ARMY-McCARTHY DISPUTE

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27444, 2 September 1954, Page 11

ARMY-McCARTHY DISPUTE

Differing Reports On Inquiry

(N.Z. Press Association —Copyright) (Rec. 10 p.m.) WASHINGTON, September 1. Republican members of the Senate Investigating Sub-committee, which inquired into the clash between Senator Joseph McCarthy and the Army, reported tonight that the Senator exercised no improper influence on behalf on Private G. David Schine, a former subcommittee consultant. But three Democratic members of the committee said Senator McCarthy deserved “severe criticism.” The Army had charged that Senator McCarthy and Mr Roy Cohn, chief counsel io the sub-committee, sought preferential treatment for Private Schine, a friend of Mr Cohn’s. Senator McCarthy counter-charged that the Army held Private Schine as a hostage to prevent an investigation of the Army by the sub-committee. Mr Cohn, who has since resigned his post, said tonight: “It is now apparent that anyone who associates himself with the cause of exposing atheistic Communist infiltration has to contend not only with the smears of Communists but with partisan politics as well.”

The Republican report said that Senator McCarthy should have exercised more vigorous control over his staff. It held that Mr Cohn was “unduly aggressive and persistent” in seeking preferential treatment for Private Schine. Mr Cohn’s official post, along with the fact that he was directing an investigation of alleged subversion in the Army Signal Corps, lent “an aspect of impropriety” to his activities on behalf of Private Sbhine, the report said. The Democrats’ minority report said that Senator McCarthy "fully acquiesced in and condoned” what it described as Mr Cohn’s “improper actions” on behalf of Private Schine. Their report held that both Senator McCarthy and Mr Cohn merited severe criticism for their “inexcusable actions.”

As for Mr Robert Stevens, the Secretary of the Army, the Democrats said that he “pursued a course of appeasement” in the Schine affair in an effort “to placate” Senator McCarthy. “It is clear to us that Mr Cohn persistently sought, with Mr Schine’s acquiescence, and without restraint from Senator McCarthy, some means by which Mr Schine could avoid basic training ©nd the routine assignments of an inductee in the United States Army,” said the Democrats’ report. It also said Senator McCarthy “may have* violated the law in receiving and making use” of a two and a quarter page summary of a secret F. 8.1. report on the dangers of Communist espionage at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Senator McCarthy had said he got the document from an Army intelligence source, but the Army said it did not believe that it was the source.

The four Republican senators said that whether “serious contradictions” in the testimony were “evidence of wilful perjury” would have to be decided by the Department of Justice. The Republicans made these four main findings:. (1) That the charge qf “exercising improper influence on the part of Senator McCarthy on behalf of Private Schine was not established in so far as the personal involvement of Senator McCarthy in any effort unduly or, improperly to- influence the determination Of the pentagon decisions was concerned. 0 But Senator McCarthy “should, however/ have exercised more vigorous discipline in stopping any member of his staff from engaging in unduly persistent or aggressive effort on behalf of Private Schine.” (2) Testimony and evidence “refute” the charges against Mr Frank Carr, staff director of the investigating subcommittee. (3) Mr Cohn was "unduly aggressive and persistent in the contacts he made with various individuals in the executive departments in regard to his friend and associate, Mr Schine.” Mr Cohn “consumed an inordinate amount of committee time in his efforts to be helpful to Mr Schine,” the Republicans found. * But they dismissed charges that the McCarthy Committee’s investigation of alleged Communists at Fort Monmouth, was “designed or conducted as a leverage to secure preferential treatment” for Private Schine. The Republicans noted: “The whole period of associations during •which the activities resulting in the allegation of ‘improper influence’ transpired, was permeated with luncheons, dinner, theatre parties, prize fights, privileges of an exclusive New York city club, photographs, invitations to the home of Mr Schine and other social amenities.”

(4) The Republicans found that “the evidence reasonably inspires the belief that Mr Stevens and Mr Adams made efforts to terminate or influence the investigation and hearings at Fort Monmouth/’

The “motives” of Mr Stevens, the majority said, “were beyond reproach, but ... he followed a course of placation, appeasement, and vaccilation throughout the period leading up to. this controversy when he should have asserted himself by protesting against such, action promptly to the committee or by terminating such contacts through Administrative action.”