Letter vs. Spirit

No sooner had the Supreme Court upheld the Smith Act last Monday than Attorney General Mc-Grath and his assistant Irving H. Saypol began crowing over "forthcoming action" and the "sad day for conspirators." But before letting loose the hounds, federal and state enforcement agencies would do well to read over the concurring reports of Justices Jackson and Frankfurter and the dissents of Justices Black and Douglas.

Since the Smith Act is now a legal fact, Justice Frankfurter's opinion is most to the point:

"In finding that Congress has acted within its power, a judge does not remotely imply that he favors the implications that lie beneath the legal issues."

One such implication of the Court's decision is that it may encourage many national, state, and local legislators to conjure up subversive control of bills of their own such as the Maryland Ober Law and its pending Massachusetts imitation. Another is that administrators may use it to bludgeon criticism and unpopular beliefs into silence, thus resurrecting the witch-hunt of the '20's complete with its smear and arbitrary methods. And yet another implication is that this act and its effects may become permanent even after the present tide of pressure, passion, and fear has receded.

There is a great difference between an act's legality and its wisdom, a gap which many may choose to ignore. But if law enforcers wish to remain within the spirit of the Supreme Court's ruling as well as its letter, they will consider the Smith Act as law, not license.