Martin, who in turn were thought by some to be involved with the British deviate defectors Burgess and McLean.

At the same time the FBI was investigating certain employees at Huntsville, Ala., rocket center for "serious character defects' according to the House Space Committee.

CIA was taking a beating for its alleged part in the U-2 and Cuba fiascos while still another super secret agency the Defense Intelligence Agency got as director a former FBI man, Air Force Lt. Gen. Joseph F. Carroll. And so goes the U.S. budget these days, a dollar here, a dollar there.

Like a breath of fresh air after all such cloak-and-dagger stuff is a quote on liberty from the above Supreme Court decision, "The ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the state tends to destroy the entire system of constitutional restraints on which the liberties of the people rest."

HOW MANY CRIMES IN THY NAME!

It would be well for arrogant police, court and federal officials at all levels to consider carefully the implications of the Court's finding that "Having once recognized that the right to privacy embodied in the 4th Amendment is enforceable against the states, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore, constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise... revocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the name of law enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its enjoyment.'

Could this just possibly suggest that the right to privacy is so absolute in terms of our Constitution as to allow homosexuals full protection from harassment in their own homes at all times? Could this possibly mean that no police officer, or dis-

Cone

trict attorney, or court has any right whatever in any way even to interrogate an individual as to his private conduct or of his guests in the privacy of his own home?

Could it even mean the shocking idea that homosexuals have the Constitutional right to refuse to answer any questions concerning this privacy, whether employed in civil service, defense industry or public school teaching or elsewhere, and even if the questions are put to them by persons on public payroll who claim most exalted official status?

Surely, the Supreme Court appears to be telling us that in United States the individual citizen is supreme under law, by virtue of that very Constitution from which the powers of our government alone are derived; that it matters not whether it be the CIA, the FBI, a petty and thieving Denver cop or whoever else, it is "the entire system of constitutional restraints on which the liberties of the people

rest.'

Let every reader of ONE, homosexual or heterosexual, note that the Supreme Court here makes no distinctions as to classes of citizens. Homosexuals who continue to think of themselves in terms of secondclass citizenship are therefore without excuse. This seems to be the lesson of 1961 from Washington.

ON AND BEYOND

Her hair clipped short and wearing men's clothes, a girl appeared in a London court the 19th of August with her hands in her trouser pockets. A Prison After Care Assn. officer told the court that the girl regarded herself as the father of a baby born to another girl with whom she had fallen in love in Holloway Prison.

The officer told the judge that the

12