w..
.
HUA
S: UPREME COURT Justice Hugo
Black- asks "whether we as a
people will :try fearfully and .futie-
lto preserve Democracy by
adopting totalitarian methods, .or
whether in accordance with our
traditions and our Constitution we
-will. have the confidence .and the
courage to be free."'
The Committee on Un-Am~erican
"Activities acts in positive answer
to the :first clause of the Justice's
searching question and in negative
answer to the second.
In a recent dissenting -opinion,
Justice Black wrote: "The First
Amendment says in no equivocal
language that Congress shall pass
no laws abridging 'freedom of
speech, press, assembly or petition.
The activities of this Committee
(on U-n-American Activities), au-
thorized by Congress; do precisely
that, through exposure, obloquy
and public scorn."
Is this statement a misinterpre-
tation of the Committee's activities
and intentions? The mCommittee
answers -the. question unequivo-
cably: "The purpose of this com-
mittee is the task of protecting
our' constitutional democracy by
turning the light of pitiless pub-
licity on (these) organizations"
'"Other organizations.. have
been , greatly crippled .. as
a result of our exposures." "6The
'Committee's investigation ,. .. was
concerned almost entirely with the
problem of exposure of the actual
members of the Communist Party."
FVURTHERMORE, the Committee
ized by Congress to pursue the
objective of exposure. 14% says:
"This committee is the onk agency
of Government that has the power
of exposure ..... There are many
phases of 'un-American activities
_that cannot be reached by legisla.
tion or administrative action. We
believe that the Committee has
shown that fearless exposure..
Is . the answer." "The House
Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities is empowered to explore"
and expose activities by un-Ameri-
can indvduals and organzations
which, while sometimes being legal,
are nonetheless inimical to our
American concepts."
Is the Committee justified in
interpreting the "power of expos-
ure" as derivable from its Con-
gressional mandate? The mandate
states: "The committee on Un-
American Activities as a whole or
by subcommittee, is authorized to
make from time to time investiga-
tions of (1) the extent, character
and objects of un-American propa-
ganda activities in the United
States, (2) the diffusion within
the United States of subversive and
un-American propaganda that !s
instigated from foreign countries
or of a domestic origin and at-
tacks the principle of the form of
government as guaranteed by our
Constitution, and (3) all other
question in relation thereto that
would aid Congress in any neces-
sary' remedial legislation.
T HE COMMITTEE'S actions co-
incide with its mandate to the
extent that it is authorized to
make inquiry into 'un-American
activtes. However, the Commttee's
mandate specifically limits its ac-
tivities to those areas in which
tinvestigation might lead to the
recommendation of "necessary
remedial legislation." By its own
admission exposure is often the
sole aim of Committee investiga-
tions. In so doing, the Committee
oversteps its mandate.
The Committee's "pitiless light
of publicity" illuminates long and
published. lists of the names of
^ individuals and organizations-I.e.
R a "Guide to Subversive Organiza-
tions and Publications" ,and An in-
.dex to comimittee publiations con-
x taming the names, of close to
4500Individuals and several
thobusand organizations culled over
a. twenty year period. As Prof.
Robert Carr of the English depart-
ment says, "Every time such a per-
son makes a speech, publishes a
book or artile, lends his name as
CMtho ds a nd Ma nd ate
Does'' a gress- and the Suprel
De ThiTs'-,HouseaCmmitteeIgore balance the interecsts
relacthe jinteconcsusf
TheIasi cRights"it- Wants -ToDefend?,eisnent in stiflingths
igreater than the inter;
people in having them4
Ry RU H EVE HUISBy so doing we are in
By R TH VEN UISlimiting the Constitutic
antee of free speech to
press or otherwse comes to the at- teachers were publicized prior_ to }i "We have no doubt that there is agree with our democi
tention of the Committee and the hearings. protest from the no congressional power to expose cepts. Thus, wre allow,
seems significant to them, another California Teachers 'Association, for the sake of exposure." mnunist in our. "land of
entry is added 'to its files. These the Friends Committee on Legisla-a The amendment states:; "Con- the same measure of -h
files are a means of "relentless ex- tion, the- annual- state 'convention gress shall mnake no law respecting to which, his dictatorsh:
posure." of the California Labor Federation an establishment of religion, or us. What then, has ha;
'Witnesses, both hostile- and and the. AFL-CIO, 'to'name a few Irohibiting the free exercise there- the democratic precept
eme Court
ion-that on
)f the Gov-
se freedomg
;ests of the
exercised."
d canger of
Tonal guar-.
those who
cratic pre-
the Con-
, freedom"
free speech
lip entitles-
a~ppened to
its we are
t
f
friendly to . the 'ommittee are
often recalled where new inf or-
mation is not being sought. The
intention, in the former case, ap-
pears to be publicity; in the latter
case, the revelation 'of additional
names of former associates.
