Evening star., 1936-03-03
HAGOOD QUARREL
MAY SPUR REFORM
Q
Proceedure Change Could
Free Officers Tongues,
= Yet Temper Result.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

Hagood's testimony comes q con-
structive solution of the problem OF
getting the truth about conditions In
the Army without stepping on the toes
of Army bureaucrats bent on conceal
ing said truth, then maybe the fuss
made over the present episode will
not have been entirely futile.
For it is just such turn of events
that may be looked for. First Of all,
there seems little doubt that the en-
tire affair originated in the War De-
partment and that the responsibility
for what has happened is very largely
to be placed on the War Department.
In fairness to President Roosevelt.
1t ought to be stated that nowhere is
there any proof of the charge made
that he started the controversy out
of resentment over Gen. Hagoods
comments.
Mr.. Roosevelt Of course, approved
the War Department action which
recommended disciplinary action, but
it is a safe assumption that he did
not know all the facts when he acted,
for the simple reason that all the
data on the case have been dribbling
out of Capitol Hill in pieces and only
now can a coherent synopsis Of the
case be made.
Correction Not Forthcoming.
It appears that Gen. Hagood testi-
fed before the House Subcommittee
on Appropriations on December II of
received and replied to a letter from
REPRESENTATIVE Parks asking him to
correct his testimony. He did not do
se.s. This was mistake No. for Gen.
-Hagood.
Then early in February Gen. Ha-
good learned that his superior officers
In the War Department were dis
pleased with what he had said and
he promptly wired to the House COM
mittee and asked that his testimony
be eliminated. This was the correct
course.
=, But the message was dated February
2, by which time several copies of the
printed hearings had gotten out. The
House subcommittee declined to stop
the rest of the distribution. This
was a mistake on the part of the
House subcommittee.
"a. About February 10 the newpapers
learned of the testimony and the War
Department undoubtedly heard from
the w. P. A. concerning it. Then
came the recommendation by Gen.
Craig, chief of staff of the United
States Army, that Gen. Hagood be
disciplined The Secretary of War
and the President approved the rec
ommendation.
4-" Stirs Up Protests.
Since then members of the House
H led by Representative Blanton Of
Texas, and members of the Senate, in
icluding Senators Byrnes and Smith
,of South Carolina, have been writing
1.-THE President ana the War Depart
"inent pointing out that Gen. Hagood
was treated unfairly. Indeed. the
statement has been made that the tes-
timony of the House committee was
altered by members of the committee,
ner that some of the members ques-
sitions were suppressed so that the
"ntinted hearings gave an impression
that Gen. Hagood, on his own initia-
tive, said some of the critical things
which he said only in response to per-
sistent questions by the committee.
From the foregoing it would seem
that the members of the House sub
committee have done Gen. Hagood an
injustice. This aspect is being brought
to the attention of President Roose-
welt and it would not be surprising
to find the President, after further
inquiry. reversing the, whole business
and restoring Gen. Hagood to his
command. To do this might seem to
reflect on Gen. Craig, who acted, of
course, on the facts as submitted to
him.
Cure Possible.
How can such episodes be prevent
ed? It would seem possible for the
War Department to have rule that
all testimony furnished by members
of the staff to congressional commit
tees should be sent in duplicate to
the witnesses and to the War Depart
ment for perusal If any testimony
violates Army regulations, the respon-
sibility for censoring it would be
clearly where it belongs-on the War
Department itself. Otherwise in
stances will occur wherein an Army
officer tries to satisfy the require
ments of legislative committee but
finds himself punished for doing his
duty before another branch of the
Government. If members of Congress
object to the limitation of testimony
by the War Department, clearly the
responsibility would then be on Con-
gress. The Army officer who said.
anything indiscreet could then hardly
be held to accountability for it any
more than the disclosure of private
conversation between an Army officer
and his friends discussing current
problems in the civilian branch of
the Government could Justly be made
the basis for disciplinary action.