◆ SpookStack

Fe nee on me / 0-19 (Rev, 9-756} DAYIB~LA WRENCE ° + s Pea reme Co rt ‘of the * United States doesn't practice ; what: tt preaches. ’ From time immemorial tt "has been 8 rule of law that, ‘ when an expert witness testi.® fies fn court, he must be present for cross-examination -by the other side. ‘ ‘The Supreme Court has just said, moreover, that, when the FBI puts on a witness in a criminal case, the other side must have sccess to anything and everything about the ‘witness which is in the files of the law-enforcement age so-that the credibility of such a witness may be tested in court . But the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't al- low this in its own proceed- ings. Thus, the famous decision on school integration violated all the rules of modern courts by declaring that it was based on the “authority” of witnesses who hever were revealed in court at all. so Some of these “witnesses” were connected with, Com- muniét-front “and one of them was a 8 Socialist who bitterly cri the Amierican . Constitution. The (lawyers for the several ‘sovereign States -who- argued: , the case before the Supreme ‘Court were not told that the eae had any “secret wit-' organizations, eqish nesses” or “experia” up its ; Judicial sleeve. Only when ¢ ; decision was printed did the American people’ learn- what i “witnesses” had influenced the Supreme Court's coticlusions. Today one of the bitterest “controversies in American his- tory has grown out of the same ‘Supreme Court decision, which _ t Judicial P Supreme Court Accused of Ha Ving od reaching ized . "(Secret Witnesses’ in Segregation Case’. mk says candidly that its ruling was based on information derived from certain, “experts.” The decision says tint “whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowi- edge” at the time (1896) that the opinion (Plessy ¥y. Brown) was handed ‘down which per- Mitted “separate but equal” school facilities, the new find- dng “is amply supported hy modern authority,” The Supreme Cowt, in jt opinion, then cited six “su. thorities” and said in a foot- “note: “And see generally Myr- dal, ‘An American Dilemma’ «1044).” - ~ : Senator Eastland of Missis- sippi, chairman of the Sen- ate Judiciary Committee, has ‘placed -before the Senate s- resolution containing informb-, tion which nobody was evi-. dently permitted to place be- fore the Supreme Court during the time the case was being argued. He says a “provisional ” ‘ investigation of the authorities upon which the Supreme Court relied reveals to a shocking de- gree their connection with and participation in the world- wide. Communist conspiracy, in that Brameid and Frazier, listed in, the group of six au- thorities, “have no less than 28 citations in the files pf the Committee on Un-American Activities of the United States House of Representatives Te- vealing membership Jn, or par ticipation with, Communist or Communist-front organizations and activities.” Eastland pointed out , that Myrdal, the Swedish Socialist, © declared—in the book cited by the Supreme Court—that the, . and Practicing - United States Constitution was ‘impractical and unsuited to “modern conditions” and that ita adoption was “nearly-a plot against the-common people.” Senator Eastland added that the citation of these “authori- “ties” clearly indicates “a dan: gtrous influence and control exerted on the Supreme Court . by Communist-front pressure groupe and other enemies of the American Republic and in- dividual members thereof that is inimical to the genera! wel- fare and best interests or the . Republic.” ¢ Eastland said he was con vinced the Supreme Court has heen “indoctrinated and ‘brain- washed’ by left- wing pressure groups.” © t okay Dal ae Lae Ee 3 = AF at eA Oh ae Ny re nt eer oe coe ~ Nease Tele. Room Holiom Gandy t Whether one dods or does | not agree with Eestland’s con-. tentions, the fact is that no- body could cross-examine the ‘authoritles” cited by the Su- , Breme Court or introduce . other experts to present a con- tradictory interpretation. For “the court didn’t tell anybody who Its “witnesses” were. It kept them secret until the decision itself was announced. So there wasn't any oppor- tunity for “confrontation” or “refutation,” Yet that’s the rule the Supretne Court in- sists on whenever anyone in the lower courts brings in witnesses and no opportunity for cross-examination is given. . Instead of performing a re- view function, the Supreme Court has introduced its own “experts,” and the other side could not cross-examine them - . Or evaluate their expertness or credibility. This certainly wasn't “due.. process” — the court's favorite phrase, which it used pointedly in a recent decision crippling the powers of congressional investigating committees. (Reproduction Rights Baus) ow bot re re ee r 4 4: 2RTT5S- A NOT RECORGED 44 JUL 9 1957 { Wash, Post and Times Herald Wash. News ie . Stor AW ’. Herald annie N.Y. Journal- American N. Y. Mirror _N. Y. Daily News —_W N.Y. Times Daily Worker The Worke. New Leader Date _JUN-2 9 1957 — oe