to a Bupremeticel. he ought» to haul -lliiligi on eveii- 1
92
.9
La -- j5_' .- ..,
.. I i ' I ., _; i: ' " ' "
l
II liberal pole: oi new whichlbrousht lib I .
ll -was argued-. ¢ ..._-1
nner lswelefk
Oourfiustice, writ-.last Decembenln "11.
cl?! .-is World B-eberhlf§,"A_tter' conceding 6 wide?_dlvel-slty of opinion IIIIOBI the
clerks themselves. and furtherconceding the dliiieultiesmantis inaccuracies inherentpL polltical_ catal0s'u1n_g oi;eople, it "is nonetheless film$0 any the-t the political cast
ollthe clerksas a group Ill*5. l-11' '1.="' ".1orthe court. 1-._-._ _-.
f "Some oi the tenets oi the
commanded the srmpsthr 0'! a"lmaiorlty or -the clerks r newwere: extreme Iolicitude for the
criminal defendants. expansion
of Federal power at the expenselot state crest sy-nipathi=92 outside the -ioul line, it is a loul for one - 1 .. .,°1"1m"° c°mm m't' M°th -
-toward any government re -
ation or business-in sh s
e politlcalwplilosophy no
' mes by the m='n;_se
____e£ J11stitc1e°!:n.gle_W:;':x'e1':i ml'; Bureli n. i
United States oughtto esemllwthe whole law-clerk sltstel W.
determine whether Perm?
these "clerks" should be Kiwi
Pei-hspl. instead oi mun: grew.ehale from 7"-1' '-4° ""5 M?gr-ess should provide Wmlndasslstsntato the ii"."°" .92require that amonl their quill .-
ficstions should be actual es-.mg.
92Toison
14* .
nPnrsc
RF:
TlX/ . ooni __.._
' ' I rioiiomusi __1_i.
Gondy .__.'_._.-
or RECORDED.
125 MAY 16 1953
1
it
>-
v
§;.1
5-P3},
.- 1-;
_,_ a_I!y' ' .1A__. ..-.
.
_ 92J _1f;i,
.-=4.
__:r ._ »
._.....
£21; .
¢_.
3
b
'._ .5-..
1. '.-'-'
....-
...=.r;
1 ? L
!
I
Q
i92.eJ92 _ .,
:5;I
r
0 M
»-
K
.1R
' 0 . , -' I/
r
II Y |r -u*"!.¢ 5 v
67mm 281958 eF FFlF¢}.§ Hits Reef?" 1/
l Q .I Releqse By High Courtf 92 _ , . - -
Those who have been following the story
"Masters of Deceit," by J. Edgar Hoover,
director of the Peder}! Bureau of Investigation,
are not surprised at the dupicity and trickery
that can be worked by communists who are
. dedicated to their cause. J
And one oi the best means ot helping the
Communists in their work is for gullible people
to do their work "for them under another name.
Thus, it will come as no surprise to Lima
News readers taht Hoover has put the cards I /squarely on the table in a release of testimony $7]
given before the House Appropriations Subcom-fmittee in commenting on recent decisions of the b 7 Siipreme Court that have freed 49 Communist
~ arty leaders. ind, as Hoover told the c -1?-littee:_ - i
., "The courts must eventually come to 'psin a realistic manner with facts and jo' -all
H forces for good in protecting society." "
Hoover also criticized the release oi vicious _
; hoodlums and criminals" because of technical-
ities in legal procedure. He warned against an
unfortunate trend oi! judicial decisions which
i strain and stretch to give the guilty not the
lame protection but vastly snore protection
. than the law abiding citizen." . '
He then added that "Crime and subversion
have become critical challenges due to the-1.1
r snountinl success ct criminal and subversive
i :__*
rm: Lnui units
Lima, Oh10
- May 6; 1958
Editor, Frank
" H-~nz:a:§6&£5?¢ '1 1*-
MA.Yi2?7 1959 1 1 _'_ MMiss Gandy
ii -"""i-i-
and delais E e law to defeat the '1Fl?'E!I! 0! f -Nl921=ii=¢. .- .' t, A e so i"'l ' . 1.:
*4
UAu
[41 elements h employing lsophples, technicalities I
1
H. Cooey
L
4.92.
F s: _ 7,",
Y
' :92i., .
._ __ 1V: .; 1,;
-" u or
1.1.
-3'33
e-7;,
":1 t
.
:. ~ I
.1}- .-a
s. cs.- -1-.
I:
..>j.;q-$-*1
re
I --_
,..
i'¥1sI__,f _____,.__-._s -1,.-.--..,.... __ _-4|1,nv-es -s.----.. -. -- _,.. ...._.. i. _ .,,.,. ., . _._..-....._... __ -o- .-..-- wee-all--ls q -ow--A- -T-.. |-__,
- r ..| e_ a .-. _. 1, .1.,___ t . -
years but now we're on our way again." '
dissenting opinion, as expressing common,1-.- ,.--
§ . 4- ' -..'., , ._ 'f " 1-,, mu 92 '--.' ,:.i"' -ti .__ - - _ - .., , H. | ,4I. .10 .
; _.- 1 - - » - - -. 7 c» ' ' "' -sis» 39* ", ,
.- ..-v
,.. __ .~_. , s 1 -
__ -I C I
" "r,.< c- -_ -.4 Q. ' *,92-
..*.-;_,p ,4-C '-£
_ _ ___.. '
-1 - ..~» ~ -* . - i. -31 rm:st:f _I~g':'
. we ' _ J _ ,, Q - h - . I wl L. '_ _ II 4; -all masque." ' Ii ~.sa.__=?;_:-;_c§s'l-"'e'l-Anisihgprited the recoru. Since iisi, he """ "'=' ""9 "'" '-""
have returned guilty verdicts against 108 Com-
munist party leaders under the conspiracy and
membership provisions of the Smith act which. . Itorbtds the teaching and advocacy of the over.throw of the government by force and violence.
But of these 108, he said, 49 of the Communists-
have been set free to continue their efforts for
the party as the result of Supreme Court decthe committee members, federal grand jurlgg 94 ll-llel. despite '1 fltl-10!. Pl
membership, continues at full strength in its
"vicious, behind the scenes operations." Those
who have resigned from the Communists party,
he said, remain Mar-gilt! are still is
The danger of communist fronts, organiza-
tions under secret communist leadership which
enlist well meaning citizens, is now greater
haf he declared ma. He told the cor-or-nittee= 1?;-*"' :=-'9? -.-i-Few.--c *---- . . ' -- A top Communist functionary, while discus! -"we M" 'P9*°xim °17 15° h°"n °r N"
lng the Supreme Court decision of June 17, 1957,
which ordered the acquittal of five Caiilomia!
Smith act subjects and the retrial of the remain.
trg nine, said that this was the greatest victory!
the Communist party has ever received inAmmc.I'I_l 92
This decision will mark a rejuvenation of the]!
CP in America," the top Commie told Hoover.
"'v'v'eve lost. some members in the last few
Hoover quoted Justice John C. Bell .Tr., of
the Pennsylvania Supreme court, in a recent
sense realism when he wrote: .- 1. -
"The brutal crime wave which, is sweeping
Ind lPP3Ui1'lg our country can be" halted only
it the courts stop coddling and stop freeing
murderers, Communists, and criminal
technicalities made of straw."
Hoover did not comment diredtly on 193131;.
tion reported last week by the Senate judiciary
committee which is designed to overcome the ,
effects of Supreme court decisions in anti-com- T
munist eases. He said the judiciary must re-S
main independent and never become "a inererubber stamp for other branches ofthe goyegp ,
rnent."
But he quoted spprovingly an opinion by the
justice, though due to the accused, is due to
the accuser also. The concept of fairness must
not be strained till it is narrowed down to aiste Supreme Court Justice Cardozo that.
3
larnep.t.......__," ~- . -v-'-"pected communist-tront and communist tn-
ltrsted organizations under investigation," he
testified. "- of ' T S ' -A ' ,
sIn__ .. ..____ _ 1.- ......_.....:- ......-.. ......ll!!! iru'iuuncc- of inc cumuimusi l;ussopis"Il;I. .
reaches in to every walk of life. To gage its
effect, we need only to note the widespread
clamor which -is raised whenever our govern-
ment attempts to deal firmly ln_seli-defense»against the comm'..m'st tl'~.rs-st. ' -
4"Certain organizations hypocritically bar
Communists from their membership, but they
seek to discredit all persons who abhor Com-
munists and communism. They claim to be an-
tiicomrnunist but they launch attacks against
congressional legislation designed to curb com-
munisrn.f' '
"Sadly, the cult of the pseudo liberal, which
is anything but liberal, continues to oat about
slrnlv-in the pinlr-tinted atmosphere of patriotic me-
sponsibility; an'd remains strangely silent when
another nation such as Hungary is pillaged,
plundered, and reduced to virtual aerfdom by
barbaric communism. - c . -'
"Every pseudo liberal in this ccsntry should
look inside his heart and give heed_ to the
destruction he may be bringing upon the very
country that permits him to enjoy this very
heedom of thought. _ Vto cooperate when needed. __ - " i
il
u
i
iv
#-
4.
