◆ SpookStack

‘tem mepority had for time “usurped” the fact finding function of a jury. . For examplesjt; - * Justices Hartan found it neces: “sary to state separately that ‘icivitian dependents of the armed i" forces abroad for whom the Con- ‘atitution required fury trials in- stead of courts-martial were only those accused of capital crimes, He did this because Jus- tice Black’s ruling for the major- ‘ity could be read to assure jury : trials to all such offenders, Justice Clark dissented in the Piencks decision because he be- lieved the majority's Janguage|iy would require the Government tc open confidential “raw” F.B. I. reports if it produced 2 witness[() who supplied any of the infor-}4 mation in the file, or abandon prosecution of subversiver, "Smith Act Limited But the findings in the Wat- _ kins and California Communists cases evoked the largest and most vociferous group of critics i of the Supreme Court. In the first, it set restrictions on in- vestigating committees of Con- gress. In the second it limited! { the application of the 1950 Smith| + _ (anti-Communist) Act of Con-> ‘ gress, invalidated the convic- * tions of five defendants obtained “by the Department of Justice ”'and ordered new trials for nine, The criticisms of the Watkins “ruling were that the Chief Jus- ‘tice prescribed in such general , terms how House and Senate in- structions to Investigating com- ittees could legally define their objectives and future legisiative purposes and so vaguely how the | “pertinence” of questions to wit- } esses could be established to!’ the satisfaction of \ thatangyess could not possibly know how to meet these terms. . i cases were (1) that Jus Harlan, for the majority, put narrow a construction on the rd ‘“orgatize’ in the Smith é that many active Commu- t conspirators are henceforth exempt from the act. And (2) that in applying the protection of the Iirat Amendment te those who “advocate” as an ab- straction the forcible overthrow of the Government, as contrast- ed with those who conspire to “inelte” the attempt, he gave the mest dangerous subversives a loophole through which they can elude legal process, Time Will Tell . | On the other hand, the Su- preme Court decisions are en- thusiastically supported on these grounds. (1) It came to the res- cue of constitutional civil Uber- ties that have heen abridged by Congress and the Executive in a urge of lawless “anti-commu- sm.” (2) The “clear and pres- t” danger from international ommunism by which the court reviously has justified less eeping interpretations of the i] of Rights has passed. (3) . e dire consequences of the de- icisions that many have predicted will not follow; they never have ‘when prophesied. (4) Congress hag the power to maintsin the ‘purposes of the invalidated leg- islation and the essentials of its investigatory function. (5) d , (apthing in the decisions weaJens ‘giequate national security. | As the old saying is, time eL a SO