TIME magazine last week became involved in Vice President Spiro Agnew's legal battle to stop the Baltimore grand jury's hearing of evidence against him. This is our position in the matter:

Eight weeks ago, after it became known that the Vice President was under investigation for alleged criminal offenses while he was Governor of Maryland, TIME and other publications printed stories about the nature and seriousness of the charges. As we indicated in our stories, the information came from officials in the Justice Department and from other sources. The Vice President argues that these reports are bound to prejudice the grand jury and deprive him of a fair hearing. U.S. District Judge Walter E. Hoffman has authorized Mr. Agnew's lawyers to subpoena newsmen in order to find out who was responsible for the leaks. Members of TIME's staff, along with other journalists, have been served with such subpoenas.

TIME believes that in the circumstances, it was entirely legitimate and in the public interest to print information about this momentous and unprecedented affair. We know well that the public's right to be informed can conflict, or appear to conflict, with the right of the accused to make his defense in an impartial atmosphere and before an impartial jury (although legal scholars are by no means certain that leaks necessarily prejudice a defendant's case). This difficult problem is explored in this week's Nation section.

It may or may not be necessary for Mr. Agnew or the Justice Department to find out who was responsible for the leaks. In the attempt to identify those responsible, the newsmen under subpoena may be pressed to reveal their confidential sources. If so, we will resist. We take it for granted that journalists, like all other citizens, have a duty to uphold the law. But we also believe that a reporter should not be required to disclose confidential sources except in the most compelling circumstances, such as imminent danger of loss of life, or if the reporter had essential information on a violent crime or on a matter of overriding danger to the national security. None of those factors apply in the present situation.

The reporter's right to keep his sources confidential is not a luxury; it is an absolute necessity without which free and vigorous inquiry would be impossible. And such inquiry in turn is not a privilege "enjoyed" by the press but an essential part of the American system. In most cases when the press uses confidential sources, the revelations concern large institutions--the Government, the military, business--in which individuals usually would not dare speak out without the protection of anonymity.

In his charge to the grand jury, Judge Hoffman spoke of a "perpetual conflict" between the news media and the courts that, in his view, must soon be resolved. We feel that this conflict--to the extent that it exists--should not be pushed to a confrontation, which is neither necessary nor desirable. Judge Hoffman also observed that he has found that "the news media frequently are wholly or partially inaccurate." This statement is alarmingly broad and imprecise. It would be just as easy, and no more significant, for us to reply: Members of the legal profession, or of the Government, are frequently wrong. The American press has exceptionally high standards of accuracy and honesty. Certainly in covering--and uncovering--Watergate it has been overwhelmingly accurate.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.