!
_,.-
.;--=
;=
._ 'l_..¢.
_T
-
..i| Z_-.
-4;"--,, '
-1», . .
g{.5*J.':é.£,.,'_
.__,.,:_.~ ; ~.,, I
,,_-_ L
{-_;-.-_ -_-3;-ea-_-- .-.~_.-.,
1h
. h..- , I
_|~f_ ._ ..'_..
,1, . _.__v J&, .. .
-1E;.u5;92-I;
f-"'_,__ V,-.7 -
_1*.2*:=»1i¢'s.
R"--I?"-*-.=".,'~,. L, r_'k
£252:-:<;:-=
v'~' *' -.
.;_;.,;;;--._
"'.....1'-"L t N
'.'-Klvl ii
- -=55;
S. Q:-;
E;
,_..':;fi:§;.;
I
7 ! M AY 1 2 1958/f_;33 WASHINGTON cmr NEWS SERVICE.-._ --.._...._.-L, 5;; - _..__ _ ____ _ - _ . _ ___ l_ M __
0-20 '
0 Mr. Tolaon/
4 ; §::',:.:*:f.25W Mr. Mohr
K P. Nous
. a
M" n
m_ Si
7" roor_...._
up I _v1~> .CIu oni_ :1 ' ' Tale. Ho ___
' ' Mr. Hollomun __i---_-
_ Miss Gandy ____
Lia,_.-
H/6'1 .y__F£____ '14. -
lJP105." " $: " "1:.T}T ' ' .1-" ' "1 1",? it
COURT! _' '- ' .' . .. .D "
- SIN. JOHN C. STENNIS " 8.! SAID TODAY-THAT THE LAI CLERKS 1-OIl.I.S. SUPREFE COURT JUST BE CONFIRMED IT THE SENATE BEFORE; D
THEY START FORK IN THE H 'strum: sun as was " IAT.AT1'ACKINC1'llE uv ¢u:m:s' oi1'n: H
JUSTICES numsnunzs " nut l»'EL1' smart conr1nm11msuouLn at nraunzn -ton rm: cuznxs inc Inn: nu: nrnmzns or rm: man count. 1 - ~ -
'11 Is cm:m.u mom rmrr runs: voum; um ASSIST Ill "run m:vn:I -
or tn: ntconos AND Ion: on AC'l'UAl.CAS£S an-on: nu: count, nruoucn TIE§¥a=:.*:.°§.::I:: :=:*:1e:1:*n:2a:~11~ =~ In m-<====~= ,=R= -m-,-
- IND! om: consumes nu: vo1.ua'n: or wonx bout av tut count mu m: A
§§§YEé §§§p%§s§§§$"%§A§ ¥3é'§3rf¬E§§o$ §§i"'i.¢§"cl???'§s' °¥3 ¥u:' 1/DISPOSITION or cnszs IS CONSIDERABLE3 I ~ . r 92.STENNIS QUOTED FROII A MAGAZINE ARTICLE IN UHECI A FORMER CLERK TO *
JUSTICE ROBERT JACKSON UILLIAII ll. REHNOUIST SAID WHILE THERE UAS A 'UIDE RANGE OF POLITICAL OPINIONS AHONC THE LAU CLERKS AS A CROUP SA tan urn: '1.-:rt' or sow ta: count mu nu: lumen mnnAn 'nx1n:n1:' 1'
SOLICITUDE FOR THE CLAIP5 OI COHHUNISTS AND OTHER CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS,"":'.CEXPANSION OF FEDERAL POWER AT THE EXPENSE OF STATE POWER, CREAT.:,,-,§_1,§?*';*j_=jA:**rSYHPATHY TOWARD ANY COVERNHENT REGULATION OP BUSINESS ." ~ - -- 7'I I 0 ;;;-rnsnxsmnc mum: aununcmons ran uoannns or rams: <
.92
F.
Y
...-
..--.-
!;_
' - " '7 ' .~..:r-2
-;.
la.
1-»-1. , .
;.i
_:I' -.,
T " - -- "What Courts Are For!
' ;i,..- .2
*I-l=--F2;-=-~r f
- 5
0 - ,---
.1
-:'9-- 5Ia, A 92
.1.»...' - ' g_s _ ,,
;_ --- -.-and. '_-A -»nI
jl.r..... k;e+-§e_-" ,_ -,:*'".~.. .'..I 'ilk -glith the pu icat on l._ hie! . Ed Hoover's at-i
i* highest court to ail
. ' E11 .-3 .| '- I
.r_.92 I. A1 _.; _ _ 1 /; .. - I/<1 .
:-
n
~.-.~;. - _'
~.'.'-r ...F- '_-
pp:
-4"? '
" .31
i
I
AnotherWake! of Bras i
Ipadat to no niece! anaselea-I 1
WASHINGTON. May 6-}.bl 1 of FBI .
-Y B" =ack on the }.nly hours o . e trib i
as {reed another Conununlstinvicted oi violating the 1
Ata iThe high court released Mrs.
Oleta O'Connor Yates. partyleader in San Francisco, who
had been sentenced to s. year
tor criminal contempt. Theioh CO-Irf Free?I
. - _ , V
Red .4
EdIlorIll, Plje ll. '~ i
REDS FREE!!
The FBI chieif. in newly re-.
iased testimony given Jan. 16
tore a House appropriations
bcomrnittee. criticized deci-
sions which have {reed - 49
Communist party members
and 'turned loose some crimi-| /' ,_0_-.-P - -' "7" 92 Tfifi '**T": " B ' "r;=* -~---T------- -.....-B - ' _,.a,'/ /"J 92 .l ". y _ _ _ _ ,_ 92,...._._..._.....-.. __' ' I
Q . . 53, . .1
...,-» 1-._... 400' *"'
92
rnunist aims, rat t ni
r inc tement only. _ Further, it would wi d w,ppeliate jurisdiction gist te ' ,.bar admission rules, ire-E 7quently used to ban la erawith subversive connecwtlnsi Dand ve to con sionai-
comrnftiteea the right to de-cide on propriety c questions -
ut to witnesses. p ' -
Hoover's attack recalls his.
nprecedented role in the?gasrgy Dexier White caienoti ,. , ' I CW years El - - -tea death. - e _ ,Z¢Z/brmc/Q F~'d|[|1- :92. fl"-.451.1- .Hr 'I'ol I
Ir. BoMr. Belmo g5 r J I n 7 4| 4my B
._Cla
1el0- ,Hr. Hoilo - I-,1
llisl Gan 1. '
:,
s..}.F,:i?.£.$.f'si:.}lti°.t?£l* "I"
committee he ma advised Dfil . MAY 6.-11951.- .against retaining W hit e. *' 7=,;**;§",.:*,:g ,1=1,=;>=gg"="* =";,;":Page Col. QT F y . n narn
an FBI report as an espio- -
n ee suspect. ' _
e charged that FBI eiiorts
t keep an eye on White were
pcred because President
Truman's appointment oi
White as U. S. Director 0! the"
International Monetary hind. -
Since Hoover: blast at the '
nals via the technicality andloophole route. I _
He said the court "musteventually come to grips in a
realistice manner with Iacts
and join all forces Ior good
decision was that she hadserved euicient time in llaiiduring the iiti ation over erin ctn-lent. §'hree justi
_ nted.l- adition binds members.
' I e wake oi the attackin protectirag society!;By coinci ence, presumably,
leveland multimillionaires Eaton_blasted the FBI
n a TV interview on the veryay oi publication oi the
cover attack. c
The 74-year-old nanciersaid the FBI and other polic-ing agencies in the nationconstitute a spy networkE-eater than Hitler: Gestapo.e added there are no Com-
unists in the United States"to speak or exce$t in theSupreme Court. his detractorsave been lockhtgntlor an ul-
terior motive. ey have
revived reports that the FBIcgie! hopes to bring aboutO -.-;__-In
' .".-..
---"a
l _
92--I
r.~.
- .1
t e creat n of an anti Com- " _unist or niration, and to; X -become itsead. 92é.£e%Zé #1 "
Ultgiglt can-glctsal do nor RECORDED¢¢s'}a§§¢ {§ the 27__195BH t I would coniine ltselfi" -
mmun agency w = 5 r.~__ ~ v _§§°eZbAgl§q°sEiv"§==§l§°1§§il ' Q TB loll #5 Allen Dulles. I ll W.1-loover has been under con- i
at-alent critieisgintrglm llbe:-ill: 'raw ..°.2t".¬ii1. wltthich could be
.4-P.
