On the Left

ON THE LEFT…CBR

Judicial. The decision of Chief Judge Henry W. Edgerton and Judge David I. Bazelon of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the case of John T. Watkins, uncommunicative ex-Communist, threatens to cripple the activity of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. Their ruling holds that the investigatory power of Congress “cannot be used to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid legislative purpose.” Edgerton’s rulings have a special history. In the case of Dr. Edward K. Barsky before the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1948, he entered a minority opinion against the majority ruling that “Congress has power to make inquiry of an individual which may elicit the answer that the witness is a believer in communism or a member of the Communist Party.” Today Edgerton is Chief Judge of the same court. Incidentally the attorneys for Watkins were Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., and Daniel H. Pollitt (who was once law clerk for Henry W. Edgerton).

Featured Tags

ON THE LEFT…CBR

Judicial. The decision of Chief Judge Henry W. Edgerton and Judge David I. Bazelon of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the case of John T. Watkins, uncommunicative ex-Communist, threatens to cripple the activity of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. Their ruling holds that the investigatory power of Congress “cannot be used to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid legislative purpose.” Edgerton’s rulings have a special history. In the case of Dr. Edward K. Barsky before the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1948, he entered a minority opinion against the majority ruling that “Congress has power to make inquiry of an individual which may elicit the answer that the witness is a believer in communism or a member of the Communist Party.” Today Edgerton is Chief Judge of the same court. Incidentally the attorneys for Watkins were Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., and Daniel H. Pollitt (who was once law clerk for Henry W. Edgerton).