We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
COMMUNISM IN MOTION-PICTURE INDUSTRY 1715 stitution gives you that pivilege, but it never was the intention of the lawmakers of this land to require anybody to take advantage of it. It is put there for their protection but not for their shelter against an accusation that doesn't incriminate them, and when a man says that to answer a question would tend to incriminate him, when, in fact, it wouldn't, he speaks falsely. Dr. Schoen. I think you are implying certain things which you have no right to imply in relation Mr. AVood. Namely, what? Dr. Schoen (continuing). To my testimony. Mr. Wood. Just name one of them. Dr. Schoen. When a witness used the fifth amendment to the Constitution, I believe that there is no implication that may be drawn from the use of this fifth amendment. I am not an attorney. How- ever, I believe I know this much, and I refer you to my counsel for further discussion of that. Mr. "Wood. Let's put a page right down there and see if there isn't. When a man says to answer a question would incriminate him but that he is not guilty of the charge or accusation or implication involved in the question, then he is either guilty of one or two things: If, in fact, to answer the question truthfully would not incriminate him, then his statement that it would is false. Now, there isn't any escape from that conclusion. If I say that to answer a question whether or not I am a member of the Baptist Church would incriminate me, I obviously speak falsely; but, if I am not a member of the Baptist Church, to say that I am not a member of it certainly would not in any way or de- gree incriminate me. You have been asked whether or not you are a member of the Communist Party. If you are not a member of that party, then the correct answer would be that you are not and, certainly, no incriminating implications can be involved there, but when you say that to answer it would tend to incriminate you, and follow that up with an insinuation that you are not a member of it, is just simply plain double talk. Dr. Schoen. Mr. Wood, I think you are misinterpreting the Con- stitution of the United States. I have stated that an answer might tend to incriminate me. Mr. Wood. I understood what you said. Dr. Schoen. As I understand the law, you have no right to draw any implication whatsoever from that. However, since I am not a lawyer, I do refer you to my counsel for this discussion. It is a kind of legal discussion. However, I do believe that you have mis- interpreted the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Wood. Well, to answer the question of whether you are a Com- munist or not would incriminate you or it wouldn't. If you say it would incriminate you, it leaves one conclusion in my mind and in the mind of every other fair-minded person within sound of your voice. Now, if. in fact, you are not a member of it, then your statement that it would tend to incriminate you isn't a true statement. Mr. Margolis. Mr. Wood, you have asked a legal question. May I comment on it? Mr. Wood. I don't care to be involved tn any legal discussion with counsel. Mr. Margolis. That is what it has been up to this point with a layman. 81595—51—pt. 5 G