._A- e .92.. ,. - e-- K-rI I _ . ,,', If 1':¢_u;'"_'_ ..":- -' . -? Q-I. 1~'. "-"-e-'4? --
i '|
'R ,,!
P4't92a,>|_:
the!
"Q.
_e re-.
7 I!
1* no-your oonton tenoe
tvrtce u92_0I.tttornte
1:? r;.u?ree Q3 toltoetl;
-IPIII I ' I lI!"1°lll3.' l;:uoo to inn 1.
dedliolt the churt -heal reveroed
9'.1;,¬';=.'2@".i§1§?;'--°2= °..i;. "1 ".1" " ". . Pmim ee erl. on
diaries ot conoplrlnl to teach and edvo-
oete the violent overthrow oi the govern-
ment, and ordered new trials for Mrs.
Yltee endthe eight others. But since that
time Federal Jud e William Corganizer, Rn. Olete r
mu,-gate unsronm qumq ' *1
lea i 3 ' I 4-
l92w
r Yates
e_ -a I-133' no
il_ consistent tn
:""o*-:~@.»§§?5;»Sit.§e=.¢
HGI Héqi III
3'»-W" " °$, °§ =.a.,.u t. .' . - I II; I ['-
"'v..Dul1 ,'- 'OM-
lmtter rullnp.-' §._'!.§"'_ ti":-"M
~ -It: obvious that th reme rt eel-
dom maker on tlpnp _
popular with the Communist Perty, the-t
ll. - ' 7
Once again we cell on our readers ii
nve America Irom this judicial tyranny.
The Jenner hlll to curb the runaway Sil-
preme Court will soon he p for Senete ap- g . Ma/thee ot
Loo _Ang:e_les-92_92[ho celled _Mrr. Yetel "the hp:-oval. Write new to your ovm oeulere
moot coldly deant and wholly contemptu-
Olll witness I have ever teen in more than
30 years at the bar and on the bench"-
heo relmposed the came one-year penalty.
Now, the Supreme Court has come to the
reocue of enmb" accused Communist
1, _1 92 rand to senators from other state}, liking -r
,_ _ . '_I _.92 _',_ .. _ . -r _ ' >; r-' k _ _ _ 4.._ . "__ ._ . .- - .. '. e yr - --¢~ 1 -1 1:» '- 92 - .- - 1 _. _ ,-A ..,"-:;f*__-_l,_ r 1.-'7' _~', -_"~,-1-~_. -'1'-. -. -. ',, 1--'1..l'-" -' ~~ at . V -3 1 I. - - ~-e- .-.
--
., W
id; "
Z
- .
.pW'
Tum _..._..
Irv-1 ter..'Z...
Chy'toe.__.._
Hollollll._..
Gendy......._.Ir.
In
llr.
76.-
/
92__ _e__ ---e_ 3
them to vote for the Jenner bill, I-I |.m'end- , N ,H ,UNIt!H LEADEI
ed by Senator Butler, to curb the high
t|'lbtmI.l's sell-indulging grab for poorerenll its outrageous pro-Communist deol- baton
.|,,,_ Boston
. Boston
I Qoston
i BostonF
92
Traveler
Hera ldGlobe
American
Record
- *1-W er" »-
.-"' ':." T ' *-*eIali'8?1P" "
<'='=¢' -' I
»...=-'~-. "1 '-
-_=_.'-~£_ _-._ t
-¢- -- . .' ,-t,4 ' .1. . _,..<. ml- ..1.- _._...I..-=.-=.~.-2: "_ __-.- '|¢!".'||-4.!-iv- . - , -_~j.~.? _,
' *3 _.='.'-31'" ,_ 1-. _ 'l"'L'T".?'
- 92- -=-_-'- . ,' . . ', " -I _ _
.. ,.._-. .___ 7 -.
. , . 7 _i-',_,;.-z¢;1._..;,;-- r
'- ' §.*¥I<92I
--" I.
T3¬3§.T_'. EY__ ...4_-ae......__ . V
. 7 _*V"'92'=r
.,¢_»__ .-a -.57 :-
._'__i,:__ -,----__,______,__'
Ti.
"* .
y.
G-' J , -F '"*2,
I.;;_ L] Y-92_ ,4,
92
F» .
6'%MAY2f:1<r5s'/.-
4
.':o'r R
MMAY 211958 I
=------A1 -~-' ' teahyavote of 10 to 5.
'1
E
l
.F" wit»
' Bench-Gtilta Have ,
at word ¬.er.er:!!y to |{' eEnd 'Unut'tled Gonfllot 'g
, 92
Inll hfheaeefertihn.
W.ABHING'I'ON, Hay T --
Judge Learrlgd Hand came out
in oppoaltlon today to a pend-
tng Senate bill t would curbI-he power of thmlpretne CourtMr. I%¥J_eln,."Mr. I
Mr. >:~¬7.5!iMr. I"; -"LI
ml-. 1:, xiMr. '1;-.5.Mr. Tr ' '
Ml. Cl._ ,,::
Tale. Tl -m
Mr.
Miss my
and overrule acveral 3! TCl"t'1- "'-"""" """ "'
cent deoialona,
Such a atatuta ll enacted
would he detrimental tn the
beat intereata 0! the United
Staten." Judge Hand laid. He
expresoed lila view: In I letter
responding to one 0! SenatorThomas C. I-tenningl, Democratof Mlaaourl and a leading oppo-nent OI the bt1L Benltur Hen-
ningg read the letter on theoor.The hill la a £1-oduet of pro-poaal: by Hepu limit SenatorsJohn Marshall Butler or Mary-land and William ll. Jenner of
Indiana. It war approved bythe Senate Judiclory Commu-
The letter il significant be-dense hackers or the bill had
been quoting Judge 5-land. who.e.et-.' long eervtce =1 clue! judgeof the United Staten Court ofAppeals for the Second Clrcult,in support oi! their position.
In a aerlea of lecturer at Har-vard Law School thll winter
Judge Hand, who la retired,cautioned against too ready useot the court: power to reewthe constitutionality at Federallegislation. He aatd Lhe SupremeCourt had on occasion over-used the power and had made
itself, in effect, "a thlrd legis-lative chamber." These wordshave been quoted by the lup-porter: of cu:-he on the court.
Nu Conltuonll Point
In his letter to Senator Hen-nlngs, Judge l-land. who ltillslta as a judge, said he felt heshould not comment on the con-stitutional question. But he
raid:
"It aeerns to rne desirablethat the court should hlve thelast won! on questiona at thecharacter involved.
"Of course there is alwayrthe chance or abuse at powerwherever lt 1; lodged, but at
organ of government generallyJ»
/£1.
f ,
long laat the leaat contentious VI I/' -1 1,1rla the court. I do not. of course. tmean that I think It is alwaya 4right, out iiii tlaal authc-"it;/-7la better than unlettled con-
lct.
s'Ihe hlllcowgtuld Prohibit l-heupreme u mm revilwhllany clatma that thediacrlrnlztated in excl
aona £1-tun the bar, anprohihtu the 1:01-l-I generll
from loo rt; into the pertinenceof queetl liked W C0913!aional no ltteea of Irltneuea
Inter charged with contempt.'1'he bill would» also re-tnter-
+~~-
-s---i
-,-= a
E .
/' "~
92.._.-i
inn
_-.c - oi individual rights, but would sig-Police and-the Law
J. Edgar Hoover is a policeman
- --an extraordinarily good-one who
over the years has created the ef-
iicient Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation llld kept it free of politics.
As the nation: "police chieft Mr. Hoover is certainly in position
to speak with authority on the ex- tent and the character of Commun-
ist subversion in this country, as
he has just done in testimony be-
fore a congressional committee. But it should be remembered that
Mr. Hoover speaks from a police-
man's viewpoint - and policemen
are traditionally critical of the
courts for leniency. I
' It is understandable that the
head of the FBI, which has worked
long and hard to bring Communistconspirators before;?e bar, shouldbe piqued when the____upreme Court
refuses to uphold their conviction
on the ground that their constitu-
tional rights have been violated.
