◆ SpookStack

firs=picerit argued th e committee was entit a its questions answered he cause these replies might have given it useful clues about the’ nature and magnitude of Com- munist subversion. Secondly, the First Amendment never was intended to protect any- one from exposure to public criticism or indignaticn, nor was tt designed to allow a witness to take refuge under its principles to shield other people from public humilia tion or attack. : Finally, the department ar- gued that “the power to in- vestigate is broader than the substantive authority which may eventually be exerted by the investigating body, for not until the whole region of facts has been canvassed can it be determined where the bound- aries of regulation should be drawn, Judicial inquiry into a committee's legislative pur- pose must therefore not be restrictive or hostile but must take account both of the pow- ers of Congress and of its pressing need to, inform itself broadly.” IN ITS BRIEF to the Su- preme Court, the American Bar Association took roughly the same view. It too argued that “pertinency” in a commit. tee investigation must always be given a broader interpreta- tion than “relevancy” in a criminal trial. In explaining what it meant by a “valid legislative pur- pose,” It advanced the familiar doctrine that a committee does not have to limit its investiga-. tion to “legislation in actual 1 a 7 ia contemplation,” nor is ee frame _ _ . ee tho a\e -power to be measured by the | recommendations for legisla. tion. which it may or may not | choose to Make, Neither the mént hor the Association treated the prin ciple raised by Watkina as 2 | question of conscience. Both interpreted his silence as a. protection for other people.: Both made the mistake of ig- noring the torment which one suffers when confronted under compulsion with the choice of turning informer or ¢ise stand- | ing in peril of being indicted’; for contempt. 3 Both ignored the authority” of the Bill of Rights, or, more precisely, made it yield to the; mandates of security. Hoth, placed security before free dom. Both were held to be wrong, for the Supreme Court. tuled that national security’ cannot be bought at the price of personal freedom. THE COURT was told that a committee sometimes must en- gage in exposure because that is the only sanction open to it. This argument may be valld for a committee of Congress, but why should it prevail with ourt? the Supers sot ocity of Con- gress cannot invade by law the freedoms guaranteed in the —a— thaly h Lal First Amendment Why shouki a committee; a subordinate agent, hve the power to do by’ —— Justice_Depart-~ Amer pment reminded the Court that committee's questions m | | | inxastigation what Congress it. of Congress, 90 essential ter self cannot do under. any pubile good, re statute? By its decision’ in the i lutely untouched and 3 c that the |Committees are merely pi Bill of Rights must restrain lunder judicial notice that any committee once the ‘scope E and method of Its investiga- Rights, or push it aside tion brings it into collision omet! that must yield with protected personal rights. the claims of national é The Court remarked that i¢ or the administrative convene): Ie obvious” senat 2 person lence of Congress. vag called npon answer ques In his dissen opinia: tions before a committee, leis, Clark sald tha cannot ignore. the Bilt - der risk of perjury or con- other legislative committe tempt, must be satisfied that ‘y the questions are as pertinent charters of cushonte wees a§ they would have to be un- der the Due Process Clause in a criminal trial. This rule, it} Affairs Committea opera’ must be confessed, has never| Justice Frankfurter, in kis con. been obvious to Congress. . curring opinion, conceded Indeed, the Justice Depart- an “implied authority” for tt Meant rast “the strict standards of defl- be “squeezed out” of the rc niteness applicable to . criminal peated acquiescence by statutes have never been gress in the committee’s, wor thought applicable to rules or But even them Watkins could resolutions establishing con- not be charged with contempt: gressional committees and de-. CoMMIPT ERS fining ‘heir Ravers. if this con. - ention (o atkins) were ” sound, no congressiontl com-gVice of vagueness”; they were. ; FOR THE ciently specific grant of au-|SUbject under inquiry; they COMMITTEE'S. ¢* uestions suffered from “the ( + thority to sustain the convie-|failed to rest on a frankly- “ tion of any witness who re.pestablished and valid. legtsiae’d” mittee would have a suffi-~Mot clearly pertinent to 1 it, ; .! tunity for knowing, at the very BEFORE RAISING & ery moment the questions were t : tive purpose; they did not give 1 used to give testimony before Watkins an’ adequate op Pe - about the rights of Congresa, put, and knowing in a “lum 7? one should remember the pre- nous” rather than a cloudy cise “cope of the Watkina de- way, that he was in fact dese. —& beaten A cision. It concerns only those ing pertinent information ta : activities which affect an in- Congress. . at dividual’s freedom under the Bill of Rights. Congress re- mains completely free to in- vestigate and publicize corrup- mendment, that he must tion, maladministration and in- [ets of contempt and that led that Watkins would/seek ~ ie protection of the First efficiency if ali Government {Congress in its investigations i - must scrupulously respect. the This “informing tunefion” aay: Therefore the Supreme Court +: &