Evening star., 1952-12-30
Mr.. CoudIe Gets a Break

The latest report Of the Chelf committee
OF the House, which has been investigating the
Department OF Justice, seems designed to serve
two purposes.
One is to present T. Lamar Caudle ousted
departmental aide, in a more favorable light
The committee, with one member vigorously
dissenting, concludes that while Mr. Caudle
was weak and vulnerable he was also unfairly
used as a public sacrifice to divert attention
from the shameful weaknesses that were being
exposed throughout the Treasury and Justice
Departments"
There is much to suggest that Mr.. Caudle
was made to serve as scapegoat But there is
also every reason to believe that his summary
dismissal was amply justified by conduct of his
own which he never sought to deny. In his
case, however, the book is closed He has suf-
fered severely for his errors, and if those who
have been closest to the investigation feel the
Judgment against him has been unduly harsh
there is no reason to quarrel now with that
charitable view.
The second apparent purpose-and certainly
one result-of this report is to cast new doubt
on the correctness of certain official acts of
Supreme Court Justice Clark, when he was At
torney General, and of his principal aide former
Deputy Attorney General Peyton Ford
In the case of Mr.. Clark, for instance the
report says he worked very closely with Mr.
Caudle in preparation for an appearance before
a Senate committee investigating the Kansas
City vote frauds. At almost the hour of the
hearing, however, the committee says Mr. Caudle
was summarily relieved of all further respon-
S1o1lty for the case, and was never told why
this action was taken. The committee concluded:
AT least two conflicting differences might be
drawn from Clark's puzzling action in removing
this matter from the Criminal Division, and from
ryhn
He might have felt that Caudle was incompetent
to handle its delicate ramifications; or he might
have feared Caudles naive honesty as liability
in other ways. Clark never openly questioned
Caudles competence and, in fact, promoted him
to more responsible post few months after
this affair.
The implication is plain-and ugly. But
II IS no more than an implication, and it is
regrettable that this incident, and others SINH
lar to it, must be left dangling in the air.
In section entitled "The Domain of Peyton
Ford" the report reviewed his rise to power
In the department and concluded on this note
1t is unfortunate that Ford, who liquidated
his empire just before the public examination
OF the department got under way avoided the
careful scrutiny while Caudle endured to the
end; Caudle's course was surely braver-if less
sagacious.
Here, again, the implication is both plain
and ugly. But the doubts which the report
raises about Mr. Ford's activities need not have
been left unresolved. Perhaps there was good
reasons for not insisting that Justice Clark
appear and testify. But if this was the case.
those reasons did not apply to Mr. Ford.
If he was unwilling to appear before the
committeeman it was not indicated that such
was the case-he could have been compelled to
testify. If this had been done, the report would
have been more effective document. AS matters
stand, it raises fog of suspicion, and does
little to disspate it.