EDITORIAL

Standards of moral decency and social responsibility are being flouted so often and so flagrantly these days by various public figures that the very foundations of our American way of life are threatened. Like termites these insidious operations are carried on unseen, well hidden underneath great pretenses of virtue outraged. Unless infringements on Constitutional government are vigorously opposed by the better elements of society we may well find ourselves sinking down into the quicksands of those double standards of public behavior we so deplore in some other countries.

By way of illustration, under a Washington dateline Representative Patrick Hillings (Rep), California, is quoted as warning that the "Los Angeles metropolitan area is in danger of becoming the smut capital of the nation unless Federal and state postal laws are strengthened. Hillings based his warning on a statement by Los Angeles Postmaster Otto K. Oleson." The name Oleson will ring a bell for readers of ONE.

It was further urged that, "the Postmaster General should be given authority to impound material at the office of mailing until a hearing can be held under the Administrative Procedures Act on questionable matters submitted to the general council for ruling as to mailability." Are we to understand that they now wish to legalize what was done anyhow to ONE Magazine in August, 1953? That issue was impounded by the postoffice and for some time before we forced its release.

Incidentally, who would decide which are “questionable matters"? If there is any essential difference between this proposal and censorships on the Communist pattern Representative Hillings should make this clear. A further point needing clarification is how it comes about that American courts of law no longer are considered competent to protect the public and that we must have decisions handed down by some "general council." We should never forget that it is by subterfuge, by posing evil as being good, that anti-American forces seek to whittle away our rights and freedoms.

The bland insolence of a public employee like Oleson, his salary paid by taxpayers such as you and I, calling for pre-judgment of the mailability of printed material-something the courts have rejected over and over again as completely contrary to basic American legal principles -is almost beyond belief in its lack of moral responsibility. Even less defensible is the conduct of an elected representative of the people in dignifying such conduct by presenting it for Congressional consideration. Perhaps it is that being "against smut" is always popular and voteworthy.

It can be agreed that being "against smut" is entirely praiseworthy, but first we must find out what smut is. Would it not seem that of all possible candidates for deciding such a question Postmastar Oleson must surely be judged one of the least fit or competent? For it must be remembered that the highest court of our land UNAMIMOUSLY found (ONE vs Oleson) that Otto's judgements on pornography and obscenity were worthless, at least in that case.

one