Evening star., 1950-03-10
House Armed Forces
Unit Faces Problem
On Witness 'ReprisaI'
Committeeman Hold Law
May Have Been Broken
By Removal of DenfeId
By David Laurence

mittee has quite problem now ir
determining how to protect its
witnesses from punishment fol
giving testimony. The Fedora
criminal statutes forbid it, anc
10 members of the committee have
united in request that the de-
partment consider prosecution o1
the Secretary of the Navy for hav.
ing removed Admiral Denfeld as
a "reprisal" for testimony he gave
last October at the invitation o1
the committee.
The most important piece oi
evidence which hitherto has not
been made public concerns a docu-
ment filed with the House com
mittee just before it issued its
statement pronouncing the re-
moval to be an act of reprisal.
This document was transmitted
to the Senate Armed Services
Committee on February 9, with
the request that it be made avail
able to the House Armed Services
Committee. From members of the
House committee comes the infor-
nation that the document cor
roborates the view taken by the
10 members who believe the Fed
eral law may have been broken.
The document comprises testi-
mony sent by Admiral Denfeld to
the Senate committee in reply to
statements made by Secretary
Matthews on January 80 before
that Committee.
Letter From Denfeld.
The letter from Admiral Denfeld
says:
Because this is the first oppor-
tunitv that I will have had to
pre~ot my views to the Senate
Al | Services Committee on the
Gil Instances surrounding my re-
moval as Chief of Naval Opera
tions on October 27, 1949, I desire
to comment briefly in this letter,
and more extensively in the in
closed memorandum, on the Sc
quence of events which led up to
said removal.
Prior to october 13, 1949, which
was the day I testified before the
House Armed Services Committee
there was an intimacy and cor
dlality between the Secretary of
the Navy and myself which sup
ports my conviction that what hap
pened after October 13 was the
direct result of my testimony.
II have been in the naval serv-
ice for 40 years. I could testify
only to that which, in my honest
judgment, appeared to be facts
relating to an efficient and eff
fective Navy. Under the unifica-
ton law. the Chief of Naval Oper-
ations, along with the other mem
bers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Is specifically charged with the
duty Of giving military advice to
the Secretary of the Navy, or to
the Secretary of Defense, or to
the President of the United States.
I would have been derelict in my
duty in testifying before a con-
gressional committee had I al
tered my convictions to suit the
expediencieS of the moment.
There are in the record which
you sent me many contradictions
and inaccurate observations, re-
vealing, I regret to say, the un-
familiarity of the Secretary of
the Navy with the simplest pro-
cedures of the Office of the Chief
OF Naval Operations.
Real Point Beclouded."
But all these minor circum-
stances have been magnifed out
OF all proportion with the result
that the real point in this case
is beclouded, namely, that I was
punished for having expressed my
honest convictions before a COM
mittee of the Congress of the
United States.
Stripping this question of all
extraneous matter and circum-
stances, the issue still remains:
Was I or was not removed from
Office for my testimony before
the House Armed Services Com
mittee? Knowing intimately as
do the circumstances surround
ing this sequence of events, I am
willing to testify before your
committee under oath that I was
never given any intimation by the
Secretary of the Navy or by any
one else that my services as Chief
of Naval Operations would be
terminated, until the day an an
nouncement to that effect was
made in the press, namely, Octo-
Der 27. On the contrary, when
through no culpability of any one
in my office, the Began letter dis
cussing unif1cation policies was
released for publication, the Sec
retary Of the Navy told me that,
much as he regretted the incident
he had weathered worse storms
than this before and that he and
I working together would weather
this one. This, I may point out
was on October 4 and prior to my
testimony of October 13.
"My career as an active naval
officer is ended. What happens tc
me is of no great significance, but
the decision on the two funda-
mental issues raised by my re-
moval are vital to the security o1
the United States. These issue,
are whether the views expressed
before the House Armed Services
Committee on national security
are sound, and second, whether
or not an officer in the armed
services can testify to the truth
as he sees it without fear o.
reprisal."
Reproduction Rights Reserved)