THERE- ARE NUMEROUM illus-
trations the success of the}
committee's exposure tactics on
record; there are thousands more
which have not 'been publicized.
We note that an investigation into
the meat-packing industry resulted
outraged organizations, led the
Committee chairman, Francis
Walter CD-Pa) to postpone the
hearings because "the ramifica-
tions of the Communist operations
in California. are so extensive and
malignant that''additional investi-
gative work must- be done before
the hearings are held." The hear-
ings were subsequently postponed
indefinitely, but files on 93 of the
teachers were sent by the Com-
mittee to state and local authori-
ties. One wonders what legislative"
purpose could have prompted this
action.
I N RECENT hearings in Pitts-
burgh the House rules, against
televised hearings was ignored,
and those witnesses who objected
to photographers were denied pro-
tection until they had been sworn
by the committee
Hearings are :widely publicized-
often they are billed for sensation-
alism under' such titles as "Cur-
rent Strategy and Tactics of Com-
munists in the United States."
There is the testimony of In-
numerable witnesses as to the
Committee's effectiveness. One tes-
tified, "I was before- this Com-
mittee seven years ago; I have
been blacklisted by the results, the
publicity in the papers was used
as a blacklist against me every
time I got a job."
Granting the Committee's not-
able success in its self -appropri-
ated field of exposure, one looks
for similar success in the perform-
ance of its authorized function-
the recommendation of remedial
legislation. However, careful in-
quiry reveals that 20 years of
hearings has resulted in a highly
disproportionate' amount of actual
legislation and a vague number of
recommendations and duplicate
recommendations, many of which
are supposedly pending. The Com-
mittee has simply substituted its
own send-punishment by exposure
--for that of its mandate-investi-
gation for legislative purposes.
HOW 'THEN, is the First Amend-
ment violated by the actions
of this committee? Having estab-
lished that the Committee, though
unauthorized to, do so, "pursues
the objective - of exposure," it re-
mains to be determined whether
"exposure" for its own sake is
inimical to the 'First Amendment.
In a recent decision, Chief Justice
Earl Warren writes emphatically:
MRS. ROOSEVELT
of; or abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to
assemble and to petition the Gov-
ernment for a redress of griev-
ances."
Punishment byl exposure, where
legislation is admittedly unfeasi-
ble, is clearly an abridgement of
freedom of speech. The individual
who might desire to sign an al-
legedly Communist inspired peti-
tion, join an allegedly Communist-
affiliated group, or merely express
unpopular ideas verbally or jour-
nealistically is restrained by the
possibility of Committee investiga-
tion leading to "obloquy, exposure
and public scorn." Loss of employ-
ment often ensues.
I S THIS procedure of exposure,
despite the: lack of mandate
and despite its self-evident en-
croachments upon free speech, a
Communism. Does the- govern-
ment's basic right to preserve it-
self make' the abridgement- legiti-
mate.
Only, says Justice Black, if we
read the First Amendment to say
"Congress shall pass no law
abridging freedom of speech, press,
assembly and -petition, unless Con-.
Ruth 'Evenhuis is a junior
in the literary college, major-
ing in. English. She is a ¢f or-
mrer member of The Daily
staff.
purportedly safeguarding. Para-
doxically, we destroy democracy
by our attempts to preserve it.
BY INDULGING in. the balanc-
ing. process of the re-worded
First Amendment, the government
is, in effect, saying that neither,
this amendment nor any other
provision of the Bill of Rights need.
be enforced unless the government
deems it advisable to do so. And
with this reasoning the founda-
tion of democracy crumbles. Clear-
ly, the government becomes one of
men, rather than law. Original
thought, -burdened with the dis-
trust, inherent in its originality,
fares poorly when men lacking, in
historical perspective determine
the advisability of its propagation.
Paradoxically then, one might
apply the somewhat nebulous
term "un-American" to the ac-
tivities of the House Un-American
Activities Committee. Rep. James
Roosevelt titles his address to
Congress, "Abolish the Un-Ameri-
can Committee."
