Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-03-29
John Patton Davies Case

usual" on March "a quotes Senator
McCarthys charge that John Patton
Davies was "Q part and parcel of the
old Acheson-Lattimore -Vincent-Whit
Hiss group which did so much toward
delivering our Chinese friends into
Communist hands; 90 he was unani-
mously referred by the McCarran COM
mittee to the Justice Department in
connection with proposed indictment
because he lied under oath in trying to
put Communists and espionage agents
in key spots in the Central Intelligence
Agency"
The Star then goes on to say, lone
would have thought that this reckless
charge had been adequately refuted by
the Loyalty Boards finding, by the in
formal report that the Department of
Justice has found no basis for perjury
proceedings. and by the testimony in
support Of Mr.. Davies from such men
as Gen. Bedell Smith and George Ken
man,"
Let's look at the record.
That redoubtable liberal, Joseph Al
sop, wrote in the Saturday Evening
Post (January 7, 1850 that in 1914
Davies :. urged bringing pressure on
the Generalissimo (Chiang Kai-shek)
in a report (to the State Department.
. . which asserted that a coalition
government giving the Communists
a satisfactory place was the most de-
sirable . solution" I'm another re-
port" Alsop went on to say, Davies ad-
mitted that in such a coalition the
Communists would sooner or later dis
possess (Chiang) and his Kuomin-
tang" But Davies concluded, says AL
sop, that by supporting the Commu-
nists we would at least align ourselves
behind the most coherent. progressive
and powerful force in China"
Gen. Wedemeyer said of the counsels
Of Davies, Service. Ludden, and EN-
merson. If had followed their advice,
communism would have run rampant
over China much more rapidly than it
did"
The Senate Internal Security Sub
committee raised a loyalty security
question about Davies. They raised it
to the height of perjury. The fact that
it might fail at that level would not
vacate it at lower level.
The favorable finding Of the Loyalty
Review Board may or may not have
settled the loyalty question. 1t did not
settle it, for example. in the case of
William Remington who, after board
clearance, was convicted and impris-
oned on the same charges
The Star says Davies was the victim
OF unspecifled smears. Name one.
Edward J. Heffron.
Your editorials are usually pretty OBJ
jective. but Cruel and Unusual" is full
OF inaccuracies, omissions and contra
dictions.
In the recent loyalty investigations
many people were dismissed as poor
security risks" even though they. like
Mr.. Davies. had been cleared several
times before. Why do you think that
Mr.. Davies deserves better treatment
than the other Government employees?
You accused Senator Mccarthy of
"smearlng' Mr.. Davies when the former
referred to the latters part in the loss
OF China to the Communists. You con-
venlently overlooked the fact that Mr..
Davies was ordered home from China
by our ambassador because of his SYM
pathies for the Communist government.
This has never been denied by MI
Davies.
Dewitt o. Burke.
X
The Star reached new low on March
"a in your editorial defense of John
Patton Davies, jr.
1t sounded like Alger Hiss, Owen
baltimore or the ghost of Harry Dexter
White might have written this. l guess
what you want in the way of investi-
cations is another Tydings whitewash
instead Of the real honest goodness
clean-ups that we are getting under
such men as Mccarthy, Velde and
Jenner. Pro-American.