Keating: The Right to Answer

Representative Kenneth B. Keating (R-N.Y.) must have shocked many politicians last week when he announced that his committee would avoid character defamation. While his group, a House Judiciary Subcommittee, is relatively insignificant, the rules that it adopted point to the eventual return of prestige to all congressional investigating groups.

The new rules state that any man named in public session may submit a statement which the committee will include in its records. And unless a majority of the members are opposed, he may testify in his own behalf, cross-examine his accusers, and present his own witnesses. While these measures do slow down investigations somewhat, they benefit both the committee and its witnesses.

First, these rules automatically avoid the inquisition methods so prevalent in many investigations. The checks on most committees are loose enough to permit abuse of any witness' individual freedom. Under this system, many committees have become one-sided tribunals, constantly accusing, but giving their victims no chance to defend themselves. If the rules were tightened, much of this sensationalism would give way to honest investigation.

The second advantage would follow from this curb on unsubstantiated attack. If witnesses had an assured chance to answer charges publicly, many would be far less eager to seek refuge in the Fifth Amendment. This, in turn, would save committees from having to call fifty witnesses to get one page of useful information, and would help make up for the time lost in cross-examination.

Despite these advantages, however, many committees will be reluctant to accept this change. Irresponsible charges draw publicity and votes, leaving their victim unable to answer back. But the nominal purpose of investigating committees is ferreting out information, not attracting public acclaim. If investigating groups refuse to abandon their politically lucrative practices willingly, Congress should force these curbs on them. Keating's committee has proven, so far, that granting individuals the right of self-defense does not hinder investigations. A majority of both houses should make his standards binding on all similar groups.