Evening star., 1944-12-01
Mr.. LittelI's Dismissal

BY summarily dismissing Norman
Littell from the Office of Assistant
Attorney General, the President has
solved one problem arising out of
the clash between Mr.. Littell and his
superior, Attorney General Biddle.
The question in this respect was
an administrative one. Both men
obviously could not remain in the
department, and the President had
to choose between supporting or
repudiating his cabinet member, Mr..
Biddle The decision was to support
the Attorney General, and from the
administrative standpoint there can
be no quarrel with that. Apparently
Mr.. Roosevelt acted on something
of misconception, since he said
that Mr.. Littell had volunteered a
long statement, thus substantiating
what the Attorney General had said
about his characterization. The fact
seems to be that Mr. Littell did not
volunteer anything, but did submit
a statement to the Mead committee
of the Senate at the committees
request, which statement subse-
quently was made public by the
committee. This is secondary
matter, however, and does not go
to the heart of the question, for
the President undoubtedly had
ample power to dismiss Mr.. Littell
for a good reason, a poor reason or
no reason at all.
What is important, and what re-
mains unsettled by the action taken,
is whether Mr.. Littell was correct
in charging that the Attorney Gen.
eral had interfered in condemna-
ton proceeding in behalf of Thomas
G. Corcoran, former White House
adviser, whose interest in the matter
apparently was that of lawyer and
contact man" Mr. Littell says that
the Attorney General wanted to set
tie the condemnation case against
the Savannah Shipyards Company
before the Government had even
completed its appraisalS of the value
of the property Mr.. Corcoran, he
charges, also wanted settlement
and had appealed to Mr.. Biddle to
that end through his law associates,
William J. Dempsey and William C.
Koplovitz. Mr.. Littell gives the time
and place of several alleged attempts
to bring pressure to bear on him in
behalf of the objective sought by Mr..
Corcoran. On one occasion, he says,
the Attorney General personally told
him that he would like to settle the
case in view of his past relationships
with opposing counsel
If these charges are true they are
indicative of condition within the
Department of Justice which may
not be consistent with either good
government or the proper protection
of the public interest. The President
evidently made no independent
effort to ascertain their truth or
falsity. And Mr.. Biddle merely says
that he will not discuss Mr.. Littell's
reckless and unfounded statements"
This is form of blanket denial
which may or may not be taken as a
refutation of the specific accusations
made by Mr.. Littell. 1t will not
diSsipate the suspicion, however, that
there is some fire behind the smoke
which has been coming out of the
Department of Justice, and it seems
clearly desirable that the proper
congressional committee should look
into the matter. II Mr.. Corcoran
or any one else can obtain special
favors at the Department Of Justice
in behalf of private clients, the
country has right to know what
the favors are and why they are
being dispensed