This has happened, Mr. Hoover
said, in 49 out of 108 conspiracy
cases since 1949. -
. Mr. Hoover has, in effect, lent hisiconsiderable weight to the currentdrive to curtail the Supreme
Court's powers in these-and other 1
matters. There can be no question
that there is, as Mr. Hoover says,
a militant body of Communist con-
spirators bent upon stealing the
nation's military secrets, and
iomenting disorder and disruption p
by infiltrating legitimate organize-1
tions. But _ the real question is
whether the individual liberties of
all us would not be imperiled by
measures aimed against the Com-
munists. t
{That question still turns on the
classic definition of clear andt
nresent danger. It is t-hisi and this 1
only, that justifies the curtailment
oi constitutional guarantees. And
it must be borne in mind that the
legislation Mr. Hoover is support-
ing not only would narrow the areaI
gniticantly alter the balance of pow- .
§ er among the three branches of the 92V
7
92
i
1!
it
i
Y federal government i
It has been 90 years since Con-
, gress last attempted to curtail the
f jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
We do not believe any case has yet
been made f uch drastic actiontoday. K lI r I 92 1|U {ll at} 1'»; i._ 92_gs
T
,|ll
. e
LQ'&
.. V 1 -~ 71:-cw::xa.'!l:_:__:-"_t_'J f_;,»;__ i .....
--r*".T' T 1, ":fV ,-_:,:-.,-z:92i§P--LLi . .t-_>_ *- - ;
5e/ea/at ,..Editoral by J. N, "FIa£ELL
I
<
./ eit 6/
xvnrn -92_</-.»-92-aw-».-w921-IUI ri.t!.bUi1Ui:.'.iJ
117 :.-am 2.2 1~.".?
Z.-unit-ennui-_-in
_ r r 2-1.... ~.
it/It 1 e
1|
929%»'1 t i
I U ; L1
._..-.,..'........:92H [.-
|',: _
.. .
1- " :
t
r
l
0
jg
i
iii
".1:'¢ i*I?T"
at: -- -K:
"-Lei-§-1:3-f'» .". '3:~.*.= ."3_'
E5515;
F1-_' -"5""-5-'_. -qr-vstar- *!='-.'7'--' '. .'J -.-.W _. jcjdaifh. .
es*'
-1-. . _
.1 ,-2
=-Y,.
.3. - -Tjqri9:-...-1"--I-.
:"-vap #-W
' '- -'r
_p
1'
Q; ,..,.
stars
_ _.:----.:
,1-J... '5'
1"-
,.
1: .
po
1»:
'3, r ' bl. /lupiqizégl 'i;;é:i§§555beo Q
.. -66 JUN 4/92'!_ Mr_{1 "Jl 1;I- A
5%? '
p r92 re 0.: "o __.
It is small wonder that J. Ed
gar Hoover, FBI chief, has spoken
out against the free and easy man-
ner in which the U. S. Supreme
Cou rt has freed Communists.
While testifying before a House
acommittee, he delivered the follow-
ing broadcast, and we deem it
worth_v' of reproduction. He called
upon the courts to "come to grips
in a realistic manner with the
'f.; ts. implying there has been_
rr.' re respect for the letter of the
I; than for the security of the
tion. One by one, atld in groups,
Communists have been liberated by
the Suprem'e Court. Men and worn-
en for whom the FBI waged battle
in order to secure the evidence that
led to their conviction.
We wonder if Hoover regards
these court decisions as contribut-
lng to the security of the nation,
convictions based on the grounds
the defendants were plotting and
working to overthrow the govern-
ment. A few years ago Hoover op-
pos d the outlawing of Commu-nisfs on the ground that HIGV would£§J!xnderground and make it more
di tilt tn keen in touch with theirf7B;3m§___§ouri~Qecisions t.r|'nc|s¬i' Ti E
operations. Then came the pros
tion, conviction and jaijing of the
lea_ders. After all these efforts had
been expended, the U. S. Supreme
Court started its policy of liberat-
ing Communists.
The last act of leniency to a
convicted Communist was to order
release from jail of Oleta OConnor
Yates, Bay Area Communist serv-
1n.i! a one-year jail sentence for her
refusal to answer questions. She
was one of 14 Communists w o
were tried, convicted, and later
leased on order of the Supre heC° .'It: i
with crime and Communist ac-
tivities increasing at an alarming
rate, it behooves the government to
renew its activities to curb the
movement. This effort falls under
the jurisdiction of the FBI which
Hoover directs. We can not blame
him for protesting when he sees his
work undone by a court decree. It
will cause no surprise if Congress
takes steps to curb some of the acts
of the Supreme Court unless thereis a change of attitude toward tr
laws Congress enacts to safegua dthe countr_v from I]11]..92tLJl acts fry
Communists. ,.-- _,_
Vallejo Times-Herald
Vallejo, CaliforniaDate: 5/s/ta I_ iii? i _ _liL -i_T__--75,-gen-w-~ ~ Q " 7" 'i--*-15' H W7 I "L A7 J $777 77' 7':7'7 7 7*;
Mr. T018011
M1-, _ard T-I
" M ohra
Nessa--
r. Para"-
- ~-
ML "0' " GsiiU1
_----'-""
r!
Ulb</
,"92
~. ' -=/
Managing Editor: J; Wylie-11 311°?City Editor: W11 son Res! Buehr A. _-here Lgthgr E_ Gibgl ¢*92 5.4 1 --'
..ll
.44 JUN 3 1958
'
_ 0-_ ,__ .,92
-'
.4--'
-1: I In K "'1 A 3 H M '7' J7 at those advocating the- "._ ' The Supreme -if!-l=2¢k the Supreme Court because
Shot; e Curbed _ _.
3C92.._;__ . __ in-s.-= -- 1..'
-"='._..'92 .t
i
-':.._-_'-I ' i¥a:'. -.-- A.';g"- - e .,
a-~.;-' '--i
lisp
it
A-'
=-i*,__ _
'_'§§: I,.,_ T.
""41-P:"O
2"
a
, . ¢
F:
;..
S
es:
--1.-l ...
t__ ._. -A ' _ ' m ->~7:_';_ 4:2; =2 " "~ -- ~~ __ 7 ___ l¥_
ow-5"
,__ 4--Q-P
-'92fZ'#'Il"'1
ported favorably by a vote of 10 to 5 a bill
to limit certain types of Supreme Court Jur
isdiction-authority to do so being specifi
cally vested in Congress by the federal Con
stitution and spelled out in detail in that
document. = 3 , ~ ,The Senate Judiciary Committee has re- ; Judiciary Committee's action; crpv ngwg-,
Q T
The bill would stop the Supreme Co
from overturning a state: decision on what ,
lawyers can practice in state courts--the
Court having ruled that a state could not 1
bar a Communist from practicing as a law- t
yer. " ' T _ _. i ,
The measure would take away from thel
Su reme Court authorit to determine what" 0 oi
we
b7 1/
pen to disagree with some of its decisions. ' , '
A few days ago, in reporting the Senate?-
broadcaster David. Brinkley said that this
measure was dreamed up by Senator Jen-
ner" of Indiana. To some viewers he seemed i
to feel that one should go through some spe-N
trial asepsis, at least figuratively, before ls-
sociating with Senator Jenner even orally.
i uch widely known newspapers as the C1
iwasnington Post and New York Times in,
the East, the Denver Post in the Rocky Moun- T
tains, the Minneapolis Tribune in the farf
north, and various others of the same so-
ciological stripe editorially, have taken up
the cry that Senator Jenner or Senator East- i
land or somebody else has put over the bill iP Y
questions Congress can ask of witnesses.
through its committees, the Court also hav-
ing stepped into this field with limitations .
which could destroy effectiveness of con-:
gressional committee investigations into sub-
version, _espionage, treason and similar
fields. ' ~ .
The bill also would restore to the ates . C t decisimls 05 U19 W99 Whih Would be
the power to set up their own laws a inst -
subversion and sedition within their own
bo daries-a power nullified by a r cent
Su eme Court decision. j -
he bill further would authorize Con-
gress to pass a law against advocating over-
throw of the federal government-a law
which would have teeth which could not be ,
pulled by the Supreme Court. This has be-
come necessary because the Supreme Court
has ruled that the Smith Act is valid in pro-
hibiting advocacy of overthrow of the fed-
eral government by vlolehce but that it is 1because they "disagreed" with Supreme
Court decisions. Fortunately, some equall l
important paperssuch as the Clevelan 1
Plain Dealer and the Los Angeles"Times sup ;
port the principle ofga congressional curb o -E
COUJ't»/ ' ' _ i_ -,
Actually, disagreement with Supreme?
ast presidents of the American Bar Asso-
iation as well as eminent students of con- i
titutlonal law, federal judges, and others.
The Senate Judiciary Committee bill and <
the original Jenner bill to curb the Supreme
Court are about as unlike as a cat and a dog.
