Page 2
University Daily Kansan Wednesday, April 21, 1954
Pro and Con on Legalization of Wiretapping A Step in the Right Direction An Infringement on Rights
The bill to legalize wiretapping evidence in national security cases is a step in the right direction. Heretofore, evidence obtained in such a manner was inadmissible in court.
A House vote of 378 to 10 sent the legislation — something of a compromise—to the Senate two weeks ago. The bill provides that federal courts must give their permission before wireset evidence can be used in future cases.
This Democratic-sponsored provision was a disappointment to the administration, which had asked that discretion be left entirely to Attorney General Herbert Brownell Jr.
However, the bill has a retroactive clause, under which Mr. Brownell could use wiretap evidence already in FBI files in trying to convict subversives.
Lawmakers said this would permit the government to reopen such cases as that of Judith Coplon, former Government girl convicted of espionage. Her conviction was reversed on grounds that wiretap evidence was used in violation of the law.
Sen. Patrick McCarran (D-Nev.), the ranking minority member, is the author of a bill which would be the most restrictive than the present law.
Members of the Senate Judiciary committee, which will handle the legislation, appeared widely divided.
Sen. McCarran's bill would outlaw wiretapping except in national security cases. It thus would prevent law-enforcement agents from tapping wires to track down criminals such as kidnapers.
Under the McCarran measure law-enforcement officers could not tap wires to break cases. The bill also continues the present ban against use of wiretap evidence in trials.
Sen. Alexander Wiley (R-Wis), chairman of a subcommittee which will hold hearings on various wiretap proposals, said he expects his mit can agree on some legislation. arguments said the issue faces long arguments in longer debate on the Senate floor.
Sen. James Eastland (D-Miss.), a judicial committeeman, said he favors legislation such as the House passed "in principle" but predicted it will be controversial.
Sen. Wayne Morse (I-Ore.)—who holds the Senate record on fill-busters, said "I am opposed to all wrietap bills. Now is the time to stand up against police-state methods."
The bill would seem like a sensible compromise between giving the attorney general too much power and not enough. A question of constitutionality has been raised, however, and the Senate's legal lights should satisfy themselves on that before giving final approval to the bill.
The House-approved version permits use of wiretap evidence now on file for the prosecution of espionage and similar-type cases—but, for the future, it permits wiretapping only under a federal court order if such evidence is to be administered. This appears here a sound safeguard against future abuse, and yet does not bar the door to trial of past culprits against whom conclusive wiretap evidence is already in the files.
Administration spokesmen, however, have raised the constitutional question of whether a proper distinction can be made between cases of wires tapped prior to the enactment of this bill and those tapped afterward.
Rep. Kenneth Keating (R-N.Y.) who handled the bill for the administration, observed, "I hate to give those prospective defendants anything more to hang their hats on in legal proceedings than they already have."
Spies or traitors shouldn't go scot-free while the evidence to convict them languishes in FBI files.
But if it is the fear of legal challenge that causes concern, the retroactive feature itself probably will provoke litigations, with or without the attempt to tie strings to the use of such evidence in the future.
We feel, that while the legislation is progressive, it hasn't gone far enough. The legislation should be expanded to include not only national security cases, but all forms of litigation, both civil and criminal. It would be a great help to our law enforcement agencies.
Law officers already do tap wires for "leads" which may develop evidence that will be admissible in courts. Under the present system, these officers don't need permission from anybody.
If wiretapping were legalized to include all phases of law enforcement, it might be construed as an invasion of the right of privacy. Tapping a wire is a process similar to search of a man's premises, except that it is done without the knowledge of the suspect. If law enforcement agents can show cause, a court can issue a search warrant. In a similar manner, the court could authorize the "greater invasion of privacy" involved in wiretapping. We can't see that wiretapping would be "abused" any more than the search warrant is. -Tom Shannon
Moot Court will meet next week. The next logical question is: so what?
The proposed bill to legalize wired-tapping evidence in national security cases is a move toward a dangerous infringment on the rights of the American people as citizens of a "free" country.
The main reason being presented for the legalization of wiretapping and allowing it to be used as evidence in "national security" cases is that it will facilitate the capture and prosecution of Communist agents and Communist sympathizers who "may" be dangerous to our security.
