J. Edgar Hoover's statement on wire tapping by the FBI deserves examination. "In recent weeks," he said on Sunday, "there has been an increased circulation of in-accurate information and half-truths on wire tapping. Statements have been made which are so untrue and legally unsound that I am forced to conclude that they were motivated for the purpose of confusing the public . . ."

This assertion is astounding, coming as it does from a man whose agents have lately been caught in a bare-faced attempt to deceive a United States Court about their wiretapping activities. During the Washington trial of Judith Coplon for violation of the Espionage Act, her attorney tried to question FBI agents about wire-tapping but was silenced by Judge Albert Reeves after the Government attorney denounced the questions as "nonsense" and a "fishing expedition." In New York, Judge Sylvester Ryan has been conducting a pretrial hearing to determine if the Government's case against Miss Coplon and Valentin Gubitchev was based on information obtained by wiretapping--it having been disclosed that 30 FBI agents monitored the wires leading to the home of Miss Coplon's parents and 10 agents monitored the wires leading to the home of Mr. Gubitchev.

Judge Ryan has characterized the denials by FBI agents that they had any knowledge of wire tapping in connection with the Washington trial as evasions. He will have to find some stronger term to characterize FBI conduct in connection with the case before his own court. For an FBI memorandum has now been discovered recommending destruction of all wire-tap records (in view of the immency of her (Miss Coplon's) trial. Previously an FBI agent had testified under oath that the wire-tap records had been destroyed as a matter of routine. The destruction of these records, itself a violation of law, makes it very difficult, of course, for the defense to prove that the Government's case rested on wire-tap information. Could it have been this performance that Mr. Hoover had in mind when he spoke of "an increased circulation of inaccurate information and half-truths on wire-tapping?"

And what statements, we wonder, does Mr. Hoover have in mind that are "so untrue and legally unsound" that he is forced to conclude "they were motivated for the purpose of confusing the public?" Mr. Hoover's own statement asserts that "the FBI has less than 170 telephone taps in existence, confined to internal security cases throughout the entire United States and its possessions." The tapping of 170 telephones can involve the private conversations of a great many individuals who do not in the least imperil internal security. Moreover the Communications Act does not authorize the tapping of 170 telephones; it does not authorize the tapping of any telephones by anyone for any reason whatsoever.

The Department of Justice has asked Congress to amend the Communications Act in order to permit tapping of telephones in kidnapping and security cases, under authorization of the Attorney General. Congress has not granted the request. Unless and until it does, wire-tapping cannot legally be used as an aid to law enforcement. We consider it imperative at this time for Congress to inquire searchingly into the extent to which the law has been violated and the courts of the United States hoodwinked by a Federal agency. And we think the law should be made so clear that even Attorneys General can understand it. Editorial in the Washington Post, Jan. 17, 1950.