Security and civil rights; Joseph A. Fanelli, Jr., Leo Lightner, Paul Porter, William Rogers, and Leonard Boudine
As counsel for a lot of more this office has been housed and characterizing the whole procedure as want to political persecution that was the voice of Paul a porter one of the attorneys for the defense and the security loyalty cases involving all in the Tamar and Dr. John Peters. We'll hear from Mr. Porter and four other lawyers now and the views of lawyers in security loyalty cases. This is the 10th program in the series. Security and Civil Rights produced by the University of Minnesota radio station KUVO in under a grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National Association of educational broadcasters. And now here is the man who interviewed all of our guest attorneys today the producer of security and civil rights. Philip go. Ahead of the various groups and individuals that I encountered in compiling the interviews for this series. No group and no individual has
impressed me more than the lawyers the attorneys and the various security and loyally cases. First of all it calls for a very definite amount of courage to handle such a case. In many of these supposedly security risk hearings the lawyers themselves were often unfairly labeled simply for defending the individual involved. Secondly and not a single case did I encounter a lawyer receiving anywhere near the kind of fee that he might ordinarily receive for the amount of work that he put in on such a case. We must ask Ryan why do lawyers then become involved in these cases why do they take them. Why do various organizations enter the picture. This was the case in organizations ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Legion. In the interview which you are going to hear a portion of what you are going to hear I talk to
Mr. Leo Lightner and Mr. Joseph a finale Jr. who prepared a brief in the Peters case a security case for the engineers and scientists of America. And here now is first Mr. Lightener then Mr. Joseph finale as recorded in their law office in Washington D.C. telling us just what brings them into the security loyally picture from the lawyers point of view. First of all Mr. Lightener. And we had no knowledge of Dr. Peters personally and it might be said that we had no direct interest in the outcome of his case except insofar as it might resolve these apparent conflicts of concepts. The argument has been made in the security cases that these are not criminal in nature and that the criminal procedures do not apply. The fact remains that if a person is
charged with some type of offense and he is unable to put his finger on it as one of our groups once described it. If he asked years the soul searching approach of going back to his babyhood to try to find everything that he did he may still not come up with something that is considered significant in a secret closed file and he doesn't have access to. It's not important whether or not he ultimately is found to be a security risk or not the important thing is whether he has obtained a fair hearing or not. Still wasn't the case with Dr. Peters rather an unusual one do you think that's going to happen to anyone Mr. finale. To quote from the brief of the engineers and scientists of America in this case I think sums it up. It becomes more and more true that no one is so highly placed in America. For example Mr. Addison was so lonely placed in obscurity
for example Mrs. Morris used to be certain that his reputation would not be ruined and his livelihood prejudiced tomorrow by a legislative hearing or action lacking in due process. That was Mr Joseph a finale junior. The first voice you heard was Mr Leo Lightner the to our consuls for the organization of the engineers and scientists of America who prepared a brief in a security loyalty case you're going to hear more about and more from Mr finale later in this program. He has come up with what I think is the finest resume of just what specific civil rights are involved in this entire national security picture. But first there are some other attorneys that I interviewed in New York and Washington D.C. that I think you would like to hear from Mr. Leonard Wood Dean appeared before the United States Supreme court pleading against certain passport denials that arose out of security loyalty
charges. Mr Bean will give us some of his impressions as to why this entire issue is a vital one. Mr. Leonard do Dean. In my experience in the last 10 to 15 years in this field I consider the injury done to the individual much more serious to the individual psychologically much more serious than the danger of imprisonment or the payment of a fine. Because. What has happened is that we have adopted in the last 10 years in this political field a virtually to Kalahari in philosophy in which the individual turns out to be very unimportant. And what is important are the conceptions of state security and the effect on an individual in a society which has a. Proud a prop has has boasted the importance of protecting the individual is catastrophic. He got he suddenly fell into a
completely alien society in which he had an important and which he has faced by all kinds of vague threats by people who we can say and by charges he doesn't know. But one of the cases there to be an example of a speed of Peter's case in which he did not know was accusers. Yes here it is again as Harvey is a very good illustration of that point. Fessor Pete is. An eminent professor of medicine at Yale. Who in the interests of our government took an important consultation position with the federal public health and found suddenly that this position that he had taken and the interests of our government and with no benefit to himself subjected him to accusations of disloyalty based upon informants whose names were never revealed to United States authorities who took the
action against him. And Professor Peters for many years went through litigation for the purpose of clearing his name. And eventually I regret to say I kept a cowardly and his regret as well he won his case in the Supreme Court but this was a man of eminence in the profession who had as witnesses in his favor it were eminent people such as Chief Judge Clark of the United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit. And despite that kind of character testimony based upon personal equations the unknown concealed accusations of informers was held to overwhelm the case and to result in an original decision against him. I should say therefore that the putas case is extremely significant and the unfortunate part. This whole business of not being committed to face your accuser is that it moves from one area
