◆ SpookStack

decision az “mischievous,” comes af very Plear saying that congres- sional/committees are a law) unto thermsPlves, and that there be n@# appeal from them court for the protection constitutional rights of the indi- vidual witnesses, “Perhaps,” he says, “the rules of conduct placed upon the com- | mnittees by the House admit of :individual abuse and unfairness. But that is none of our (Le, the affsir. | Justice Clark, who regards the . court's} So long a the, object of the legislative inquiry | is legitimate (!) and the questions | proposed are pertinent (!) thereto, it is not for the court to inter- fere with the committee’, system of inquiry.” - - Thig tg a masterpiece of con- ‘fusion, For it begs the question: before the court, In the Watking case was there individual abuse and unfairness ' because a particular phase of the : inquiry was not legitimate or be- “cause the questiong put to Wat- king were not pertinent? Tt is not entirely clear: what Justice Ciark really thinks, But apparently, it ig thatthe court must assume that what a com- mittee does ig legitimate and that the question it puts are pefti- nent, and that if they produce “in- dividual abuse and unfairness,” it is none of the court's affair, an On the broad constitutional ja sue, Justice Clark holds that it is a “tresnars upen the Yunda. mental "American Principls of. separation of powers” for the courts te concern themrpelve wife individual abuse and unt But ith realy an Americ brine aeieale oernne ciple MESe LE stpareuch pow. ers is forotute, so absolutehat a, ¢c tee of Congress cannot be called to account for the Aawtul- ness of what it dées? - Surely, the American principle ; is that Congress is not a a soverelga ‘ Sh eed {ee as interpreted by the courts ould ° the | the { , thé Watkins case is not tions). body, accountable only to itself, ut that it 1a under the law of the Constitution—of t the Conastitue mi ss it may be amended pedple, e@ witimate isme raia tie _H bit we are quits andid—-whether in order te coms t the Communist movement, he American government and he American social order, it is ecessary ico encoursge cr tea rmit congressional committees proceed “outs de the Consti- tion, Caen the Constitution be de- ional means, or can it be efended within its own terms? Tt has been on the grounds that there was a desperate emergency that many sober and songerva- -tive men have supported o | eannived at McCarthyisna, The Watkins decision ig sd- ressed to this particular kind of extra-constitutional investigation, of which the object is to éutlaw by exposure and pitiless publicity all behavior which might assist, fre only by extra-constitu- =a might favor, might tolerate the |. spread of Communist propaganda, , These investigations are not ddressed primarily to ftlegat acts, to espionage and subversion, | “They ere addressed to activities which are not—etrictly speaking ~-against the law and could not “| bate mnt: hich would tf it could destroy f een oi ‘There “being - no Tegal way to suppress such activities as propae ganda, infiltration, afd fellows traveling, Congrets with the supe Porf of public opinion, cre tommittees which de nig’ among other gt, to suppress by intimidation what cannot be suppressed ide aus process of law.: - The Supreme Court has waited long time—-eome 10 yeats—be- ore it has intervened in what : unconstitutional process, re- orted to on ithe grounds that re must be fought with fire, that he end, which is to stop the pread of Communism, justifies ny means. - I do not think the ¢ tong patience of the court shows that the Eisene hower court is more liberal than the Roosevelt-Truman court, but rather ae the _, Emes’ have The fhertener— theih was one w. could not be yhet by wiul means—is over, the esumption ig now that investi» be liresecuted in a court. These | - ations are not purpose of how to make Quite the contrary. It that laws prohibiting these activi. ties would bein open conflict with the Constitution, © ed on orming w laws noe “ 4 yoo . . oe - a, ee “ane Lien AO OR nS Sees evident ating committee must work ithin the limits of the Constl- tion. ; |