The Jenner bill was, to all practical pur-:
poses, _scrappecl almost before it got out of
swaddlmg clothes. The Butler bill was sub-
stituted and now the Senate Judiciary Co
imlttee has substituted a bill of ic bed in the Judiciary Committee bill is
- espread and includes committees and
invalid if this advocacy is presented only OWE T01 the Butler bill. It's rather '
in what the Court considers a theoretica
manner. The result. is that the Supreme i
Court virtually has nullified both the Smitha cry_to attribute a bill approved by 10 o t e
Act and its own previous approval, ofthe_'"__
A_gt- - . '.'_ '- 'lt
Certainly there is obvious need for con- f
gressional action of this type-and pIOl;-1
ably for considerable more action in rela-,
_tion to the Supreme Court than is included -
in he bill approved by the Judiciary om-
mi ee. Yet, in widely separated par of-
the ountry there is vigorous oppositio toTamm
~ T" -tr-'l'.____
0 C|lyton_____
Tole. Room
Mrs H-,|I]on1li_Miss Gmdy
I" ----_...___
-u-_..,| _____
---
/
ta W
DON EWING, ASSOCIAT
EDITOR
THE SHREVEPORT TIME
SHREVEPORT, LA.
s/10/58
Page it A Col. 1 8:2
-, __,275Z5 /l
~§92 my
.s and Democrats, among the 10-to SenB ation to his measure except that both -
The Wall Street Journal, in discussing15 S t ommitteeincludin .- .git}! lisgflgrsagg aimcnservatlves. Htipllbié-_r_' or take the decisions on thdlhlibf
92i'7 a§r Jenner when the bill bears virtually no
glealt with the same subject; it is especially i
a far cry since the Jenner bill itself long l.
since has been dead; 92 "
lithe Senate Judiciary Committee bill, brings
iout very clearly just why such legislation is
being put iorth at this time. After pointing
jout that Congress has thepower to limit ap-
pellate jurisdiction of the Supreme'Court, it
lcontinues: f
i There is no question, though, why the
fsuggestion of applying that power has aris-
ien. Professor Corbin, former Yale Law ;'
-School faculty member and an authority on
'dontracts, had s0me things to say on that
score the other day. Professor Corbin said
.- "ithere was a great deal of difference between
-rs he slow development of law_ based upon
ell-established trends and the sudden
bout-face that reverses judicial and legisla- .ive doctrine, arousing violent criticism and
-~"¢=rnotion because it is based on social and
.Economic trends already in open political
Ciiispute. 192 Such about faces, even the most dedi- 1
6. . .rated supporter oi the present Supreme 92
ui 11:1 rnnrhiu arimil 2 hf ti nu rt rn ' ro I1-vuu n. Hume Ave-l92-can-]' nu .--, --v ---n --
k wn in its decisions.
lit letter oi the law as enacted by Con essfllit sometimes reads into it matters which are}congressional investigators to ask questions.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress
can ask only pertinent questions and
then the Court proceeded to decide that
some of them were not pertinent to any
valid legislative inquiry. But how, it may
fairly be asked, can Congress legislate prop-
erly with a Supreme Court sitting over it
deciding that this or that question is not
pertinent-or that perhaps it is too imper-tineqnt-to the matter Congress is investigat-
mg.
These are some of the questions that
disturb Congress. There are others. Th eis the decision that splits hairs on the Smlgh
.A_ct, when the Court held that theoreti aladvocacy of overthrow of the governmnt
s all right but that incitement to action
s all wrong. That is something like saying
i is all right -to teach people ways and
means to rob hanks so long as =- teacher
doesn't say when to do it. -
The result of all this has been to cre-
ate a great deal of bewilderment about the
law-as justicesof the Supreme Court have
from time to time pointed out when they
disagreed with their brethren.
Whether what the Senate Judiciary
Committee proposes is the cure for the be-
wilderment we quite frankly do not know.
But we rather doubt it. Far better than a
o and continuity of decision Professor Cor
bi spoke of But those are curbs no Con. i "The High court doe; not a1w_a_y_s to ow El:-lib by law would be the curbs of logic, tea:
P Tnot there. A case in point is the decision,
ta few years ago that producers of natural
' gas came under the jurisdiction of the Fed-
_ eral Power Commission, though the legisla-
_ it tion on which the decision was pased clear-
ly and specifically excluded producers of
natural gas.tg ss.can apply. They are curbs only the Su-
zieme Court may apply.to itself."""_""
i I
1- Nor does the Supreme Court always fol- tIlow its own prior rulings. Just last June, the
' ' court ruled on the question whether civi-
" lians overseas were answerable to courts
martial. The case before it was one contain-
-ing the same facts, the same people, the
isame shootings and the same United States
i Constitution as the Supreme Court had ruled
on almost exactly one year before. And it
ibrought in two different decisions on -the.F
isanw-qeee within that time. ClearLy,.4.h.e..
i court could not have been right_,,bg__tl;i,_tirne§._i
I
It
9
i
- -: ,..
*3
i
~o...
a-.5:,-... ._
a1.. .'
v
._ 4'7
,_e=;',:_=_?.
;:"*$=
tyi-
~':.4__,_.__'é
_ _.__u_..
E».-,l> _. 3.I92.l".
-:-;1¢_..-1, =. . .. . ,-..-_1. ;$52?J-' -'3 .-1.! "
={
.:._.
V. ...
".51: J!.'! .,~ ~ --
.'s:"i__.-
' E
3'
I
v
,-
1
3--_ _ _ _ -- ;_*;:__&'"I" ,~ ~-:>-' ---'__:~ .:__ -- ~ -_-_ ---~ - - ~ r '=~ -
0-II Riv.,/ , o. o a .lo-as-s'n Hf
' , .-.
.:',_~ eiueuawnns N!.
-; Iver: it the Jenner-ButlerUhill to curb the powers oi the
. u re Court clears the92§ aioml ap-;prova.1_lnd Presidential sanc-
-tion. many lawyers feel its
F main provisions will be stricken
down by the some court it seeks
U restrict. _ I
l ' The! believe, II ultimate
arbiter oi whet is constitu-. I-In!-sq HQ senrlrwan nose-Q uni revealing new uupavnsu uuuau noon
have clear grounds tor declar-
ing unconstitutional at least
ltwo oi the bill's provisions
whenever the issues are tested.
Clearly vulnerable to attack
on constitutional grounds, they
say, are these provisions:
, 1. Making a Consressional
jcommittee itself the judge oi
whether a question asked a.
witness is "pertinent." that is.
matter under investigation.
,= 2. Expanding the Smith ActH to penalize "theorei'.icai ad-
521 lvocecy oi violent overthrow
. of the Government. Last year,
the Supreme Court held that
_ the act covered only advocacy
Jthat constituted an "incitement
' to action and not the preach-
ing oi violent overthrow as an
"abstract doctrine."
Article I of the Constitution
gives Congress the power to
legislate. Isnplied in this is also|the power to investigate so that.UP$¢i ¬~!'b§. I.rseIf ebarbecaueeE _n,'lbwAnDLDUT§m I_-:¬._-_-%4_TL~;;f-_v-_l_-_ iilLlll!.lt_l»m1il.Oll. ,-
- T "°"' ' ' ' ' man
gl nl
Liar sums»: orn
1 Jenner-lilies hill lll
be
gross, see Page A-25. In
tions on the right or free
speech. not it has been held
that such curbs may be applied
only when abuse oi the privi-'
Iege constitutes s. "clear andhas I. direct bearing on the|¥.I;;e';r":g:: ng:
he Government should be
onstitutiortal about the Otiiul-$J
two Provisions oi the bill. These
would: - - ' l.stion oi pertlnency inter Q11! 0 ' taPreted as a lelal must be l
decided by the co . ADJ at-
mnt to remove this from d
urt authority would be a
surpation of power by the.
the branch in violatiom
f the separation of poweri.ocia-ine. ' PThe theoretical advocacy" h
provision could be thrown out
as violating the safeguard oi :
Qireedom oi speech and beiiei.
constitutional experts say. 1
There are. ofcourse, limita-
nyone suggesting in an ab-3
ract philosophical way that;
verthrown. it is contended. .
Other Two Provisions ' .
Many lawyers agree thatj
ere probably is nothing
1. Permit the States to writeand eniorce their own lair}nclnai Incl-sun-rclnwe -I ' gamut Bun Iwaisuaa2. Bar the Supreme Co
Iacts may be obtained pointing hr in 1 'to the necessity for new iegls- om review E cases mm V
lation. - . ..
