◆ SpookStack

NATIONAL AFPAIRS Once Again. Kock Flang at the Justices sand Roses Are Matcdeled NV aenn eee Perret Ede. piece De gated: Two points of view: A faceless. Monolithic court or one carring on Uereat tradition” 5S, CHAOS _ ‘THE COURT, CONGRES How could a committee of Congress investigate subcersion—or Communists under the Smith Act. anythine eye? What the High Court did Was to draw Hote could any State Legislature incestisate subversion” a fine line between teaching overthrow Hea W theo nment continue to operate the | ly urocram of the government as a theory and urging ' Ow could the government cont; ve to operate the loyalty jr CN: overthrow of the government av a course How could. the Attorney General's office prove that anyone was of action. Tt also construed: the word guilty of violating the Smith Act, which outlaws conspiracics to over- “organize”—in connection with Commu- i throw the government? vist organizing—as meaning the formation of the party itself as distinct from a continuing process of Organizing new There was consternation in Congiess ty Investigate tradition tecepted since cells and clubs, recruiting, and the dike. and constemation_at_the Department of the early davs of the Republics arose It was this latter definition that might Justice last week over a series of deep- from the case of a Felatively obscure well affect the long-established laws gov. reaching decisions by the Supreme Court labor Jeader named John Watkins. He eming the “organizing” af monopolies, that raised these and other important had refused to answer questions of the Sweerey Upheld: The other two questions. There was no quick answer House Un-American Activities Commit- decisions of last week also had their re- fo any of them. All concerned asked tee about fonner associates, had heen bercussions, tou. but they were less far- “What now?” cited for contempt and comicted. The reaching, One was a corollary to the Not only the problem of subversion Supreme Court, in upsetting the Wathins Wathins case, reversing the conviction of but enforcement of criminal laws and conviction. said the committer had no oa New H 4 —oerdioms. + ee ee tmpshire professor named Paul regulation of corporate practices were right to ask him these questions, M. Sweezev, who had balked at answer. i. involved, At_the Criminal Division af On Capitol Hill, fiercely jealous at its ing questions about his beliefs and politi- : the Department of Justice, Which by the Prerogitives, there was an Ramediate cal activities. The difference was that if very nature” oF Gs “work often relics on wave of outraged indignation. Curent Sweezev's case stemmed fran a State stool pigeons for evidence, officials won- investigations were affected. too-that af Legislature's Mvestigattion, dered if anyone would ever dare informs the Un-American Activities Broup. pox Then there was the nuling What dip for them again, because of the Stipreme sibly that of the Senate committee on fomat John Stewart Service had been ; Court's rulings. At the Antitrust Division, labor-management racketeering. wrongfully dismissect by the State De- ; lawyers said gloomily that. if the Su- But the impact. on Congress—which Partineut in 1952. The dismissal hid + Preme Court applied its reasoning about had its own means of defending its heen recommended by a Civil Service © the Smith Act to antitrust cases, ther Prerogatives=was far less crushing than Commission lovalty. board, though State would run into almost impossible diffcul- , the impact on the executive branch, par- Department loyalty. boards had cleared ties in proving that ANY group of business , ticuharly the Department. of Tustices of | Service. The Court held that secretin mel Was in restraint of trade. +7 he other major decision of ‘the week. oof State Dean Acheson had no right to The decision that hapineed diectlh, This was the surprising reversal of the disregard his own department's findings, upom the traditional powers of Congress 1952 convietion of fourteen Calitornia Inevitably the first meachons in Con. July 1, 1957 19