to another. In the beginning the theory was that it was going to be applied only to that area of within the special jurisdiction of the federal government namely federal employees. Then it was moved into the field of private employment. So you have people in defense plants being denied jobs on the grounds of secret informants informants whose testimony has never been evaluated. Then it is moved into the passport field. And you have people like Rockwell Kent and Dr. work to Brill a prominent psychiatrist and was sound to us and many others who deny passports on the basis of the very charges which in turn are based upon the reports of people who may never have a chance to say that have a chance to cross-examine. And all of these rights of course tie in. With one another because you have indefinite charges because they are made by informants who can never be seen and therefore can be made to make the charges precise. And in one area after another we are having this combination of indefinite
charges and a denial of the right to face one's accuse. Just one other question what is a right to plead a case before the Supreme Court. Well. It is a very fun experience. It just has a qualitative difference because you are where you feel we you feel the tradition of a century and a half when you're there and you feel that while all judges do their best and all judges have and judges have varying degrees of ability you feel that this court is very well aware of its responsibilities and that it is not only a lower court but it's a court that is seriously considering the problems I had. And while the results are sometimes quite unfortunate you still are moved emotionally by this experience. That was Mr. Leonard Wood Dean in a New York attorney who pleaded several cases against
passport denial before the United States Supreme Court. Another attorney that I interviewed was Mr. Paul Porter of the for Arnold for his'n Porter in Washington D.C. many of you may remember Mr. Polly Porter as the director of the old P.A. during the Roosevelt administration. Mr. Pearl was one of the attorneys of the firm that defended Owen Lattimore one lot of more is an expert on the far east and a teacher at Johns Hopkins University in 1950 he was accused of being a top Soviet agent and a spy in all kinds of things. None of these charges could stand up upon investigation. Finally after 12 days of questioning before a United States Senate subcommittee certain discrepancies were found in Mr. Latimer's testimony and he was indicted on perjury. These are twice these indictments were brought to bear the first time the elements in which he was supposed to have perjured himself were found to be
quite irrelevant and immaterial and simply lapses of memory that added up to nothing. And the case of the second indictment however a charge was brought against Mr. Latham or which I think could be brought against any person in the United States and that is that at times he showed sympathy to communism and at times he stated things that seemed to follow the communist line as to what a charge like this might have meant if it had been substantiated and had gone to court and particularly if Mr Latham or had been convicted. I will leave it up to Mr Porter and Mr Rogers of the same firm to tell us here now is Paul a porter as interview in his law office in Washington D.C. Speaking of the second indictment which his office defended in the latter Moore case and said gently I don't think it's too incidental to mention that drought amours fees for an attorney would have gone well over a quarter of a million dollars as it was they cost him nothing. The firm of honor for us and Porter did not receive a fee for this case as many attorneys have not
received fees for cases in which they feel the issues must be clarified and justice must have its spokesman a knowledge record in Washington D.C. Mr. Polly Porter. We argue to the court. That this second indictment was worse than the first one. And by no stretch of the imagination could any defended bear for trial the United States has defined Dr Lattimer language or defined it in this indictment in a way which was plainly not concrete and in Frayser the do not give the words a certain meaning they found in this indictment what they claim a certain representative material of a lot of Moore's writings. But even if this represented material demonstrated that the government intended as a definition sells to put a lot of more to proof any number at any time parallel in a position on any social economic political military or diplomatic some good ever taken by any communist government organization or
person. We made an analysis of this indictment. And we took the position that this kind of material that the government put on trial. We challenged them to explain how such a case could be intelligently and thoroughly prepared. And we urged nothing less than the total recall of everyone Dr. Lanham words conversations writings and correspondence would be required before we could hope to work on it defines the indictment was literally that brought out in our break. We pointed out that. The in the period between 1945 and 40 secs which were the interlude between the end of the war and the beginning of the Cold War. A great many distinguished Americans believe that cooperation with Russia was going to be possible and was worth great efforts to achieve. Now Dr Lattimer never
even went that far. And among those who believe that cooperation was possible and the effort should be made. Why are the President and General Eisenhower who was quoted in the Antioch review in September of 45. So I. That late in 1945 he told a House committee after his trip to Moscow that he had reviewed a red square parade from atop Lenin's tomb and that nothing burning brush when I was in our guides Russian policy so much as a desire for friendship with the United States. Now those were his views. In 1945 as stated to a House committee so many house Dowson writing in The New York Times in February 40 secs said and I quote We must began at once a forthright search on a bipartisan basis for the specific policy is upon which we can expect a continuing friendly relationship with Russia. Somebody we cited a number of comments by the late secretary
