◆ SpookStack

a Bulletin #1697 PITTSBURGH COURT BANS FUBLIC PAYHENT'S T0.RELIGTOUS ORPHANAGES PITTSBURGH COURT BANS FUBLIC PAYNENTS TO RELIGIOUS ORPHANAGES Public funds can no ‘longer be used for the maintenance of deLinguent, neglec' and dependent, children in sectarian institutions, a Pittsburgh Court of Common has ruled, . : . ETN aS The Pennsylvania Constitution bars appropriations to any denominational or. tarian institution, but, in 1933, the State Legislature adopted a law directing. county authorities to place children, "as far as possible, under the care, guidance: and control of persons having the same religious beliefs as the parents of the chil. dren or with some association, institution or society which is controlled by persons: of such religious belief." The Jaw also directed that expenses for such care be : by either the city or county. . : ia > 3 Defendants in the action were nine religious orphanages who had received more: than $250,000 from Allegheny County in 1953. It was brought out at the trial that; there were no public institutions in Allegheny County for the care of dependent’ childzen, nor any private institutions not affiliated with church groups : Recognizing the difficulty in making an immediate switch to publicly-operated facilities, Judge A, Marshall Thompson held that, "It may require some period oft: to provide for the maintenance of these children in private homes or in some suitab; institutions that are not sectarianes ea period of tim: in which to make the adju: . Should be provided before a final decree becomes effective *, . Judge Thompson relied on several previous cases of the Penns tia St reaffirming the constitutional separation of church and state even where the 1 - lature or state-created agency is willing to modify this basic tenete The State Attorney General and the County Solicitor appeared in defenses maintained that the expenditure of public funds in ‘this manner was permissable bi cause it was raised by county rather than state taxation, A not gifts or appropriations to the institutions involved, but payments for specific. services, Judge Thompson, however, rejected both contentions in view of the clear; and imperative language of the State Supreme Court in previous casese ACLU CRITICIZES LAWYER'S DISBARHENT BASED ON STH AMENDMENT PLEA. ACW CRITICIZES LAWYER'S DISBARHENT BASED ON STH AMENDMENT PLEA The American Civil Liberties Union has criticized the disbarment of Leo Sheiner,, a Florida attorney, who had invoked the constitutional privilege against self~ incrimination, o : rot Sheiner, whose case is now awaiting decision in the Florida Supreme Court, firs invoked the Fifth Amendment when he was called to testify before a Senate Interral! Security subcommittee inquiry last year, and when disbarment proceedings were brot against him in the Florida court because of his stand, he’ again raised the privile; Speaking for the ACLU, executive director Patrick Murphy Malin declared that’ lawyer should be asked whether he was a Communist until there was competent evid before the court considering disbarment that he was a Communist, and that no a inference can properly be drawn from the exercise of the privilege against self- incrimination, "This privilege," Malin said, "exists to protect the innocent as as the guilty! : eg ? . ann _ In asserting that the use of the Fifth Amendrent itself should never be thi 2 ground for disbarment, Halin emphasized that there was no evidence of Sheiner!s Come! munist activity or association, : nist Party was shown, this should not be the reason for disbarment, unless it w Proved that the membership had resulted in the lawyer performing acts inconsist: with his professional dutiess Td wea ae Malin commented that no witnesses had testified against Sheiner before thi who disbarred him asked Sheiner whether he was or ever had been a Communist Party bere At the very least, Sheiner should have had an opportunity to cross-examine "his, accusors before being forced himself to answer the question. Otherwise the pro’ tion of due process of law was lacking. -- TERE str “In. disbarring Sheiner, the: judge relied solely on the fact that Sheiner had fused to answer the question about Communist Party membership, and that Sheiner had. invoked the privilege against self~incrimination, But the federal courts have held’. that no adverse inference can be drawn from the exercise of the Fifth Amendment “is imbedded in our Constitution, and that it exists as a shield for the innocent 4 well as the guilty. Therefore, no inference should have been drawn that Sheiner was. or ever had been a menber of the Communist Party. * © “ ms