enormous amount of time and advice to the set-up and the protections of the Foundation structure. One can hardly say that he exercised undue subversion in recommending that the Foundation render itself unable to participate in any type of political or partisan activity whatsoever and, further, that the Foundation in its by-laws render itself unable to be used by any group or individual for anv political or partisan issue whatsoever.

It is true that Mr. Snider refused to answer the Un-American Activities Committee under his immunities guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. As a leader in the court fights for the simple civil rights of the Mexican-American and Negro people as versus unwarranted police suppression in this city, it was inevitable that he would have been submitted to the question. His waiver of principle of oath could have been to betray, then, now and in future, his sacred role of counsellor and confidante, similar with lawyers to the sacred immunity of sanctity traditionally accorded to the confidences of ministers and in recent years to doctors and psychiatrists. How would you feel about placing your trust in a lawyer who had spilled his guts concerning himself, his friends, and his clients? Could you talk to a psychiatrist or to a minister who had had so little respect for his role as a community consellor as to jeopardize his right to hold privately his own opinions? This was the problem faced by Mr. Snider. Should he destroy by one word his value as a confidante and counsellor to those who had trusted him in the past, and those who needed to continue to do so?

Whatever the press innuendos may be at this invocation, all that Mr. Snider has done is to re-assert his pride and his faith in that most precious of American contributions to humanity: a man's right to the privacy of his own social conscience. He has simply requested his right to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond all possibility of a doubt, even as Mr. Shibley last summer requested that Dale Jennings, as a homosexual, be so considered innocent of permanent lewdness by the jury until unmistakably proven otherwise. Our American principle specifically prohibits that any person attempt to be the keeper or the judge of his neighbor's conscience. By the same token, each person has the right to criticize, to resist, and to condemn, a neighbor's social conscience when the content of that conscience intrudes aggressively upon his own. But the Un-American activity to be restrained and guarded against is the intrustion, not the quality or the substance of the content.

The Foundation, in a modest way, constitutes itself a guardian of the homosexual minority's right to keep its own counsel and social conscience. To do this, the Foundation must deliberately oppose the present status quo policy of our National Administration concerning homosexuals, as contained in the unrefuted indictment. In order to guarantee that it will be able to do this, the

page 11