General Reservation of Commissioners Cotton, McCulloch, Stennis, and Walter Many of the recommendations of the Commission will require enactment of legislation by the Congress. We shall avail ourselves of any further information and exercise independent judgment when we again pass upon these recommendations as Members of the Congress of the United States. Statement of Chairman Wright As chairman of the Commission, I have been privileged to hold a position in the central flow of the materials considered and in constant contact with the processes of our work. Having enjoyed this unique opportunity for observation, I am constrained to offer a comment by way of supplementation in this closing chapter of the report. The opinions expressed, which could not have been included appropriately elsewhere, are my own, and not necessarily those of my associates of the Commission. My first purpose is to commend my fellow Commissioners for their tireless and objective dedication to our task. There could be no more eloquent testimonial to the best of American traditions than their devoted service, given at great personal sacrifice, in the effort to protect both the national security and individual rights. To observe the impressive accomplishments of the entire staff and to witness the unselfish response of the citizens called upon for aid in our endeavor has been heartening. The experience proves fully the wisdom of the Congress in making use of commissions of this kind for study of its legislative programs. For the citizen from private life, an opportunity for objective study of the work of the legislative branch in the vital field of protecting national security is both instructive and reassuring. As an American who has reviewed the reports of various congressional committees and who has been privileged to examine the Government files, I am convinced that the investigative function of the Congress is both constructive and essential, and that on the whole the function has been discharged with fairness by sincere men seeking to meet a difficult responsibility. And I am grateful and proud that the Congress, despite the emotional stress of total war and uneasy peace, has proved able to enact legislation that in the main preserves without encroachment the principles of individual liberty and government by law. The completion of the Commission's work does not bring to an end the need for continuing study of the demands of national security. The challenge which confronts the Nation is ever changing. In the short 18 months of the Commission's life, the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union revealed a shift in conspiratorial strategy, raising new problems to be coped with. Recently, developments have made it clear that Mexico has become the unwilling center of Communist activity on this continent, imposing new burdens upon the American authorities who patrol the difficult terrain of this frontier, and suggesting the need for congressional consideration of additional safeguards. Judicial decisions rendered during the past year have required modification of the security programs, and apparently similar changes can be anticipated for the future. Both the legal profession and an informed citizenry have found cause for concern in the judicial delays that have left in doubt many of the basic issues of the security system. Prosecutions under the Smith Act and the proceeding to declare the character of the Communist Party have been deferred. The logjam seems to be attributable to several causes. First, as recently noted by Justices Frankfurter and Harlan, the Supreme Court has appeared to direct its energies toward the disposition of "insignificant cases," thereby "doing injustice to the significant and important cases on the calendar. . . .”1 A second cause of uncertainty on these critical questions is the apparent tendency of certain lower courts, both district courts and courts of appeals, to allow cases involving the security laws to lie dormant on the calendar pending clarification by the Supreme Court. Under our judicial system, the proper concern of these lower courts is rather to assist the upper court by wellreasoned decision than to build a good record of affirmance and reversal. The maxim that "justice delayed is justice denied" is no less true in the field of security. When the Government is a litigant, the interests not only of the particular defendant but of all 170 million Americans are involved. Every defendant, even a Communist, is entitled to a fair and impartial trial. In these cases it is well to remember that often the defendant has by his own actions brought about his plight. He is certainly entitled to no more consideration than the 170 million parties litigant whom he seeks to subvert. Delays not premised upon necessity, appropriate extensions of time, or the principle that unnecessary constitutional questions should not be passed upon, inevitably impair the effective protection of the Nation. It is not easy for the Attorney General, charged with representing the interests of the people, to make his case after delays of 3 or 4 years. In the face of these obstacles, the Department of Justice's Internal Security Division has done a commendable job. As this is written to meet a publication deadline, confusion has been compounded by the decision of Jencks v. United States. When we are striving to survive the insidious attacks of the Kremlin seeking to destroy our government of law, it is disheartening that "blind justice" is unnecessarily blinded to realism. I respectfully urge the Congress that if we are to keep pace with our enemies who seek to infiltrate our Nation to subvert us, immediate legislation must be passed to negative the grave consequences that will flow from this confusing decision. Such problems of security will command careful attention in the future. Continued study of the workings of the program will be imperative, and deserved criticism should be encouraged. But baseless, carping censure can 1 Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 U. S. 521, at 546 (1957). U. S. Supreme Court, June 3, 1957. The staff of the Commission, after hours of study, could not reach an accord either as to the legal consequences or probable effect of this decision. |