Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1952-06-06
Won't Offer Comment
On Senator Mccarthy

~. LOFTS fIeeSO0: In March
Of 1850. you wrote Ambassador
at Large Phillip Jessup as fol-
lows: II am writing to tell you
how much the university de-
plores the association Of your
name with the current loyalty
investigation in the United
States Senate. No one who has
known you can for q moment
question the depth or sincerity
Of your devotion to the princi-
pies Of Americanism. Signed.
Dwight D. Eisenhower"
Do you favor the reelection
Of Senator Joseph Mccarthy Of
Wisconsin?
A. I should say again I am
not going to indulge in any kind
Of personalities under any pre-
text whatsoever. I should say
This: When you are talking
about a name that Is supposed
to mean and to convey to me an
idea or q program of action, I
shall say this: No one could be
more determined than I am
that any kind of communistic.
subversive influence be uprooted
from responsible places in our
Government, make no mistake
about that. On the other hand,
I believe that can be done
under competent leadership.
under the kind of facility.
agency, we have have now, and
I believe it can be done without
besmirching the reputation Of
any innocent man or condemn
ing by loose association or any,
thing else.
After all. I believe that I
don't have to defend myself
against communism. yet, I
worked very hard and on a very
friendly basis with Marshal
Zukov in attempting to bring
about some kind of an UNDER
standing that would remove
from the backs of men neces-
sary terrible burdens we are
now carrying. and also which to
me are the critical problems
how to carry these burdens and
continue to exist.
@. Gene Ettley. Chicago
Daily News: In your discussion
Of the first danger you discussed
yesterday. did you mean to i'm
ply specific criticism of the
Wage Sterilization Board in
the steel case?
A. No, I didn't. was not here,
as you understand; and a funny
thing: Since I have been home
I have had two representations
made to me about this particular
thing and they were so diamet-
rically opposite I am led to be-
heve there must be two different
sets OF statistics from whom we
are all operating.
I really have no information.
as you well know, on the steel
situation. on any phase Of it.
I think now since the Supreme
Court has ruled on 1t, and I be-
lieve In constitutional processes,
and I believe in the power of
the Supreme Court, I don't be-
lieve I would comment on the
thing anyway.
Q. Lawrence. of the New York
Times: In that same reference
to which Mr.. Leyden referred.
what kind Of punitive legisla-
ton were you talking about?
Were you talking about things
like the Taft-Hartley law?
A. Again, when you say Taft
Hartley. you are talking about
an omnibus bill with many
things. I honestly believe, and
all Of us know, that we cam
not make legislation that COM
pels people to work. That Is
RECOMMENDATION. We have got to
find a way. q means. Of respect
ing the advances. that labor has
made. union labor has made.
and they have been very great.
Because right in this town, gem
tlemen. from which went to
West Point. my work week was
"a hours a week when I went to
West Point. and that is rather
long week in these days and
times. Now. I believe we should
not give up these social gains
but I do believe when we pile
law upon law, complication
upon complication in an effort
to solve this thing, we are not
doing too well. I believe we
have got to have some decent
concern for the United States
Of America: and the point I was
trying to make: How can labor
prosper unless the farmers and
all investors prosper? How can
they prosper unless labor pros
pers? It is impossible. We
have got to find some way to
bring people together. with no
one feeling that he is being led
unfairly, we might say unjustly.
into a hearing that they meet
their needs. We have got to