But would this actually help in the catching of Communists? We hardly think so. In the first place, there are probably not many subversives who use the telephone to transact business at the present time since they know that government agents do tap the wires if they are suspected, even if the evidence cannot be used in court.
In the second place, if Communist agents and subversives KNEW that their wires could be tapped and the recording used in court, they certainly wouldn't use the telephone for any business of an incriminating nature. Wiretapping in national security cases is merely getting at the surface effects of subversion, not at the basic causes.
The bill before Congress at the present time has a clause in it that would make wiretapping evidence retroactive and allow the FBI to go back into its files and bring up old cases—cases that have been dead for years—and prosecute them with the wiretapping evidence.
In a few cases this might be beneficial to the government and the people as a whole, but in many cases the FBI would drag "skeletons" out of the closet and prosecute one-time sympathizers who are now useful American citizens.
The passing of ex post facto laws is prohibited in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution. The retroactive clause in the proposed wiretapping bill would make it an ex post facto law.
If this bill is passed and is allowed to stand by the Supreme court, what happens next?
Would our law-making bodies then be allowed to pass ex post facto
wars in other fields? If this happens every person had better review his past and see if each new law is going to "get" him.
In a companion editorial today, Tom Shannon compares the legalizing of wiretapping and the issuing of warrants for its use with the issuing of search warrants.
In many respects this comparison is valid, but there is one big difference. When a search warrant is issued the person whom it is against knows that he is being searched.
A warrant allowing the government of any police organization to tap a person's telephone would not be made known to that individual He would have no knowledge of such a warrant until it was thrown in his face in a court room.
One of the most serious considerations that comes up in connection with the wiretapping bill is: "Where does it lead?"
Would this be a democratic way of doing things? We hardly think so.
Not just "where does wiretapping lead," but where does the use of such tactics against private citizens lead ultimately?
There is no place in a democracy for police state methods, and spying in secret on private citizens certainly approaches this level. One of the big dangers inherent in a campaign to seek out subversives in a government is that those running the campaign will go too far.
A logical followup to legal wire-tapping would be allowing the law to use evidence from concealed microphones. If this were to happen, there would be no such thing as privacy.
The end of privacy, as we know it, would be the end of democracy, as we know it.
Do we want government by democracy or government by fear? It is a question well worth giving serious consideration. —Don Tice
"Why run anybody unless they can win honestly?" was a question posed a thin, bespectacled individual at ballot counting last night and strangely enough, he had no answer.
... At the above mentioned place
—after about 10 p.m.—counters were
unneasily eyeing their hats and
coats. Why? Nearly everything else
was being stolen. . .
Oregon State Frats Face First Housemother 'Fun'
Oregon State fraternity men prepare to accept housemothers for the first time; a petroleum engineer at West Virginia has cleaned up on a model oil derrick, and deferred rushing for fraternities comes up at Cornell—the highlights across the campuses.
OREGON STATE COLLEGE — Housemothers are about to be installed in all fraternity houses. According to the Dean of Men, this will help restore leadership in the fraternities to the pre-war level. Most of the men resent this infringement on their independence, and claim it will destroy the leadership which is encouraged by a self-governing group. Some claim they no longer need a mother to look after them.
Others insist that the presence of a housemother would not improve their manners, their morals, or their grades, and that the added expenses would be too great for their budget. Some of the people who violently oppose the ruling, sincerely believe that housemothers would be a good thing for their fraternity.
What they really fear is that this is only the beginning of a long line of rules to alter the fraternity system. . men's closing hours, for instance.
The outfit is complete with drilling, fishing, and casing tools, and casing. He has made about $4,000 from rental on the model oil derrick, which has been on display in 38 states in the U.S. and in Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Canada. He built the model in his basement and couldn't get it out
WEST VIRGINIA—A petroleum research engineer at the University has spent 2,000 hours building a model oil derrick on a one inch-to-one-foot scale, including the rig bolts.
until he had removed the basement steps.
CORNELL—The decision of the Faculty Committee on Student Activities this week will have important bearing on deferred rushing for fraternities—one of the many important and most perplexing questions debated on the campus for many years. The plan is to defer rushing for one semester, or better still, for one year.