As the committee flaunts the
First Amendment, it is to be ex-
pected that hostile propagandists
will capitalize upon the opportun-
ity to destroy the image of Ameri-
can freedom. Five American stu-.
dents attended- the Communist..
contrived World Youth Festivals
of recent years. The students were
taunted by their contemporaries
at the festivals that they would
suffer governmental reprisals upon
their return to the United States.
T HE STUDENTS were subse-
quently subpoenaed by the
Committee and subjected to ad-
verse publicity for daring to asso-
ciate in international exchange of
ideas with Communists,
In a second instance, Moscow,
propagandists were given the op-
portunity to publicize an Ameri-
can "Pasternak Case." When some
67 paintings were sent to Moscow
displaying modern American art,
Chairman Walter protested the
inclusion of several of the -paint--
ings, charging that the artists had
"records of affiliation with Com-
munist fronts and causes." Wheth.
er or not his accusation is well-
founded, Walter is in effect de-
manding that American artists toe
a national party line.
-HAVING ESTABLISHED that
the House Un-American Ac-
tivities Committee attempts to
punish its victims by expsoures
evocative of public ostracism, the
phenomenon of the Committee's
existence .in a government clearly
delineated into three independent
branches remains to be. consid--
ered.
-The Constitution is most expli-
Continued on Page Eight
nDy MICHAEL OLINICK_
NOWAA.YS, when an under,
grtaduate elects: an ,Oementar,
_chemistry course he _is require(
to pay a certain laboratory fee -foc
the right to mix Nature' element,
and to destroy Man's glasswor]
The cash payment is made direct.
ly, to the University administrA.
tioxn by handing over a crumble(
bill to a smiley lady on the firs'
floor of the Administration. Build.
Ing.,
No' one Is quite certain why 11i
must treck over from the sulfur
dioxide 'impregnated halls of the
Chemistry Building to- pay his fee
but" the practice may, have begur
nearly- 80 years. ago. The probabif
cause: the Great Defalcation of
1875.
The Great. Defalcation,- as
have chosen to call it, may we:.
stand as the most serious crisis it
the history of the University, More
recent events, thb McPhaul dinner
or the H. Chandleir Davis affair
do not rival this contr oversy whic:
provoked bitter quarrels, loss of
University prestige, a midnight
march of -victory 'and even- ru-
mored dissension- at a meeting of
the Regents.
T HE CONTROVERSY began o:
a mild October day in 1871
when the Regents'asked the chem-
istry laboratory director to fur-
nish the board with quarterly re-
ports on all the money collected
-from students for the sale of
chemicals. The decision, a unani-
mous one, became an official reso-
lution and required the presenta-
tion of duplicate vouchers "as in
all other departments, covering all
payments, in accordance with the
existing law."
The motives of the action, now
clouded by history, may have been
conservative enough, but the re-
sults were spectacular.
Within a month, the Regent,
learned that- much less than a)l
the money paid into the labora-
tory ever reached the University
treasurer:
I
:n
.e
1'r
it
f
n
15
l-
i
n
11
e
cal Chemistry Preston B. Rose
(equally anonymous in. terms of
-memorial halls),; collected them
from the students. He turned them
over to Douglas. Douglas, in turn,
gave 'the money to the treasurer.
Obviously_ enough, Rose and/or
Douglas was responsible, for the
loss.
Rose was fairly popular with
students he had met ever since his
work in the laboratory began in
1861. He agreed, however, to pay
-a portion --of- thet $831.10} deficit
that was discovered. In November
of 1875 he paid the remainder,
$675; which he obtained by mort-
gaging his house.
The investigation, however, dis-
closed deficiencies in the funds
of earlier years and Rose had to
give the University a trust deed-of
his house as. a security against
loss:
Three of the Regents formed. a
special investigating committee
which reported on December 21
a several year deficit of $4,718.62.
Immediately after the Regents
made their report, Rose filed one
of his own. lie said he was inino-
cent. of any, intentional miscon-
duct. Explaining the bookkeeping
methods he and Douglas employed,
Rose asked a hearing for the two
professors "before some court or
disinterested body of -intelligent
and competent men ...:
The people danced when ..Prof essor Rose
rHE REGENTS denied the
quest, fixed Rose. with a
re-
e-
sponsibility for a deficit of $1,-
681.53, and suspended him from
his duties as an assistant profes-
sor of chemistry.
