Evening star., 1949-09-23
Refusal Of Symington
To Testify Raises New
Questions on B-36
Air Force Chiefs Move
Blocks Cross-Exuminotion
In Naval Court Inquiry
By David Laurence

Another strange chapter in the
B-36 controversy is being written.
Now the Air Force Secretary,
hitherto quite vocal on the sub
ject. declines to testify before the
naval court Of inquiry.
This naval court. however, is
. court created by statute and
has the power Of subpoena and
can command the presence, as a
witness. Of anybody inside or out
side the Government. Yet the
Secretary Of the Air Force. Stuart
Symington, has declined to ap-
pear.
The Secretary Of the Navy has
the power not only to convene
and adjourn the court but to in
dicate the line Of questioning 1t
may adopt, though the latter
authority is rarely exercised. Now
that Mr.. symington has been re-
lieved Of the necessity of testi-
flying, and this naval court has
been prevented from getting
pertinent testimony. the whole
naval court idea will deteriorate.
Just why does the Secretary of
the Air Force decline to testify
and Just what testimony is being
sought from him by the naval
court?
Prior Probe Recalled.
The episode starts with a recent
investigation by the House Armed
Services Committee. Mr.. Syming-
ton testified that he knew who
wrote the so-called anonymous
memorandum and he intimated
that q "series Of individual"
wrote it. He was not asked to
name the authors. Mr.. Symington
also told the House committee
that the Air Force had made an
investigation Of the source Of the
attacks on the B-36. but the
House committee has never re-
leased q copy Of the report placed
before it by the Secretary Of the
Air Force.
Mr.. Symington now says that
the chairman Of the House Armed
Services Committee, Representa-
tive Carl Vinson, Democrat Of
Georgia. doesn't want him to
testify on the Air Force investi-
cation report. This is strange,
indeed, because Mr.. Vinson was
quoted when the committee re-
cessed recently as having said
that there were plenty Of persons
In the Navy involved and as. In
effect. challenging the Navy to
60 ahead and pursue the inquiry,
which 1t promptly did.
During the naval courts sessions,
Cedric Worth has testified that
he alone was the author and he has
contradicted the testimony given
by various persons who claimed
the memorandum was "anony-
NOUS" Mr.. Worth says he person.
ally delivered the memorandum
to various members Of Congress
before the House committees in
vestigation was ordered, and that
he told them plainly he was the
author and that the document
was not Anonymous" but was
submitted at the request Of q
member Of Congress. |
Mr.. Symington. In refusing to
testify before the naval court.
says:
ANY testimony that I might
give the court could well have the
appearance Of entering into an
inter-service controversy. since
I. IS Secretary Of the Air Force.
would be testifying on matters
concerning the internal affairs Of
the Navy Department"
The same solicitude was absent,
however. when the Secretary of
the Air Force testified before the
House Armed Services Committee,
whose hearings certainly had more
than an appearance" of entering
into an inter-service controversy.
Has Right to Know.
The naval court Of inquiry,
moreover, has . right to know
how and why the Air Force in
vestigated q sister service, using
detectives or inspectors to get evi-
dence which was then submitted
to . congressional committee. It
would appear that If the pro-
prieties had been carefully OBJ
served. the Secretary of the Air
Force should have asked the Sec
retary Of the Navy to conduct the
inquiry as to the alleged activities
of naval personnel against the
Air Force. Likewise. as q recip-
rocal courtesy. the Secretary Of
the Navy might well have asked
the Secretary Of the Air Force to
investigate the attacks made In
print on the Navy by Air Force
officers. Testimony to this effect
was placed in the record Of the
House Armed Services Committee,
but nothing was done about it.
Indeed, there was really very
1{ttfe eross. ntnation nv the