Evening star., 1936-02-26
HAGO0D INCIDENT
HELDBROAD|S ISSUE
Opportunity for Officers to
Talk to Congress Is
Proposed.
BIZ DAVID LAWRENCE.

; tempest In q teapot, but none which
is quite so complicated as the case
: OF Maj. Gen. Hagood, who tndis-
!. creetly referred to w. p. A. funds as
"stage money" because, be said, that
"you pass it around but you cannot
get anything out Of 1t In the end"
The general wasn't testifying be-
fore a public meeting. but a private
session of the House Subcommittee on
Appropriations. Except for a few
sentences his lengthy testimony Of
December II last was all proper and
pertinent to the matter under dis
cussion. Undoubtedly the general felt
the sense of privacy of a closed COM
-mittee room and didn't realize that
three months later reporters would
examine the printed record and Sc
lect what they thought would make
Interesting reading.
To-day Gen. Hagood, who incident
ally has a remarkable war record,
doesn't know officially whether when
he was relieved of his command a
year ahead of retirement, it was a
routine" matter or whether he was
being punished for his indiscreet COM
ments on administration policy. Moth
ing officially has come from the War
. Department admitting that the re-
I moval Of Gen. Hagood from the Eighth
Corps Area was in any way related
to his testimony, but unofficial re-
ports are that the action was direct
consequence Of President Roosevelt's
displeasure.
Might Have Made Changes.
Now no Army officer is supposed to
make speeches or public comments on
politics or even public policies of a
controversial nature. But what is
the obligation of general of the
Army when he is testifying at the
invitation of committee of Con-
gress? He is assured, of course. that
he may talk freely. Gen. Hagood has
characteristic way Of punctuating
his remarks with dramatic phrases.
He probably would have deleted some
of his indiscreet comments had he
realized it when he was given an op-
portunity to revise the transcript OF
his testimony. Unfortunately it was
printed and made public without his
doing so.
Every now and then members Of
Congress are permitted to revise the
speeches they make on the floor Of
the House or Senate, as the case may
be. Witnesses before the committees
are permitted frequently, especially
If they testify by invitation and not
subpoena, to eliminate what they
do not wish to have printed in the
permanent record.
Something Had to Be Done.
But when the testimony is made
public and the War Department is
confronted with the fact that high
ranking officer makes what seems to
be gratuitious remarks about the COM
nlander In chief of the Army, can it
ignore the action? What would the
rank and file of the military service
think about it? Something obviously
had to be done. What were the
courses open to the administration? !?
For one thing, letters might have
been exchanged in which Gen. Ha-
good would express regret that his
off-hand remarks were taken as a
reflection on administration policy
and in effect apologizing to the Sec
retary of War. This might have
been adequate from some standpoints,
but would it have carried as much
weight in military circles?
Congress has begun to debate the
episode because there are many men,
bers who feel kindly toward Gen.
Hagood and who are sorry that the
act of testifying before a congress
sional committee should now subject
other officers to fear of punishment.
There's broad issue involved Now,
for instance, can Democratic govern
ment be carried on if the legislative
branch of the Government on so i'm
portant matter as national defense
Is prevented from getting testimony
that will aid it in shaping public
policy affecting the wise or unwise
expenditure of many hundreds of mill
Lions of dollars a year?
Inc principle that an Army or
Navy officer must be free from in
timidation of any kind when testi-
flying before a legislative committee
Is an important one to the future con-
duct OF appropriation committee hear
ings. The War and Navy Depart
ments may well make q rule, Of
course. forbidding their officers to
seek opportunities to testify before
Congress or to do anything in the
nature Of lobbying, but when they are
invited by the committees there
ought to be assurance not only that
officers can speak freely, but that
indiscreet remarks will be called to
their attention SO they can be omitted
from the published record. In this
way the amenities can be preserved
and the legislative body can be given
the data it needs on which to legislate.
Copyright. 1936.)