◆ SpookStack

“J ficuli-te-da Tt to be something of s straight- jacket aa the investigation pro ceeded, as it might prohibit the committee from pursuing collst- jeral but not immediately rele- vant paths that opened up in the course of the hearings, Another means of meeting the court's requirement is throveh ‘a tightening of the general rules lot committee procedure followed ‘by each of the housés of Con- gress, with new emphasis an defining jurisdiction. There is, of course, no direct sanction which the court can impose to force Congress to alter ‘ite committee procedures. There j Wie Aintet wah 2h. _ et the Judicial with ta¢@ Allerg ore thel Legistative branch, to ig- now last Monday's decree, andg. te Jeontinue in the old free- whgeling style. ‘4s some sentiment, born of re-/M sentment at “interference” of|:: ” gleander te The Philedeiphia Bulletin {t *You went through s red light.” tenia | fl i: h “J } . : ‘ fis has a built-in hagani, however, It is a certainty now that committee authority will be ehallenged more frequently than In the past by witnesses): who do not wish to testify freely. Even po, the relevancy of « question, or of a line of : Honing, is not always easy tal } ftotas, An ostensible adher-]. ence to the rule of relev does not wholly rule cut a “tuh- : ing expedition.” Political as well ag more al- truistic legislative motives are at work at many investigative sessions. If a member of the|. committee wants badly enough to heckle or embarrass or ever to indict a witness in public, he is not lkely to be deterred by the fine print in an authorizing resolution ow the Olympian frown of the Supreme Court. Az important mm the long run, however, ag the mubstantive re- forms that the court has im- posed may be the inferential disapproval that the justices ex. pressed for the casualness of Congressional committees to- ward the concept of individual rights. The trenchant allusions gto itis in ihe opinion suggests what waa In the majority's mind: “We cannot simply assume that every Congressional in- vestigation is justified by a public need that everbalances any private rights affected.” This philosophy of a height- ened regard for the rights of the individual as” opposed to those of a Congressional com- mittee will undoubtedly be re- flected he thea moet af iu. hiecrec [fisiampnas HG 4fo4 UL Lit ju- it considers future cases fe” pow out eonflict, eet ?