Show Attorneys Ask High Court to Define Spying Shying in Appeals for Pair WASHINGTON Dec Dee 19 AThe p- p 1 The supreme court was ask asked d. d Thursday to define what constitutes constitutes constitutes spying The question arose in arguments on litigation to determine who is subject to punishment under federal federal federal fed fed- eral laws An authoritative construction of the 1917 espionage act was sought by attorneys for two men convicted of ot obtaining information information information tion from United States naval In Intelligence intelligence in- in files The two were Hafis Hafts Salich Russian-born Russian naturalized American American Ameri Ameri- can employed by naval Intelligence at San Pedro Cal and Mikhail Nicholas Gorin a soviet citizen working for a Los Angeles tourist tourist tourist tour tour- company Salich was alleged to have supplied supplied supplied sup sup- plied Gorin data from naval Intelligence intelligence intelligence intel Intel- files in 1938 concerning Japanese activities for use in event of trouble between Japan and Russia The justice department contended contend contend- ed in its brief that anyone who obtained or revealed secret information information information mation of a military nature with witha a conscious desire or with a reasonable reasonable reasonable rea rea- expectation of causing Injury in injury injury In- In jury to the United States or advantage ad ad- vantage antage to a foreign nation was guilty of violating the espionage act Espionage and counter espi counterespionage obviously lie at the heart of our national defense the brief added It is self evident that Japanese Japanese Japanese Jap Jap- anese espionage and American espionage counter-espionage are connected with or related to the national defense under any ordinary or usual interpretation of those words Counsel for the defendants contended contended contended con con- tended tended that the information revealed revealed revealed re re- re- re was Innocuous and that if the statute were interpreted to J apply to It the legislation would f t I be unconstitutional |