Evening star., 1954-05-21
Let the Chips FolI

imply that he is being denied fair hearing by
the Presidents refusal to permit disclosure Of
the details of the January q, 1854, meeting in
the Attorney Generals Office. It is ridiculous
because there is no reason to believe that any
thing said or done at the January Il meeting
If revealed, would shed the slightest bit Of light
on the truth or falsity of the charges and coun-
tercharges in the clash between Senator Nc
Carthy and the Army.
The Army's bill Of complaint lists 20 in
stances OF threats or other improper conduct by
Senator Mccarthy or some member Of his staff
in behalf Of Private Schine Twenty-seven oc-
Cured prior to January 81, 1854. The Army
charges, for instance, that during the period
from october 18, 1858, to November 8, 1858, Roy
Cohn sought repeatedly to secure an assignment
for Private Schine in the New York City area
upon his induction into the Army And the
Army also charges that these requests were
coupled with threats that If they were not
granted he would cause the Army to be exposed
in its worst light"
This charge is either true or false. Mr..
Cohn made the threats in October or November.
or he did not make them at all. How could the
record of what was said and done at a meeting
in the following January prove whether Mr..
Cohn did or did not make these threats?
The same thing is true Of Senator McCar-
thy's charges against Secretary Stevens and
Army Counselor John Adams.
On April 21 Senator Mccarthy made public
detailed list of his accusations Virtually all
of these dealt with allegedly improper acts or
statements by Mr.. Stevens or Mr.. Adams prior
to the January 21 meeting.
The following is typical charge: ION or
about November 6, 1858, Mr. Stevens and Mr.
Adams suggested that the Navy, Air Force and
Defense establishment proper would be appro-
pirate objects of an investigation, instead of
their administration of the Army, and Mr..
Adams offered to supply information about
g. them" Is this true or false? Was such pro-
posal made, or not? Is it reasonable to believe
that proof of what Mr.. Stevens and Mr. Adams
may or may not have said on November 6, 1858,
would be discovered by making public the dis
cussions of January 81, 1854?
There is one exception to this sequence Of
events which is worth noting. Senator McCar-
thy claims an attempt was made to blackmsil
him. And in support of this he says that on or
about January %, 1954--the day after the meet
ing in the Attorney Generals ofrce-Mr. Adams
"made to the chairman and Mrs Mccarthy the
threat that unless the investigation Of the 10y
atty setup were halted he would cause to be
issued report on Mr. Cohn, casting events in
such light as to attempt to embarrass the
committee and its STAFF" ls
If Mr.. Adams made any such statement he
was guilty Of an attempt at blackmail. at least
in the broad sense. Under any Interpretation,
however, the offense consists of the threat
allegedly made by Mr.. Adams s-not Of anything
which may have been said the day before at the
meeting in the Attorney Generals office
Perhaps there are those who are willing to
believe that the Attorney General or Sherman
Adams, the Presidents chief aide, went into the
January 21 meeting and instructed John Adams
to go forth and blackmail Senator Mccarthy.
If one is capable of believing this he might also
be capable of believing that Mr.. Brownell or Mr..
Adams would go before the committee and tes-
tify that he gave such instructions.
1t is clear, however, regardless Of what be-
liefs may be entertained, that no such testimony
is going to be given. And 1t is equally clear
that the investigating committee does not need
to know what happened on January 81 in order
to conducta full and fair investigation of things
which allegedly occurred before January 81, or
even on January %. The Star hopes that Sena-
tor Mundt and his colleagues will get on with
this work when they resume their meetings
next week.