COMMUNISTS: New Weapons

In the past, hundreds of witnesses suspected of Communism have refused to answer questions in court proceedings and congressional hearings, pleading the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person may be required to give testimony against himself, and stems from the English common-law prohibition against torturing or threatening witnesses to compel testimony. In this sense, few Americans want the Fifth Amendment abolished.

But how could witnesses be compelled to testify, if the purpose was not to incriminate them but to get information about other Communists and the Communist movement as a whole? The solution: grant the witness immunity from prosecution for anything he might say (if the court decides it is in the public interest), then require him to answer. If he refuses, he can be punished for contempt; if he answers but answers with lies, he will be liable for perjury. This solution was enacted into law by the 83rd Congress. There is still some feeling that the witness-immunity law violates the spirit of the Fifth Amendment; the Supreme Court will undoubtedly have to rule on its constitutionality.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department is using it as a sharp new weapon in the Administration’s war on Communism. Last week word leaked out that the Department had called twelve witnesses before grand juries in the District of Columbia and in New Jersey—including Mary Price, onetime secretary of Columnist Walter Lippmann; Edward J. Fitzgerald, onetime War Production Board economist, and Harold Glasser, onetime Treasury Department associate of the late Harry Dexter White. The main purpose is to get more information about Soviet spy networks, past and present. Some of these witnesses may refuse to answer, trusting that the witness-immunity law will not stand up constitutionally. On the other hand, they have more positive incentive than before to tell the truth, for they can do so now without legal harm to themselves.