PENTAGON PAPERS Newspaper awaits Court ruling

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32637, 19 June 1971, Page 17

PENTAGON PAPERS Newspaper awaits Court ruling

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter —Copyright)

NEW YORK, June 18.

The “New York Times” returns to court today to continue its historic dispute with the United States Government on the “Pentagon Papers”—a file of secret documents on the Vietnam war.

The newspaper last night handed United States attorneys a list of descriptive headings for portions of the 47volume Pentagon report that it has not yet published.

This came after the Justice Department had failed, in a Federal District Court, to obtain an order forcing the newspaper to turn the papers over to the Government for inspection; the judge’s decision was reserved.

The newspaper’s legal representatives and Government lawyers appear in court again today on a Government motion to prevent the newspaper from publishing further instalments of the Pentagon study, which traces the involvement of four Administrations in Indo-China. One of the Government’s basic contentions is that publication of the papers—three instalments were printed in the “New York Times” on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday —endangers national security and causes loss of faith overseas in United States foreign policy.

The Government, in a legal brief issued late last night, said that it had the right under the Freedom of Information Act to withhold the Defence Department’s documents, and that no private party could legally compel their disclosure. “It is clear that if the documents and materials in question were in the Government’s possession,” the brief said, "a private partv, such as the ‘New York Times’ could not lawfully compel their production.” The newspaper could not claim any greater right to these documents and ma-

terials because they are at present in its unlawful and unauthorised possession, it added.

The Government also argued the Court might grant an injunction even though it would prevent a newspaper from publishing information in its possession. It said that First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and the press were not absolute, and cited the

dictum of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, of the Supreme Court, who wrote, in a 1918 decision: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting “fire’ in a theatre and causing a panic.” The “New York Times” contends that a Court order last Tuesday restraining publication of the Vietnam volumes is a violation of the First Amendment, in that it abnegates freedom of the press.

As support for the newspaper continued to grow, attempts by reporters to trace Professor Daniel Ellsberg, a former Government employee who allegedly gave the papers to the “New York Times,” proved futile. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is investigating the affair, refused yesterday to comment on reports that Dr Ellsberg had been identified as the source. Dr Ellsberg is rumoured to have obtained the materia) from the Rand Corporation, a research organisation deeply involved in Government work. Call to Nixon Sixty-three members of Congress have asked the Nixon Administration to make public the Pentagon study. “Certainly the release of these documents, which are an essential part of the historical background of our present involvement in IndoChina, cannot in any way prejudice our national defence,” their statement said. The Senate Democratic leader (Senator Mansfield) pledged that there would be a Senate investigation of the secret papers, and House hearings on Government in- j formation policies. Senator Mansfield told re-, porters that it would not be a hunt for a scapegoat or an ! attempt to learn the source 1 of the documents. It would attempt rather he said, to put' before Congress and the; American people the details.

of United States involvement in Vietnam. He said that Senator Hubert Humphrey, who was Vice President during part of the period which the report covered, might be invited to testify. Press reaction The world press, from London to Hanoi, has overwhelmingly supported the publication of the secret documents.

The ’“'lardian” said, in part: “The events described are history. What is not yet history is the new knowledge about the Administration misleading the American people about what was being done in their names. If politicians and officials misled the public, they ought not to be able to hide behind a law, especially a law which was passed for another purpose—maintenance Of military security.” “The papers discredit more than Mr Johnson,” the “Sun,” London, said. “They discredit the whole war—the whole, bloody, savage scene. The same war that the Nixon Administration is still fighting.”