By JOSEPH STAROBIN

U.S. liberties hinge on outcome
of case before Supreme Court

CASE of momentous. impor-
tance in U.S. political life
has just been brought before

the United. States Supreme
Court. It is the argument of
the U.S. Communist party

against the Internal Security
Act of 1950, fathered by the

late Senator Pat McCarran at

the height of the Korean war
hysteria five years ago.

The case, to be heard after
the court re-convenes this
October, will probably be de-

- cided by next spring at the be-
ginning of the presidential
campaign that culminates in
the November 1956 elections.

. The real issue in the case is
whether the U.S. governing
circles are going to “end the
cold war at home,” as they
have been forced to consider
in foreign policy. It is a ques-
tion of whether the legal

amework of McCarthyism is
going to be dismantled, or up-
held by the nine justices of the

highest judicial body. .

The whole direction of U.S.
life, both at home and abroad,
is therefore at stake.

‘The Communist party, the
first organization, to be affected
by the 1950 law, presented its
reply on September 13 in a
massive brief of 270 pages, after
having gone through four years
of preliminary legal procedures
and the negative decisions of
several lower courts.

The best proof that the Mc-
Carran Act is recognized as an
attack, not only on the Com-
munists but on democracy it-
‘self, is' found in a_ special
argument to the court, pre-
sented separately by 360 pro-
minent non-Communists.

Two other organizations will |

also be heard against the act
—the liberal National Lawyers
Guild and the anti-Communist
group known as the American
Civil Liberties Union.

% nm %

The act of 1950 (which should.

not be confused with a dis-
criminatory immigration law
sponsored by McCarran and
Francis Walter, head of the un-
American Activities Committee,
is based on the proposition that
a “world Communist  con-
spiracy” directed by a “foreign
power” is trying to overthrow
the U.S. government, and the
U.S. Communist party is said
to be the arm of this conspiracy.

This determination was made
by a special agency, the Sub-
versive Activities Control Board,
_ set up by the act, which held
long hearings that gave a free
hand to discredited  stool-
pigeons, such as Paul Crouch
and Manning Johnson, and
former self-confessed liars such
as Harvey Matusow.

It is characteristic of the act’s
hypocrisy that it does not out-
law the Communist party, since
such a step could not be justif-
ied under the U.S. Constitution..

The act provides that the
party. must “Tegister” a list of
its members and the sources of
its finances. Failure to make
these disclosures involves a
five-year prison term, and
$10,000 fine, or both, for every
day of non-compliance by any
_ party member.

Since the U.S. Communist
leaders have announced in ad-

~ vance they will refuse to. regis- -

ter, the court’s decision uphold-
. ing the law would open a pros-
pect of mass arrests, or mean
the forced dissolution of the
party.
5°; bed

The brief prepared by the
ES: Communist party points
out:

“The total impact of the act

is such that if the organization
registers, it destroys itself and
jeopardizes the livelihood of
its members. If a member. reg-
isters, he destroys himself. On
the other hand, if there is no

registration, the organization,
-its officers and members are
subject to severe criminal

penalties which cumulate for
each day of non-registration. A
registration order,
affords an illusory choice be-
tween suicide by registration
or government execution for
non- -registration.”

But this is not all. The act
declares that any organization
which does not deviate” from
the Communist party’s position
on any -question is considered
to be a “Communist-front”
organization. '

Such bodies must label ‘their
mail and literature with a
stamp “Communist-front”’
a U.S. version of the yellow arm-
bands which Jews were forced
to wear in medieval and Hitler-

SENATOR JOE McCARTHY

ite® times. Members of such
“front” organizations could not
get jobs in any industry con-
nected with defense,
covers a wide area of economic
life. They could not get pass-
ports; in fact, merely applying
for a passport would be con-
sidered a crime.

The category of “front or-
ganizations” has been expanded
by the Communist Control Act,
passed. a year ago August, to
include a “Communist-Infiltra-
ted” organization as coming
under the control of the Sub-
versive Activities Control Board.

This means that any group of.

which it can be said that it has
Communists within it — and
who is a Communist is decided
by ,the board — would be. sub-
ject to similar penalties.

Recently, U.S.  Attorney-
General Herbert Brownell un-
dertook action against the In-
ternational Union of Mine, Mill
and Smelter Workers, an in-
dependent union of 90,000
miners, engaged in a big strike
at that time. The future of this
union therefore hangs on the
Supreme Court’s decision, too.

To quote the Communist
party’s brief:

“The impact of the act as a
whole upon American liberties
is greater than its separate’ in-
vasions of constitutional rights.
In the totality of its provisions,
the act has no legislative
counterpart in our history.

“The act imposes an unparal-
leled regimentation of speech,
press, and assembly. It estab-
lishes a pervasive censorship of
all dissenting opinion. It sup-
presses voluntary association
and collective activity for con-
stitutionally-protected objec-
tives. It denies individuals
their livelihood and otherwise
punishes them for innocent as-
sociation. It prohibits foreign
travel and penalizes communi-

therefore,

* been

which

cation abroad for lawful pur-
poses. In the name of anti-
communism, it is an enabling
act for the establishment of a
totalitarian state.”

In addition to the miners’
union, many other bodies are
waiting for the Supreme Court’s
decision.