James AF Barnes and others that expressed during that period the hope that front of friendly relations could be established with the Soviet Union. Now I cite just one of the purposes of establishing that I had a lot of more I made statements of that character. The United States or the district attorney would undoubtedly have insisted that that supported the broad generality of the second indictment. We considered the latter more case at the time we were working on it as a very important case not just in terms of its defense of Owen Lattimore But in terms of. Precedent for purposes of other possible proceedings that the government might have tried on the same line the lot of more case we think was unique. It was an attempt by the government to penalize a lot more for his past opinions. It employed a technique which we think could have been used against
almost anyone. The government would have been permitted at a trial to introduce testimony of almost any imaginable sort. Therefore we thought at the time and we still feel that had the government been permitted to go forward to trial in this case it would have thus gotten a judicial sanction for a technique of prosecution which it could have applied to you to me and to almost anyone. The last voice you heard was Mr. William Rogers. First Mr. Paul Porter. Both members of the law firm of Onil Fortas and Porter in Washington D.C. consuls in the latter more and Peters security loyally cases. Earlier I told you you were going to hear more from lawyer Joseph finale. Mr finale was the attorney in two of the more publicized security cases of recent years. One was the case of the so-called scientist X. another case in
which Mr finale was the console and which received extensive published any was the case of Mr Abraham Chasa now a family man suburbanite conservative 23 years in the same department. The Navy's a hydrographic office. Abraham Chasa now suddenly found himself fired in 1053 as a security risk. This was the case that was covered in Look magazine from a ten thousand nine hundred fifty five Look magazine States about Mr. finale quote in making inquiries among attorneys Chason I was directed to Joseph a finale an aggressive Harvard trained lawyer and former special assistant to the attorney general for Nellie had successfully defended several persons involved in the old Truman loyalty program finale enjoys interesting cases. He lowers his fee for them. I let the dollar cases pay for them he said with a grin. Unquote. Well with finale as consul Abraham Chason not only was cleared of all charges and reinstated in his old position but the Navy publicly apologized and called him an above
average loyal American citizen. I hope this gives you some idea about the coming guest authority as recorded now in Washington D.C.. Here is Attorney Joseph a finale and he will give an extensive summary of how a specific legal and civil rights become involved in a Security hearing. A properly enough for a series entitled security and civil rights I think this will show you how these two fundamental and essential aspects of our society come into conflict where they are joined and what the problem actually is. Attorney Joseph a finale as recorded in Washington D.C.. It is a well understood right of a fair hearing that the standards of the same be precise so that the governing boards are not put in a wood decision. Their own predilections and prejudices but the citing cases objective like the government's
security programs have standards that are vague. They run like such phrases as doubt as to loyalty or the present governing phrase clearly consistent with the security of the United States. Now you can get out of the state in just about what you put into them. There that fake another right in a hearing is that the charges base specific but in our security programs they are specific only in so far as security considerations permit. And so it's not unusual to have a charge to read for example quote information at hand shows that you have attended meetings and actively participated in subversive organizations and have close associations with known members of the Communist Party. Security considerations are usually held not to permit identification of these meetings as to time and place on the ground that this might supply information
which could lead to the identification of informants. Indeed it is not unusual for a security board to refuse to identify even the alleged subversive organizations on the same grounds. Now what this means in practical effect is how do you meet a charge that says that you were at undoes ignited meeting at a non designated time at an undesignated place in the past. Another charge I recall saying is one you have been more interested in than the average American has and racial problems. How do you mean that. Sometimes the very right made an accusation with with proof is unlimited and security for safety. And one case in which I was present at the hearing but ruled that the description of a person in a security charge as a
quote noncommunist to the government as a communist and if the government know what why don't you couldn't controverted by sworn denials and true showing that that person was currently employed in one of the regions. Government right to a fair hearing is the right to compel only attendance of evidence in your favor this is usually known as the subpoena power. There was no such right and security proceedings. I'm not a right in the Morgan case is the right to appeal to the people who are going to decide a case to reach them to have them listen to your argument or at least to read it in the brief. Here we have the following situation at security hearing boards are selected with considerable care and are protected by anonymity. But the decision rests in every case with the head of the agency concerned
a political officer responsive to misinform political and public pressure. Compare for example the handling of the county counting case cleared by a board dismissed in effect by a vice president and chairman of the responsibility. The head of the agency is is this charged with the opportunity to make an argument to him and to reach him. Although the security officer of the agency advises him on the disposition of a case. This pertains to one on a right of a fair hearing and itis not to have your opponent with a secret access making statements outside of the hearing to the man who is going to decide the case when you are not even permitted to be present on such occasions. There is a so-called right to counsel in any security proceeding but counsel is under the same disability that the employee has and which I have outlined.