A great many changes and reve-
lations occurred before the end of
that academic year, the Univer-
sity's 38thi year. Two more investi-
gating committees found an even
larger deficit, this one measured
$6,984.01. Nearly $1,200 of this
amount was "apparently-. in the
hands of ]Douglas." He claimed
forgery when part of the book-
keeping files showed him responsi-
ble for the lost funds. The Re-
gents had restored Rose; then re-
suspended him. Douglas remained
with the University; his career,
temporarily at least, was saved by
a four' to two vote by the Regents.
Douglas was a "man who for
twenty-five years controlled this
University,"' as one Regent put it.
He had great prestige in the circles
of administrative power of the
University,
ROSE, HOWEVER, was not alone
in his quest to rectify the mud-
dled situation. He had the support
of Rice A. Beal, a potent Republi-
can leader who edited the old Ann
Arbor Courier. (Beal and Rose
may have met through their com-
mon church, the Methodist Epis-
Michael Olinik is a sopho-
more, in the college honors
program. His major interests
are mathematics and philos-
ophy.
j5he jjreal eA/atca tion of 8
r- The deficit in the laboratory ac
ry counts -was discovered, by a Prof.
?d Silas H. Douglas (whose name' hasf
rnever graced a campus building
is -or residence -hall' house)- who 17
k, served as director of the, labora
-tory'.,
,d DOUGAS took his problem to
st heUniversity President, James f..K.
- B. Angell, and Angell and Douglas -
began an inquiry.
e The pattern of transfer of thes
ir laboratory funds' was' a simple one.-
ie Assistant Professor of Physiologi- y Eb0i'. 1Wf~. .a::.y. ... :"." ;
AP
75-
MAGAZI#NE
Sunc
Vol. V11, No. 6
CONTENT!
copal) which a University his-
torian,' Lewis 'Vander Velde says
was "a denomination which from
the outset had evidenced an active
interest in University policies and
development.) Beal campaigned
actively in Rose's support.
The associate professor's strug-
gie w
of M+
Beni
A:
lem
velopl
legisli
SARAH LAWRENCE
By Judith Oppenheim
THE GREAT
By Michael
DEFALCAT ION
Olinick
THE 'STAND INS'
By David Giltrow '
'HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ,ACTIVI
By Ruth Evenhuis_______
Magazine Editor: Thomc
.' ,
JUSTICE BLACK
in the dismissal of employes
labeled "Communists or Commun-
ist = sympathizers." One wonders
what rationale other than recrim-
ination could have prompted this
action. Surely unorthodox political
beliefs can not be construed to
impair one's manual dexterity.
A well-publicized case of ex-
posure is that of -_the 100 Cali-
fornia. school-teachers subpoenaed
for. hearings. The names of these
Oh, the Regents had ar terrible, fight
I
Wollensak!r
Webcor!.
Gemark!
Voice of Music!
HEADQUARTERS for
STUDENT and OFFICE SUPPLIES
F~OFFICE FURNITURE, TYPEWKRITERS and FOUNTAIN PENS
Fashions-Created In the
*KfIRE T OF
SHOO OFF WINTE
SHOW OFF SUMMEF
Koret of-California's Si
Now's the time to bet
about- everyth ing
golden tan, to th
that tops--it. And!
that fairly sings wit
in the fabric th,
Koret of California
Permathal® Eve
100% cotton6 knit -k
See this sensationcl
Hi Fi Stuldio0
Student: Hi Fi Trading Center
San Franciscc
ER PALLOR -
:R COLOR 'w
unsation KN
color conscdo
g; from a
he fashion
here's color
th excitemen
rit made
knits famous
,erg laze®
byr 'ALAMAC
A sportswear
inn Arbor/
Always the BEST in
TAPE: RECORDERS
and at
Special' L-o"w Prices, too!I
TYPEWRITERS
officeZ& portable
All-Makes, bought,
sold, rented, repaired
TERMS:,we try to suit
the customer
Typewriter Repair
Work a Specialty
Distributor A. B. Dick
Mimeographs fi&:Supplies-
-also
Fountain Pens
All Mak-es
SH ERWOOD
EICO
GARRARD "A"
-DYNA-K I T
SONY
VIKING
AR
J ENSEN
Sales &Service
' factory-trained men
Buy and-SAVE at
PRE-RECORDED TAPES-
We- offer the know-how and
the right deal!
Since
1908
MORRILL S
Phone
NO 5-9141
Sold exclusively in .A
I "
i
314 South State Street
tinter, Office Furniture and
BA N R ' a p111 So. University Ave. P
.ini'
1319 S. Ua
rWashtehc
nery Store