- But the-individual has oer-5
"tain rights also. Among these.it is contended. is the right noti
4-o be _he.uled beiore eons'res-_siona1 investigators and cues-|itloneci on matters having no
[real bearing on the subject
iunder -
Inulnlnn 4;! |Cll_' ew .-us---u-so on --uno-
._ Ii the committee erbitraril!i-may determine which ques-"tions are "Pertinent" it is in
reect intruding on the rights:
of the individual and exceed-_92ing the implied Powers ot in-
e . n many exnesta...u.Is
- . .. 1'7. !!'$.'_.c9,m .d. tn "'3'
.4»
MAY 16 1958eve readily lends itse ,'
iestly unfair practi A.at: are expressed that I
use
e on issues such as
setion . '1-as" so . i.- -.s..'.=
92
Ll» i ss,¢.¢- -.@%'lc[='i":F1§-21>Btateregiilatlodsonadmissionl
to tbelbar. Incorpora
thisprovisi
oreme
versed
" excluding
theoreticaili might barits latter provision,
mt I
tcrneys from practice merely
caMoht
e
oraon
'* R
Tr "
Ci¥l°:>n _.._
Tole. Room _.
Hollomon ___
Goody .i._..
they took an unpopular
5.1;.
57
L,
l .-i.
""'PMM
Wash. Post and 1
Times Herold
Wash. News _i
Wash. Star LE...
N. Y. Herold i
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-___
American '
N. Y. !J.ir!o!.i5_
i
i Lt
. 9:,. -
:2 -.~'-._-
A-' i-2: '
1- '-$5 '
~*-".-_-';- _V_ __' ,- '.-.5
=.- .; " ,1:' '.'92-_';;.-:1 -. 11';
c=-'CU
0
, 5 » '> 5?Q .3 /,,< M,
V fr 1;.
i
92.'*"'_"'_' gm-1.1
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover has
pointed out to Congress that decisions 01
the U. S. Supreme Court have resulted in
the freeing of 49 Communist Party lead-
_r| convicted by federal juries under the
i nspiracy and membership provisions of
t e Smith art.7 Mainly, this re92-1%! of convictions has
been the result or t . uprcme Court dc-
clsion r1fla<t June l co-
retical advocacy of violent overthrow ot
the government, in the absence of actual
incitement to such action, is not a crime.
he Senate judiciary committee has ap-
oved a bill designed, among other things,
label the teaching or advocacy of over-
ow of the government by force or vio-
t nce or by the assassination of any of itsqongress and Control of Subversives I
otticerl, as criminal even it there ts o
incitement to immediate action.
Senator Hennings 0! Missouri has
branded this bill as one of the most irre-
sponsible pieces of serious legislation re-
ported by a committee to the Senate since
I have been a member." We do not aea
how this charge could have justification
Clearly, Congress has the right and t
duty to pass laws, and to class certain ac
as criminal. The Supreme Court has th
right to review these Jaws and interpret
them in the light of the Constitution. In
passing on the Smith act, the court said in
effect that Congress did not perform it!
function as well as it intended. Sur ly
there can not be anything irresponsibl
Congres: now acting to make its intent
as clear . nd unmistakable as possible.
'~___ I ___ _
P9ifr. Toleon. Board.l3elrnon
Mohr._7
Nease,...____ I
r. I-'arsonc...._
.. Roaen .__.___
Mr. 'tamm.._._..._
M-'. i" rer
Mr. Ciayton._..__..
Pele. Rn<un,____,_
Mr. ll-lttoma
Mia: Gamtyc .
it
P,
_
. -I .1 I ---"- !--~-er Q1 RECO44 Q ,2??? 51
1 1. ,
.- gird
I
A-tan
-- Ed1tO11I1 "
l ' . " , I th Star Te1e8rll": ' - ha wgirn, Texas. 5/11/53
t
t , _, J h E1119 Editor i ~60MM2SrW ° '
I
__ F ____,._._.-._.___________ ... if
92% 2
5
v
i "1
»:-,.
_,,,__,
Q
_ 92
Znq| . g .F
i
A gcmtfj was appearing befosq_ onvn ttee in support of a r.- ,_ ~_ ' . .1... 113- _ . -. ' * 7-3?u:""Hwvgs Criticism -- i * I ~ 1'/~i.:_ V
t ' - 1. 4I I ..at-°i9T{
. .. .. . ' - cl. '
s Tesmhoiiyu-ineslote nreme fd:fundstonmtheFBIinthecomgiven by J. Edgar Hoover in: fiscal year. He could be eieoééli, '1- or the Federal Bureau oi therefore, for emphasizing the diffi-
Investigauon, betoze s House A.ppro- cuies which cont . , Q ronthisdepart
pristion: subcommittee on Jan. 16
b7l192¬tbe$llPI!Ili¢ . .1:-.Ci1icago'Iribuae. 4* ' "
' Since 1949, Hooverlsaid, juries
1llve'oonvicted10BComm. . mist Party
ikl-d1lrOr violating the Smith Act,
-but e._s__e result o! Su.,,o.1-ems Court
decisionsoniy 59 of those convictions
have been allowed to stand. o
-" In much or his testimony Hoover
as quoting others -'- "a top Com-
unlst lunc'tionary." 0lilE1W_i$8 un-
deritified, the late Justice Cardozo oi
e U. S. Supreme Court. and Judge
John C. Bell Jr. of the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court-but he was his own
authority for the observation iiiiii
The courts must eventually
come to grips in a realistic manner
with facts and join all forces for good
in protecting society."
The implication was clear
. tint the Supreme Court is not J
now Gosling realistically with -
_ hots and helpingito protect
. nmsggyi
n. .Jail....§ 92
._' E 2*-' .,1, s
.".' .
-gnu . "mam Not ' pr -H
., V ._+
92
.~ .§5'; r 1 mi -. -R.Ti, 3 -.-1.! - "-» _ 7141 ' '~eY=;.._.~" '-»..~"-7 'Aohleloipoiioe'doesnotor-
-dinsrliy takeit ilpoihlmsolfto
seoond-gdollsjhdge,o.ndthisisI. oxloy what Hoover was doing.
J The Supreme Court has said there
are constitutional defects in some of
the laws which the FBI is trying to
enforce. Instead of telling Congre
in effect, that he thinks the Sup:-em
Court is wrong, Hoover should
asking Congress to revise the laws.
I ¢-
AKRON BEACON
ib.'_;_____ Akron, Ohio
may 12, 1958. i ',§-r," Editor, John
711
_ 92I
_:
_ .
114.--.i __"_ s ._/T A/ vi 7__L /7
92
92_,._, 167 MAY 221355 J,52MAY2Bl958 '"ll ii . T ison.:74I. lard a
.,R. .-I.1-.-~ iv ._.~. 1
l'g,.r'= 115 .-_._r. It .7-Ii ..-__-f
r. if! *2! L¬.»!'!.=#-.2
-I-92_ . I-Jm ..
Tir. ii -ii--mo.
Miss Candy. .
1, »--"' "'
ee/
W
i1
A
JOURNAL
S . Kn ight
5
1-r-Ir,.92
-92__...,,__~_____£ . -
!-
-'*,._.""
- bl;
.. 1. Q atL - W iii _ > ___ _ V ___ __ __ :__ .___._ _ _ .._- _.l_,-.~. ~ --V f-~ a
i-/' 0
. .-<.?.5 '
hi ='-a.he-.£~:.'.--.
1--17 --+r_*-.:--
é-.
re ...-;,_. . .
a;..;,..,-t.;-
sis? ==.._~ -
. | --
>_ .-.
a .
';...-.
1-a, ,3.1:?-_ '.
as-:1~..
'- 15:?-_
- :i"F.'". .,.'J
.p"g.
ii.
.-c. 5.-'
,~.;-1.
C "12 '
a-
5
I1., . _ I her-lenner-Butler bill approv W
i
'92
I
-I
l
i
i
,.h.!;gressional right; This is in respect
involving national securlty._§,_
si-."._ .l.'. -can-... -,..-oi-.lic.... '1
92 y handica- * -~"------q--.-.-.....,_._.----.92-.,
the Senate judiciary committee l
l rs under the initial handicap l
of having no other title shat accu- i
rately and briefly describes it. Itis loosely called a bill to limitcghe 92
appellate jurisdiction of the su-'
preme court, butthere is only one F
provision--a separated onet_hat '
to state rules for admissiop t_o'the l
bar. ' i " Y iiinvokes this .Constitutional Con- l_,*- - .'.i , - - "' r l _ 92l .-'Eh,g_hj1],lab0rs under the further- lien?-e1"BueT B111 " Em » ' p of being VitU|ii-I-lg:-|.li!1~
known in content. With the better
conservation "national" security
in respect to qu'isling_fifth.-coIurnn-
ists as a prerhise, there Should be
widespread interest in whether the
bill. in whole and in part, inthe
language employed and the'meth
ocls adopted. actt1ally__ ha_s".i§r0mlseor the best promise, of attaining or
moving toward attainrnent, of the
purpose. _It has, however, been in-
adequately reportedf and "one re-A
suit has been the encouragement
of off-cuff disparagement by a few
critics who seem to want all the
- I- The three other provisions rep-
resent an omnibus or quasi-omni-
bus effort to carry out,'in-as many
instances, an indisputably normal
function of Congress, depending in
no sense on the jurisdiction regu-'
lationZ' clause. Where the supreme
_c'ourt has decided cases on the bas-
is of the intent of Congress, the
meaning of statutory statements.
it his perfectly proper for Congress :
to Iarify and amend the statut i
la _ age; and this does not m an '1.
th the court cannot if it still es {-
tit strike down the new language.