The progressive youth orga-
nization, known as the. Labor
Youth League, and the‘ Jeffer-
son School of Social Science, a
Marxist educational group,
have already had hearings: and
-adjudged ‘“Communist-
fronts.” The court’s decision will
be vital to them.

About a dozen other groups,
ranging from a union of old-
aged citizens in the state of
Washington to the National
Council of American-Soviet
Friendship, are now in the stage
of preliminary _ hearings.

Both the Communist party’s

brief and the separate pleas of
other: groups make the point
that the McCarran Act was
passed during a period of hy-
steria whose premise was the
imminence or inevitability of a
third world war.

Although the “wholesale
sacrifice of civil liberties’ was
never justified, it certainly
loses any meaning after the
Geneva conference. The court
is asked to. throw out the act
on the grounds that it is in-
compatible with the peaceful
co-existence of the two systems.

As the brief says:

“In a period of competitive
co-existence, Oo government
which infringes the
mental liberties of its citizens
can hope to win respect and
confidence of other peoples...”

The court is faced with its
momentous decision at a moment
when a certain relaxation of
tension is taking place within
USS. life.

The worst and most glaring
cases of “guilt by association”
are being exposed. Every day,
newspapers report instances in
which sailors were denied com-
missions, or government em-
ployees were suspended from
their jobs without explanation
because their mothers may have
been Communists, or because
they listened to music in some-
one’s home, said to be a Com-
munist by some unnamed source.

These cases have aroused
much discussion and indigna-
tion. But will this trend con-
tinue? As Claude Julien point-
ed out in the French paper Le
Monde on July 28, the juridical
basis of McCarthyism remains
intact so long as laws like the
Smith Act and the McCarran
Act have not been scrapped.

Here lies the great impor-
tance of the court’s next decision.
No doubt, the struggle over
this vital issue will be followed
by friends of peace and well-
wishers of U.S. democracy in
all parts of the world.

ATTORNEY-GEN. BROWNELL

funda- -

By JACK BURKE

Shortcut to electric —
power from atom sought

used only in units requirins — ;
less than a-~ millionth

This. would not
evel

Jone | a

tae nuclear energy to

electricity in one stage is
a startling thought. But is it
possible ?

If we search through the
background of this fascina-
ting topic, the trail leads us
quite near the very first dis-
covery of radioactivity.

For it was back in 1900
that the great pioneers of
radiation research, Pierre
and Marie Curie, published a
scientific paper on the elec-
tric charges of the rays om
radium.

And Lord Kelvin had found
electrical effects three years
earlier, but had not thought
them a possible source of
power.

' Yet all the. large-scale
schemes for getting power
from ‘nuclear energy are
based on working through
several stages. Power from

~

the “atomic pile” is obtained —

as heat. The heat is carried
away by a fluid to the boiler.

From this stage on, the
method of getting , the power
into our homes is quite con-
ventional.’

High-pressure steam from
the boiler drives turbines..
which drive dynamos...
which generate electricity...
and so through the distribu-
tion network into our homes.

*Unfortunately, the ‘“one-
step” conversion processes
that seem at all promising
can produce only tiny
amounts of power.
they can only be used for
“sleaning” energy from
radioactive waste, not direc-
tly from the pile.

What effects do they use?

Some of the rays that
‘come from radioactive sour-
ces carry electrical charges.
For example, the so-called
alpha rays carry positive
charges, those called beta
rays have negative ones..

It is tempting simply to
try to collect these charges
and use the electricity. Yet
for technical reasons devices
based on this idea can ES

This is Britain’s first experimental
power station at Calder Hall.
turbine house—unnecessary if electricity can be obt
direct from the atom in large quantities.

watt.

So far.

atomic
The large building is

you: far in supplying
100-watt lamp, let 2

ate

of 2

take ‘

.

“one unit” — 1,000-watt —

electric firebar.

Other rays have no ele
Both these Bl

cal charge.

ctri-

the charged rays cap

their energy convert
heat, and this again conver

to electricity in one
_ Here a thermocouPp
vides the clue.

welded
metals which can b

ted
stage

le ee
Engin!
will be familiar with

junction of
y e made ¢ to |

two

give electric signals when *

is heated.

But the most promisiné

method is based
interesting materia
“semi-conductors.”

can’ convert many type>
ordina

rays. — including
light—into electricity-
form the basis of SO
atomic batteries and
batteries.

The best material
type found so far is

Yet even with this only
lionths of an ampere °
rent can be obtained

of : this i

cons

aca
cur: fal Fae

‘and

en

the best efficiency f0F ‘nas ae
conversion of energy

been 3 percent.

So although a number.

of

research | organizations j tS

working on it, the P
are not getting very

The
are costly, the batterie
careful shielding,
are of low efficiency:

this stage there are 0?
few limited technical

for these batteries,
only tiny quantities of
are needed. ‘
There is certainly 2
be gained in going from
of either kind direc
electricity.
But until ther

and

roj

otopes A

ioactive is vf
radioa i need 3

So eg i
nly 2

Jot a
tly

e are entirely

in
new developments. ead unde

work, the apparently 7
about way of

ge eneratin£

electricity will remain ie a

most useful.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — SEPTEMBER 30, 1955 —

ae

anda