It doesn't come from a right but as a practical thing. It's a tough thing financially for an employee to carry himself well in a six or eight months or more. It takes a security proceeding to and this is a deprivation of an early and reasonable decision which is a right of a fair hearing. All of these and because of public opinion engendered that we get. An eating away a corrosion about the rights of private employees are now or have been encouraged to fire them without even the facade of a hearing on some theory that they are subversive. Local time we had one here in Washington hold hearings to determine the political qualifications of a person who applies for renewal of the license to do so and second hand second hand pianos we have such a case
pending right here. So the very right to earn a living under our Constitution is prejudiced and cronyism the schoolrooms have discharged employees for claiming the first amendment a constitutional right on this just yesterday it was held at least by a state cannot constitutionally discharge an employee on the ground linking arms have been held to be bad by our constitution and they upped the graft case. But nevertheless many industries make frequent use of lawyer POS and the very right to free speech and expression of opinion is imputed. We have the spectacle not too long ago. A great controversy as to whether you could have a university debate on a touchy subject like recognition of Red China
by the force of public opinion not of the right to counsel is impeded before a legislative committee counsel are invited to make the test affirmations of their went away ulti. This is an impediment upon a right to counsel and I hardly disguised and and Tema definition it is a frequently stated that publicly that a person is a communist because he is represented by persons accused of being communist which is another inroad on the right to counsel and the by the cumulative effect of. The commotion of rights such as those I mentioned. One good decisions by legislative committees by security hearing boards by heads of agencies involving the rights of and positions and statuses of citizens of the United States decisions are too reminiscent
of an older doggerel one can't help thinking of it in this connection. Absolute evidence have I not but my own thoughts charwoman sisters heard a policeman on his beat tell a housemaid in Downing Street and so forth. That was Attorney Joseph finale as interviewed in his law office in Washington DC. Other lawyers heard on today's program included William Rogers Paul Porter Leo Lightner and Leonard Bernstein. These attorneys have one thing in common they have all handled some of our most famous security Lauralee cases. In fact all of them have handled cases which have gone to the Supreme Court of the United States. That was Philip Goldberg editor producer of the series security and civil rights. Next week we will hear an analysis of self-incrimination security and law as they exist in a democracy and in a dictatorship. Our guest authority will be Telford Taylor a former
- Security and civil rights
- Producing Organization
- University of Minnesota
- KUOM (Radio station : Minneapolis, Minn.)
- Contributing Organization
- University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
- AAPB ID
- Attorneys Joseph A. Fanelli, Jr.; Leo Lightner; Paul Porter; William Rogers; and Leonard Boudine discuss security cases involving Owen Lattimore and Dr. John P. Peters.
- Interviews on balancing national security interests with personal liberty. The series is moderated by Monrad Paulsen of Columbia University.
- Legislation--United States.
- Media type
Guest: Fanelli, Joseph A. (Joseph Anthony), 1911-1983
Guest: Lightner, Leo
Moderator: Paulsen, Monrad G.
Producer: Gelb, Philip
Producing Organization: University of Minnesota
Producing Organization: KUOM (Radio station : Minneapolis, Minn.)
Subject: Lattimore, Owen, 1900-1989
- AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 57-50-10 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
- Chicago: “Security and civil rights; Joseph A. Fanelli, Jr., Leo Lightner, Paul Porter, William Rogers, and Leonard Boudine ,” 1957-01-01, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed September 23, 2021, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-2f7jts0s.
- MLA: “Security and civil rights; Joseph A. Fanelli, Jr., Leo Lightner, Paul Porter, William Rogers, and Leonard Boudine .” 1957-01-01. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. September 23, 2021. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-2f7jts0s>.
- APA: Security and civil rights; Joseph A. Fanelli, Jr., Leo Lightner, Paul Porter, William Rogers, and Leonard Boudine . Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-2f7jts0s