Kamin Lawyers Move for Acquittal As Prosecution Rests Contempt Case

The prosecution rested its case in the trial of Leon J. Kamin '48 for contempt of Congress yesterday, and the defense immediately entered a motion for a judgment of acquittal by Judge Bailey Aldrich '28.

Kamin's lawyers said in a prepared document that the government's evidence had failed to prove that the questions Kamin had refused to answer before the Senate committee were authorized by law.

Judge Aldrich set 9:30 this morning for arguments on the motion. He asked the government to discuss two of the six counts in the indictment against Kamin, "on the assumption you have made out a case on the other four."

His statement leaves a definite possibility that, in ruling today, he will throw out some counts and reserve judgment until later on others.

Unless defense lawyers Calvin P. Bartlett and John L. Saltonstall, Jr. '38 are successful in upsetting all six counts of the indictments, however, they will proceed with their case Thursday morning.

The defense move followed the testimony of the prosecution's three final witnesses, Senators Everett M. Dirksen, Karl E. Mundt, and Charles E. Potter. They were asked about the procedures and aims of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's Investigations Subcommittee in its inquiry into subversion in defense establishments.

The three all emphasized that they attended none of the hearings on subversion held outside Washington, D.C., although they agreed in saying they had supported the investigation at a subcommittee meeting in "June of July" of 1953.

Few Records Kept

They knew of no records of the meeting, and said that few records were kept of subcommittee gatherings. They said investigations were often approved by "general agreement" or "lack of objections."

The defense motion for acquittal stated that the government had not presented sufficient evidence to prove the subcommittee's authority to investigate subversion and hold the January 1954 hearing at which Kamin testified.

It maintained that insufficient evidence existed as to the exact subject of inquiry and that even if it did, the committee did not have the power to compel answers to its questions.

The defense added, however, that if Judge Aldrich rules out these arguments, the law allowing the Senate to cite citizens for contempt is unconstitutional.