The common link between each_
section and the two main parts isiissues smothered in a shouting
match.i"_-.i
-Each section of the proposal as
basic reference to controvelfsia de-
cisiqn of the "supreme court In
each case the tent of the decision
should be basic to the background.
Few people for example know
Twhat principles were involved or
said to be invblved in the court
taking jurisdiction of state bar ad-
missions, except that Communists
or Fifth Amendinenteers figured.
If the section" based on the Wat-
kins "pertineney".case is correctly
reported, it still does not go far
punishment, statutory handling.
The bill could in this connection be
called a bill to correct certain
strained inte'rpretat_ions of the su-
preme court and in one instance -|
l
l only! any and all interpretations,subversion -t its Idiscouragement,
lEnough to meet the main and most
l
lroublesome part of that trouble-
ome decision; namely, that the
subject of legislative inquiry-
irstj must be made clearto a wité
ness endangered by. a contempt
sentence. How'_lt could have been
made any clearer, by any individu-
al in this particular case,
cum-Go-own" language, is simply. pp." . 92_ 3 Egon. . _.:92us._,.._ ._._i1,l¢ §-., @,1_, ii - - -.l
1.
l
1
p F
I
l
Ree as
l
i -~
4 l .lit 57Tel
Bonrdrna
Belmon
Mohr
Nea Mr. Para ____
Mr. Rose ., .
Mr. Term I__L
Mr. 'Irotter____ .
Hr. CIIYCOI.-.._.._i
Tile. Roum___ l
Mr. Hollornm__Mill Gandy___ I
e
-Mr.
Mr.
r.
Mr. _ _
Mr
6/
The 8'l1'Picoyune
New Orleans, La,
Hay 12, 1958
Page -12 6'01 2
Editorial
George IV. Healy Jr, .
Editor
|§2r" 9 7555- /lnor |=zE".~:~F92|?|;,i?-=7
iMY 26, 55
/
--.
N.
.4
"-
"$1-
-H-is-5
+_. .e »w-- -.: 5 _ '.
_-W, . ouldgdefend e_ourts and Judges from 1 - . ' " .. -'_- .' . - -1. ='_. '= . I _ ._ } I
1 .- k A I K "
F
1i 4
{ii--''T!Q~ Q-Q .
$7.'92.'
-lér-;;.';; '
4': :5?92_-
.___.1;-'1. - -T .
ET: ' '
;':"'.';:g»; ..--
§r _ -. 5% ,,,.,
4
J,.
¢.i Mn ¢~1£~_~:1nh'nns|-at-|F4BI-nu: _ 1-4: ~ . '*1- "- -._.-
16 w0-ll Rev. 10-2-51!
' r» '&_- Q; ,. _- _ . _ l _. _9292 ARREN couar CURB N. What we'd call a quaint and-curious speech wa e-
-liver-_ed in Chicago night before last by Charles S. _Rhyne,* president of the American Bar Association: »=.=~»i ;
Mr. Rhyne called unwise and unsound" the B r
' C ' ' Jenner bill to enrbthe Earl Warre u '-
He added that all law era
$1-s __ __-. T212. RQQM .-
92 The Butler bill merely seeks to? H° °"° "*"make the Warren court stop nulhfymg T Q, G "d"
___ state anti sedition laws, interfering with - --I. Congressional investigators, and knock. ins over state rules barring Com- " /
. munistsor Fifth Amendment clalnsirom *
-" racticin law '_ 4- as-1'/_ p Q , _' ." - 1"
Except in certain cases not covered ._ch"I°'-sR_l" by the abpve list, the .U. S. Constitution E: Art. 3, Sec. 2_. Subd. 2!_ says the Supreme Court shall have goQ appellate Jiiris$i5ti6Ii both as to law_ and i'act,_ with such ~;_ =, _::1::e]pg<; and under such regulations as the Congress -A
T Clearly, Congress has a right to pass this bill; and just
" 2- as clearly, Congress collective judgment as to its sound-! ness is better than ABA prexy Rhyne's personal judgment.92 _.As for lawyers being obligated to defend all courts and Hudge, wecall that hog-wash. Courts and judges em anddo make mistakes. Lawyers are better qualied than any-
; _ body else to spot such mistakes. II you ask us, any lawyer ._ Ilia stands up a attacks these errors is doing his 1311131101 '._ 92 g2.
nd 0 n n I I
_ - ts, and any iawyer who keeps quiet about them is onusrthermg some judges ambition to make themselves an __ 2'
. e courts sacrosancj, -. . C ._ e ' - .0
I
' -.
'--..
v
.1-
iush. Post and .___
__ Times Herold
Ir
5
;.
'.'.'.':i .7.
1- '9. 7555 F1,-
Q
IWash. News hi.
.' Wash. Star __.___
I N. Y. Herold ._._...
Tribune
N. Y. Journal-in
American
N. Y. Mirror
N. Y. Daily News E
N. Y. Times i.i V _, .
NOT PECORDED . - Daily Worker _...__-A MAY 20 1958'. 1' The Worker ._-_--
New Leader ----
________________..1 ...
~ »92@/ e
6'z92mm'21 use iti-i---*_ _-'-
Date ..-_'----
MAY 1 4 1958 '
- .-,_-1.,
_; J "
.3
. .__
:7a.1..'-§. 1-..""~*¥""
is;
¬: ' 1:;
§=,,-aw
.19 '_¢=f;-":32
.'_'=. -.'-if"
en, _
r~_|:J _
?¥;F:
A"
E
.1» .-_. _
;»_-..'-'- "
, .-es"
_-1 Li _
,1
--Jr-}, "1-- ,2-*.
t
,,T."_-7..#'¢ -Isa.V .... r.A i- -- + Ws filal zit s - - tt t A-1:,:_-g -,--,-',,41n ~ '~'_ ,__ ';r- _'2'_-1&1-@341-f 7-» __,: ____ ,______ V___ A _
0-20 ? ,1-" _ o K g-_ ,¢f ' .Tolson
__ . . Bourdmct
Belmont/A
,¢92~0¢. Mo
M1. N s
- M. Ros n
Mr. Tcnnm A.
Mu Trotter i
Mr. Clayton i
Tele. Room _.__ _
Mt. Hollorncn __ '
Miss Gundy i
! . _...'._1 _¢ , _, A. .- _, ~.-;_-__:92¢ - . --- .~A_*_-;- -*___-_ _. .,.; I _ 4| 7117' -1- _'1- 4".-w .._ g,|. -.-.._:_92-A"92.w?-zu-gr-l92-7!-92rr{;1.",'.. '..- !. __'92 . - :__.,| __- _ _,. _ t A: -. A r _ . . ._ ! . ._- I ' .1 -.1 ¢ADD Asuvntnz count ¢uP1s1:A ~ - ' ' A 1 _<As 92tut MINORITY nzront DESCRIBED t L.AS A H006!-PODGEF BILL,_ ". MAPPROVED wztuout ADEQUATE HEARING AID THREE_0F tun roux § +H,t_SECTIONS RAISE GRAVE CONSTITUTION .'; I 1 - .~; ~- "'*~IN A POINT-BY-POINT BREAK-Down nxtv anront uAD tnxs to SAY-' "ABOUT EACH or tun roun ssctlous of tn s A ~ ' - ,- , P-1"
SECTION 1, UITHDRAUING suvnzns count JURISDICTION rnon APPEALS _ 1;,BY STATE BAR APPL1cAuts--uouLD GIVE stAt£ suvnnur counts A so P fOPEN SESAME IN DECIDING IHETHER A STATE BAR APPLICANT wAs ttt to ;" MANmLONMREMNNWOHHGMWM@. ,@"pyszctzon 2 AMENDING tun cn1nunAL coutznrt or coucnzss stAtut: A --i "zto PROVIDE thAt ANY cusstxon to A wxtnzss IOULD as 'PERTINENT"UNLESQwAI Atn: wztnzss cxtzs AN oaazcttou on PERTINENCY AND rnovrnluc-A =,,- _=;< 'CHAIRMAN'S RULING on PERTINENCY vouLD BE 'rInAL'--An outnxcut ";~ t_s ~,¢USURPATION-OF JUDICIAL POUER av tux LEGISLATURE. A 1 ';'--' c~D~~
,_,_92.-, ' SECTIONJ, LI MITINC 'l'l £'COURT'S APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN SUBVERSI '- 92 on-*CASES--UOULD_'IN out swoop R£ViTALI2E' stAt£ stAtut:s, sou: or wulcu A_;A;ARE 'PLAINLY At vAn1ANc£P vita FEDERAL LAW, AND CONTRARY to THE NEED»-**FOR A uutronn NATIONAL STANDARD AND INTEGRATED CENTRALIZED PR0cRAu,F f"?iSECTICN A AMI-NDING THE SMITH ACT--'- CONTAINS AN OUTRIGH1 _~,,_A,-f;:'-;§eINVITATION 16 tut surnzuz COURT to DECLARE IT UNC0NSTITUTI0NAL¢'Ag;1? ,'....'cLEAnLY LOADED run tn: PURPOSE or BRINGING Down uvou tuz- ~§¢ ~~ .92SUPR£HE count A HAVE or :nDtIon..;' .> H; "'QH--7"." ,.=A?4ss? ;J sL 92 _ i W K _ . _ ,»-~'__:_ ,_ -- H! Q l xi -H i 5/1 -N539? Al»'.' _,.. ':A_92- - __ k-___1_;*__-Ax ___._f|_i;}__- '__ 924F92 '1. Qt-.L:'{-I _ , 4 - -. .-A h "..t.. -*»Q,," v aJ
Fm _:.-; 3 535,33 Q 1+,?-5 ~ k :3FuJ:if:iE§: _66 MAY 22 195 §e_ ________ _
-v-vb
I ..1 -7 -
oé., .
