Evening star., 1951-12-08
A Tough Nut to Crack

There is no easy answer to the basic question
raised by criticism of the King committee for
publicly receiving Abraham Teitebaum's tax
scandal testimony.
Mr.. Teitelbaum, wealthy Chicago attorney
told the committee he had been approached by
two men who told him they could settle his tax
troubles for 100000. The gist of the story was
that the fxers had contacts with clique of
present and former Washington officials who are
looking for soft touches" and who, for price,
could take care of man in tax difficulties.
There can hardly be any serious question
about permitting the Chicagoan to testify and to
name the men he says approached him directly
The question is whether he should have been
permitted to name the members of the Clique"
as allegedly reported to him by the f1xers, for
that, obviously, even If such a statement was
made was nothing but hearsay.
In the first place, as a minimum proposition,
it would seem that the full committee should
consider such question carefully. Evidently
that was not done in this instance, for COM
mittee member, Representative O'Brien of Illi-
nois, has said that he did not know in advance
the nature of the Teitelbaum testimony, and
that, had he known, he would have objected
to receiving it. Apparently the decision to hear
the testimony was made by Chairman King,
who knew its nature. If that is the case, it was
a one-man decision of doubtful wisdom.
But suppose the full committee had con-
sdered the matter. What then? If it had de-
cided to investigate the Teitelbaum testimony
before receiving it in public, how extensive an
investigation should have been made? What
degree of substantiation should the committee
require? Suppose the committee, after an in
vestigation, felt that the testimony was not
substantiated and refused to receive it. How
would 1t protect itself, when the word leaked
out, against whitewash charges that would dwarf
those brought against Senator Tydings last year
with such harmful effect?
To raise these questions Is not to say that
congressional committee has no responsibility
to protect the regulations of innocent people
from reckless and irresponsible witnesses A
committee does have some such responsibility.
But it is easier to say that than to say just
where the line should be drawn.
In this instance, there is persuasive reason
to believe that the regulations of innocent and
upright men have been damaged. Nor will the
denials which all Of the accused have made
ever catch up with and fully offset the charge
1t has to be borne in mind, however, that
the function of an investigating committee is
to investigate. 1t is not its function, and it is
not equipped, to judge the guilt or innocence
of all persons accused before it, II it tried to
DO that In case OF this kind the investigation
would never end. Probably the most that can
reasonably be hoped for is that the proceedings
of congressional committees will be conducted
with sense of responsibility. All reasonable
precautions should be taken to guard against
irresponsible character assassination. But this.
Of course, cannot be carried to the extent of
saying that testimony adverse to highly placed
public men should be suppressed unless the
witness or the committee is in a position to
prove the charges made. That, for practical
purposes, would mean the end of congressional
Investigations. and they have served too vital
a public purpose over the years to accept that
result.