Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-09-01

privileges. but also consuming
interest and attention regarding
his future assignment.
In that connection, Mr.. Adams
teleph0ned Gen. Ryan dc Fort
Dix; visited the Adjutant Gem
eral: In turn was visited by the
Deputy Adjutant General; wrote
a memorandum to the Secretary
Of the Army: held q conference
with Secretary Stevens: was
then visited by the Provost Mar
shall General and the commands
ing general Of Camp Gordon:
then had a further conference
with Secretary Stevens, who
called In the Assistant Chief OF
Staff then conferred with the
Staff in charge OF personnel.
The Assistant Chief Of STAR
then conferred with the Pro-
vost Marshal General. and
then held another conference
with Secretary Stevens and Mr..
,Adans, after which Secretary
Stevens conferred with Senator
Mccarthy. Pvt. Schine's future
assignment was the subject of
all these discussions.
We have grave doubts that any
other draftee in basic training
ever received such high-level at
tention and consideration or was
ever permitted so to interfere
with the proper function Of our
defense establishment.
Two incidents not related to
Pvt. Schine have important sig
nificance. (1l Whether Justified
or not, and for reasons we have
been unable to determine since
Gen. Lawton was not called to
testify. the Secretary of the
Army gave consideration to the
removal of Gen. Lawton from
his command at Fort Monmouth.
Before making a final decision
or taking action thereon. Secre-
tary Stevens, through his Chief
Counsel. Mr.. Adams, sought to
find out what Senator McCar-
thy's reaction would be. He as
certained it would be unfavor-
able. Gen. Lawton was not re-
moved from his command. az
In a press conference on Novem-
Der Is, Secretary Stevens stated
in effect that there was no es-
pionage at Fort Monmouth. A
few days later. because of Sem
ator McCarthy's objections. the
Secretary issued a press release
qualifying his previous public
position.
Reckless Responsibility"
Our criticism of the conduct
and actions of Secretary Stevens
and Mr.. Adams does not and is
not intended to in any degree
question or reflect upon their
loyalty or patriotism. The coun-
tercharges such as, protecting
Communist inf1ltration." pro
tecting Communists who had in
filtrated," and giving laid and
comfort to Communists and Sc.
curity risks" permit of no inter
probation except to impugn the
loyalty and patriotism of Secre-
tary Stevens and Mr.. Adams.
The authors of these charges
when testifying and put to the
test of cross-examination failed
to substantiate them. It follows
therefore that they are simply.
the product Of reckless irrespon-
sibility.
Findings.
There is much more in the
record that could be cited. The
foregoing. however, suffices to
the. basis of our find
ings, as follows:
ID It was the duty Of Secre-
tary Stevens to administer the
affairs. of the Army without fear
or favor. He failed to meet that
responsibility with respect to his
relations with the Senate IN
vestigations Subcommittee. In
handling the case of Pvt. Schine
he pursued a course of appeaSe-
ment by granting him special
and preferred treat
ment In an effort to placate Sem
ator Mccarthy and Mr.. Cohn.
He thus demonstrated an mex
cusable indecisiveness and lack
of sound administrative judy
ment. For that he merits severe
criticism. This Nation can and
must require of its Secretary
Of the Army more firmness,
strength and courage of judg-
ment than was demonstrated by
Secretary Stevens.
(2) Mr.. Adams as Chief Coun-
sci Of the Army, although carry
ing out a policy Of appeasement,
demonstrated weakness and lack
Of propriety in his efforts to
placate Senator Mccarthy and
Mr.. Cohn. His actions and con-
duct did not conform to the dig
nifty of the high Office he held.
For this he merits severe criti-
cism.
CD The .countercharges
against Secretary Stevens and
Mr.. Adams, which impugned
their patriotism and loyalty.
were totally unsubstantiated
and unfounded.
The case of Frank Carr.-The
charges as related to Mr.. Carr
were disposed Of by q majority
of the subcommittee during the
course of the hearings. The dis
missal at that stage of the pro-
ceedings was premature. In our
opinion, some OF the testimony
is inconclusive. but. based on the
evidence that appears in the rec
ord. and resolving all reasonable
doubts in his favor, we now con-
cur in the dismissal.
The case Of III. Struve Hensel.
Upon the filing Of the counter
charges. which contained serious
accusations against Mr.. Hensel.
he was made by action OF the
subcommittee q party principal