It is considered a very valuable experience to live as a freshman for one term, before choosing whether or not fraternity life is better, and if so, which particular fraternity is best for the individual.
TEXAS A&M—A world-wide Aggie Muster will be held on Texas Independence day, April 21, paying tribute to those Texans who gave their all for independence and those Texas A&M college men who have died within the year. The parent Muster on the campus is expected to be held before 5,000 persons.
HIGHLANDS UNIVERSITY, N. MEX.-Enrollment for the spring quarter shows an 8 per cent increase over that a year ago. Recent improvements in the school include work on the new boys' dormitory, plans for a botanical garden, and developments in the chemistry and biology departments. The educational program has recently been praised by the State Finance board.
Valera Tebben
One Woman's Opinion
Ah, cometh the much lauded season, spring. Cometh the poems, the ballads, the birds, etc.
Concurrently, cometh beer cans littering the lanes, the waste paper (from popcicles, candy bars, midseemesters) lounging up the campus.
Spring seems to be the season for picknicking—all day long. As a consequence, walks, drives, lawns, flower beds, get quite messy.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, everything has its compensation. To really get a bang out of the beauty of our indisputably beautiful campus in spring, we'll have to keep it uncluttered with refuse. The rewards would seem to be worth the effort.
But while many of the students involved in the above mentioned programs received wide—and just—recognition for their work, others are doing worthwhile things all the time, sans the glimmer of popular approval and publicity. Religious organizations work faithfully (no pun) week in and week out to provide meeting places for students and carry on good works of all kinds. Other groups work beaverishly, too. The list is too numerous to elaborate.
Much student time was dedicated to last week's Relays and engineering Exposition. The old saw that "students won't take responsibility" got quite a beating. We should all be proud, it seems to us, of the fine projects that students do initiate and carry out.
Service to the University and to others is to be admired wherever it exists. On our campus, it exists pretty nearly everywhere. We should be glad we have the opportunity for such to be true—and glad 'hat it is true. Doncha think?
Back 't' spring again. Statistics tell us that this is the season for untofthets. It's odd how, at certain times of the year, some things seem to be more prevalent than others. At any rate, a judicious individual will watch his car now that it hatches and coat are put away in meathats.
To be a University student is not to be immune from occupational diseases. Ours is exhaustion. Beef tanners may have anthrax (or whatever it is) and miners may acquire tuberculosis—as Dr. Ise tells us in his Good Book—but nobody knows the troubles we've seen. We know that all the professors from whom we take classes confer weekly on the best time to simultaneously give quizzes, assignments, et al. And we know that each assignment entails five times as much time as there is in the day.
And we know that professors seem to ignore the fact that all work and no play makes you-know-who what. Persecuted, that's what we are. Persecuted! And darn fired.
A fervent editorial plea for comments on a think piece concerning student criticisms of plays brings us no response. Won't somebody please comment. Woncha, huh???
-Letty Lemon
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas Student Newspaper News Room KU 251    Ad Room KU 378
Member of the Kansas Press Ass. National Editor Assm. Inland Daily Press Assm. Newspaper Assm. Represented by the National Advertising Service, 420 Madison Avenue, N.Y. City. Represented by the National Advertising Service, 420 Madison Avenue, N.Y. City. Represents $4.80 a year (unless he is semester if in Lawrence). Published in Lawrence. Kan., every afternoon during the University of Kansas university holidays and examination periods. Entered second class matter Sept. 17, 1910 at Lawrence, Kan. Post Office under act
EDITORIAL. STAFF
Editorial editor  Dion Tice
Assistants  Letty Lemon.
NEWS STAFF
Executive editor Tom Stewart
Managing editors Tom Shannon,
Sam Teaford, Ken
Evonson, Sun Hamilton
Elizabeth Welch
Sports editor Dana Leibmann
Society editor Karen Hilmer
Assistant Nancy Neville
News adviser C. M. Packett
BUSINESS STAFF.
Business mgr. Ann Ainsworth
Advertising mgr. Susanne Berry
Nat. adv. mgr. Rodney Davis
Classified adv. mgr. Edmond Bartlett
Circulation mgr. Wendell Sullivan
Adv. adviser Gene Bratton