Center for Labor Education & Research, University of Hawaii - West Oahu: Honolulu Record Digitization Project

Honolulu Record, Volume 9 No. 27, Thursday, January 31, 1957 p. 6

back  

Sacher Answered Eastland Committee Questions Found Guilty Anyhow

In upholding the conviction of attorney Harry Sacher for contempt of the Senate Internal Security, subcommittee, the (Circuit Court of Appeals which heard his case in Washington unfairly stated the facts of the case, declares I. F. Stone in the Jan. 14 issue of his Weekly.

Sacher was summoned by the Eastland subcommittee when it was making an investigation of Harvey Matusow, former professional witness who made a dramatic turnabout and claimed he repeatedly perjured himself as government informer. The government insists chat he told the truth then, but is lying now for the Communists and entered into a conspiracy with them to do so.

"The Court opinion," writes Stone, "failed to make clear that Sacher while declining on First Amendment grounds to answer questions about membership in the Communist Party, did deny under oath that he had any knowledge of, or had participated in, any such conspiracy.

"The omission blurred the Issue, which was: Having answered the questions pertinent to the Matusow investigation, was Sacher compelled to answer general questions about his political views and associations? But the court went beyond an unfair omission to a direct misstatement. The opinion says the Senate committee was Investigating 'reports linking appellant with this alleged conspiracy.

"But at the trial, Julien.Sour-wine, then counsel for the com-mittee, testified to the contrary. Sourwine's testimony in court like Sacher's before the committee was that Sacher knew nothing of the recantation until he received Matusow's affidavit. The decision admits that Sachor, as lawyer, for the Communists in the 'second echelon' Smith Act prosecution . . . had 'a right and a duty' to make use of Matusow's recantation for the benefit of his clients."

He did get a new trial for two of them on the grounds of Matusow's admitted perjury.

At no time did Sacher, as misstated in a Star-Bulletin editorial, use the Fifth Amendment in declining to answer the subcommittee's questions.

"History," writes I.F. [?] will see this whole affair as another incident in the political persecution of a brave lawyer. Unless he wins on appeal, Sacher goes to jail for six months. He has already served six months for contempt of court in the first Smith Act trials and was only saved from disbarment by a favorable Supreme Court decision."

p /> I do not say that at odd hours a patient must be given the regular hot dinner or supper. Few people would expect this.
 
But what is so complicated about opening and heating a can of soup, making some toast, or preparing instant coffee or tea? Why cannot a night nurse do these simple things after the kitchen to closed? Is it just too much trouble?

It is only common humanity to feed the hungry. If our hospitals are too big, too complex, too impersonal to do these small kindnesses for the sick, something is very wrong.