Evening star., 1943-07-11

VI hlnderIng Plans u
Avert Hawaiian Attack
BY the Associated Press.
The special House committee In
yestigating the Federal Communities
tions Commission made public yes
terday. criticism from a naval officer
of FEC Chairman James L. Fly for
prewar opposition to wire-tapping
and to banning Japanese language
broadcasts in sHawaii--two moves,
the officer added, which might have
prevented the Rearl Harbor disas-
ter.
The criticism was contained in a
memorandum prepared by Rear Ad-
miral Stanford C. Hooper, now re-
tired, in May, 1912, while he was q
naval intelligence executive. Ad-
miral Hooper was setting forth rea-,
sons why he believed Mr. Fly should
not be chairman of the Defense
(now war; Communications Board.
The House, Committee release
said the memorandum was submitted
to Secretary of the Navy Knox, but
did not say whether or not Mr.. Knox
approved it. It. was placed in the
record by Eugene L. Carey, commit
tee counsel, at the direction of
Chairman Cox.
Wire-Tapping Power Asked.
(Authority to tap communica-
tions wires In conducting defense
Investigations was asked by Rob-
ert H. Jackson, then Attorney
General, in January, l941, but
was not approved by Congress
until after the attack on Pearl
Harbor) .,
Admiral Hooper was one of
group of Army and Navy officers
whom the committee proposed to
call as witnesses. Both service
departments notified the committee
Friday that President Roosevelt had
ruled 1t would be against the pub
lis interest" for the officers to testify,
and hence they would not be per-
mitted to appear
How the committee came into
possession OF Admiral Hooper's men,
orandum was not disclosed.
"The functioning of the Defense
Communications Commission .
has been unsatisfactory" to the
Navy Department Ito the extent
that it believes the successful prose-
cution OF the war is being jeopar-
died thereby" the memorandum
read.
Fly Attacks Committee.
Mr.. Fly issued a statement saying
"the documents made public yes
terday are but irresponsible charges
which the Cox Committee has hand
ed out in bid for publicity"
Mr.. Fly said he would plead guilty
to opposing the extension of mo-
nopolies and to believing the CIO
and the AFL are patriotic, and
added:
"As to the rest of the charges
collected by the committees staff
in star chamber sessions, the public
should know that they are utterly
without foundation"
Admiral Hooper made Is charges.
Among them were:
The FEC "has refused to turn
over its file Of f1ngerprints and
confidential information bearing on
the loyalty of commercial communi-
cations companies to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, without re-
Strlctions which would render the
work of the latter agency ineffec-
tive"
Fly Exposes Ignorance" e.
Mr.. Fly has frequently taken 1t
upon himself to speak for national
defense, thereby exposing his ig-
norance OF the subject" and has
shown that his primary interest
is in keeping the support of the
CIO communications union, which
has constantly opposed our inter-
ests. and not national defense"
Mr.. Fly has devoted too much of
the time and energy" of the FEC
ito trust-busting. to the detriment
of its other duties" and has op-
posed legislation permitting wire
tapping which would have permit
ted checking of the telephone to
Japan before Pearl Harbor, and
might have prevented the disaster"
MI. Fly opposed stopping Japa-
nese language broadcasts In Hawaii,
a factor which led to the disaster"
of Pearl Harbor. and has consist
emily opposed any move to assure
the loyalty of personnel in COM
munications."
Mr.. Carey also made public a
document entitled "A Resume Made
by the War Department" of Admiral
Hooper's statements, asserting that
'in a great number of examples
Admiral Hooper is correct. and tes-
timony under oath by any others
connected with these matters can
only substantiate his story"
Mr.. Fly subsequently issued a
statement quoting the Secretary Of
Wars Office as saying that, the
resume consisted merely of notes
made in May by an Army officer to
whom the Navy loaned copy of
Admiral Hooper's testimony. The
notes do not express the view of the
War Department, but merely this
officers own comment. They were
not furnished by any officer in the
Army or anyone in the War Depart