é: .
F:-*4-,I -_'.-- 7liIl'l-v&92--.-1 ' A~._ . ;A1.-. -'
.-_-n, _ ;Q . -.A5.-0": -'-
HI"-77'
2.- ..
7? _ .'_."i.'-- '"' 92.~ "¥
_,._...___
=-~"Ta~-_
; v-_ ,1-
.M'-
-'-»92
.'.'~»
. ._P
£.i'f§.'--
.. _-..:,_ .
L
H 3* I
#_;-
I
;_ ". -*1
Q-92 f -. ".
.. __ .1 l -
4 hi»;-: _-0..
_.92y
_ =-
-95.1.53
{--.;-Al
7.'.L"- :'_ -.3in ' -ail
-+
F.FILING A SEPRATE nxuo" nnmmc
K _n:/.. if iii _ M _ i r.:_,_t_ - r 1.. 4~ -- '.~7,_ W J '*~-7" --- "' *_" '4' W
o-20 A '0 3 , /
¢J'L E%:i¬§
'92-.
.. ___"J|
I umm I
Trotttr ---i
Mr. Clayton i. - ' Tale. Room -_W Mr. Hollomun _.._..
Miss Ga dy -1/
K5 I1 S
4 J»v92J-92/
ea, 571/
X. A 3-I-._. .. I 0 ,_?..._ I'F_?'y, "fI- rip ._"uu' ~..92- ....:,i _s,_p_._. I __ _. ______ ___ I-H y ;;_. :_.__ _1__LJ V__ _-if? I I UP187 :7 * <- <-.:;- ; ; o . * .A . ; -I "if I _-* '*F**1¥ _ , =¢sunn2nt count: H-.- . I " .7 -I ,A SHARP BIPARTISAN nmonrrr nsnonr TODAY cnrncxznn A mu. to 1.1|m_as nounn or sunnzuz count ron ITS KILL ta: UMPIRE' PHILOSOPHY AND -_Irrnnt to '1urImunAr: AND corner? THE axon azucn. - - - - - -roun n:ns£ns~or THE SENATE JUDICIARY connmrrns srcnzuc tn: n:nonr_. -1MAINTAINED THAT run JENNER-BUTLER BILL wouLn 'rnusrnAr:P rrronrsu -TO COMBAT INTERNAL connuuxsr suavsnsxou ALTHOUGH THE BILL Is ;' _ennrnxszn on A nrsrns to srnmcrum THAT rr ~ * - -- ~ " CRT. § SENS. THOMAS CO HENN NGS D"HOJ ALEXANDEA. cAnnoLL cn-coLo;> n UILEY' R-UIS.J"JOHNk *;zsrzs x£rAv:n an rru nnnz PUBLIC TODAY. A - N.! srcnrn tn: nznonr=~.¢UILLIAH LANCER cn-u.n.> nznonrznnv vAs =»< A tr nznonr. 1S SAID IN AN ACCOMPANYING STATEHENT THAT THE EXTENT OF THE ' - BILL IS TO MAKE THE COUI'I'__I'HI 'iHI'PPING BOY OI CONGRESS AND PREDICTED, ,~.SEVERAL WEEKS? OF DEBATE II THE BILL IS BROUGHT TO THE SENATE FLOOR.KEFAUVER SAID HE HAS SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT SIGNING THE 'HNORITY REPORT REGARDING THOPROVIDE
T III-UOULD
UNBAL
OF ATs counn an nzv1s:n.' - n A-n~-~.;¢ AIN ADDITIONAL MINORITY vlrws FILED TODAY tn: a1LL"'~ I I1v1nuA1.s or xnnonrmr cxvn. nmrrs AND 'uunr:nmm: AnnSEPARATION or covznwnnnTAL rowan ungzn was 'cu1s:r%@w{.;§3 at COURI a;pAus£ on 'CERTAIN_UNPOPUL n' 0PINION8.-¥m"<*-- ". . A . -'-K--.-k -d .- _ .-_,_ _ . -_,.li-' _- -_ _, _s -+"4- ' =1? 1-» he . --@.~T?»;»'-M. .1-. -T'¢~._-A-:41-u;----:1-.'i=.F'-1--A 4-»-u1..F*wEu».¢:. K" ' , |é¢2-:27uF8!T-/62
=;~ 1 . _- "_""""". NOT nsconozoM:%i§;a ,
szcrrons or was BILL--THREE An»r¢uA,l l ' PROPRIATE AMENDMENT '
.- ":-
wiii-.Q.Zs .
I-:~1 7.
;:"::'.*'%__:s_.~....-
it .
0 :
I '¬
:n-
; .2 -ti;" s.-....,_
1'-1.-'~,.._,_;...-H. _
;__ .-"avT .4";-1T?~._ __''*.'::-+
,3,
v. 128" if
-"."l:.:'_ .2".
x -is _ .
a.-l_..;
- .
4+, 77;,-c."J-' -L-'
- 1 3 m
I 2* Z zf N:Y:Times._____..
é N011 RECORDED Daily Worker0-ll HOV.
.
Til
.__ ;eA__~_ -4 *7 -- -172' - lrc: "
U
to-as-an o
-Ivevifljiihliiiousi fridge!-" e ';
E The DistA?_ot Columbia
Circuit Judfcisl Conference
cresmtefi a disgracetui spaterm. . - 7 1--- ,'Ihere is a doctrine be theiCOtlSU!.1.li.i0!i. o! the - nixed
-States and in our tradition
iwhich says that there is a sep-iaration of powers of the ex-iecutive, the jéidicisl and thelegislative br nches of Gov
ex-nment. At the Judicial Cou-
ference we had a member oi
the executive branch 0! Gov-
ernment, the United States At-
torney, end his. assistant,
Thoma! I-iannery, imploring
the Conference -to' ask the
legislative -branch of Govern-
ment to nullify the ruling of
the highest court in the Na-=tion. ' '
i, Even after Chiei Judge
Edgerton said that, as e iudge,
he would refrain from voting
ion _a motion to recommend
1-that, Congress change Rule 5
Ptal of the Federal Rules oi-
'Crimi.nel Procedure, "the?
judges of the United StatesDistrict Court for the Districtj
of Columbia, on the not too
subtle urging oi their chiet
judge, voted to recommend to
Congress that Rule 5 a! be
amended to void n unanimous
decision of the Supreme
Court. The votes of these
judges decided the action oi
the Conference.
More disgraceful was the
fact that the judges oi the
United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
as the Congress to censorth ot theUnitEil'Sf§fes" 0 ling in
Andrew Mallory v. United
States. How can judges who
vii
H 1" u_ Date _._._---
5 ,.. Q 3
{s'nant..i.i:n1 when til!-llil the
deciding votes to ask tor legis-'
iatlon to nullify the decisions
jot the Supreme Court? One.
._duonde1'; ii they were moti¢
"voted by the tact that so man!
cases heard by_i_the Su-i
preme Court arising in the
Distric
…[truncated]