◆ SpookStack

PITTSBURGH COURT BANS FUBLIC PAYMENTS TO.RELIGIGUS ORPHANAGES’ + 7 ~ . = An. _ _, Public funds can no longer be used for the maintenance of delinquent, ‘neglect: and dependent. children in sectarian institutions, a Pittsburgh Court of Common Plea’ oe fo + pow so. . . The Pennsylvania Constitution bars appropriations to any denominational or ‘se tarian institution, but, in 1933, the State Legislature adopted a law directing .*: county authorities to place children, “as far as possible, under the care, guidance’ . and control of persons having the same religious beliefs as the parents of the chile. dren or with some association, Anstitution or society which is controlled by persongi! of such religious belief,"' The Jaw also directed that expenses for such care be‘ paid. by either the city or county. ee pe eye Be, pore Defendants in the action were nine religious orphanages who had received moré: than $250,000 from Allegheny County in 1953, It was brought out at the trial that there were no public institutions in Allegheny County for the care of dependent’ children, nor any private institutions not affiliated with church groups o. - Recognizing the difficulty in making an inmediate switch to publicly-operated facilities, Judge A, Marshall Thompson held that,-"It may require some. period of tine to provide for the maintenance of these children in private homes or in some suitable’ institutions that are not sectarianos ea period of tims in which to make the adju t . Should be provided before a final decree becomes effective ot eo in etek aren ter og) Judge Thompson relied on several previous cases of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirming the constitutional separation of church and state even where the lerii ‘lature or state-created agency is willing to modify this basic tenets. 7 143 soe . note ss : . nn are wy = The State Attorney General and the County Solicitor appeared in defense. They; maintained that the expenditure of public funds in this manner was permissable bei‘; cause it was raised by county rather than state taxation, and because the moneys wer not gifts or appropriations to the institutions involved, but payments for specifi: services, Judge Thompson, however, rejected both contentions in view of the clear: and imperative language of the State Supreme Court in previous caseSe- . 2 ACLU CRITICIZES LANYER'S DISBARNENT BASED ON STH AMENDMENT PLEA. A The American Civil Liberties Union has criticized the disbarment of Leo She: a Florida attorney, who had invoked the constitutional privilege against self~._ incrimination, : : . er ; Sheiner, whose case is now awaiting decision in the Florida Supreme Court, first? invoked the Fifth Amendment when he was called to testify before a Senate Interral : Security subcommittee inquiry last year, and when disbarment proceedings were brought against him in the Florida court because of his stand, he’ again raised the privileg Speaking for the ACLU » executive director Patrick Murphy Malin declared that lawyer should be asked whether he was a Communist until there was. competent eviden before the court considering disbarment that he was a Communist, and that no adve inference can properly be drawn from the exercise of the privilege against self= incrimination. "This privilege," ialin said, "exists to protect the innocent as as the guilty,"' .. th ve agen eee, Seta Stoo >". In asserting that the use of the Fifth Amendment itself should never be the. soley ground for disbarment, Malin emphasized that there was no evidence of Sheiner's Comem munist activity or association, The ACLU added that even if metbership in the Conant ‘nist Party was.shown, this should not be the reason for disbarment, unless it was? proved that the membership had resulted in the lawyer performing acts inconsisten with his professional duties. a 3 A : z . Malin commented that "no witnesses had testified against Sheiner before the: judge who disbarred him asked Sheiner whether he was or ever had been a Communist Party meme bere At the very least, Sheiner should have had an opportunity to cross-examine his)’ accusors before being forced himself to answer the question. Otherwise the protec= tion of due process of law was lackinge--) Sit e "In. disbarring Sheiner, the: judge relied solely on the fact that Sheirer had r fused to answer the question about Communist Party membership, and that Sheiner had; <. invoked the privilege against self~incrimination, But the federal courts have held:;.. that no adverse inference can be drawn from the exercise of the Fifth Amendment whi ‘is imbedded in our Constitution, and that it exists as a shield for the innocent: aa: well as the guilty. Therefore, no inference should have been drawn that Sheiner was.” or ever had been a member of the Communist Party. © - . Sy te 2 Un Bee