Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-05-04

and his estimate of the world
Mr.. Eisenhower meant that /
small sons) would die in the ell
The doomed persons were !
had been convicted of spying in
behalf of the Communists. They
were convicted of having deliv-
cred to Soviet agents in this
country in the late 1940s sketches
of secret atomic experiments con-
Quoted at the Atomic Energy
Commission laboratory at Los
AlamoS, N. Mex.
The Rosenbergs had appealed
for presidential clemency while
Harry S. Truman was in Office,
but their plea did not reach the
White House until February,
1858, shortly after Mr.. Eisen-
hower'S Inauguration. Enormous
pressure was put upon Mr.. Eisen-
hover to spare them. Left-wing
groups were pOrading and picket
ing all over the Notwithstanding
the White House in Washington
NOn-Re Makes Pleas
Pleas came to Mr.. Eisenhower
from non Communists, too
from eminent scientists, clergy
men, statesmen. Even Pope Plus
XII, without making any per-
Sonal appeal, had passed on to
the Department of Justice ap-
pealS which had been received
by the Vatican in behalf of the
RoSenbergs. Letters about the
case swelled the Presidents mail
to the highest crest since he took
Office
On February IL, 1853, Mr.. Eli
senhower denied clemency to
the Rosenbergs. His statement
said, in part:
g. BY their act these two
individuals have in fact betrayed
the cause of freedom for which
free men are fighting and dying
at this very hour
Il have made a careful exam
nation into this case and am
satisfied that the two individ-
uals have been accorded their
full measure Of justice.
There has been neither new
evidence nor have there been
mitigating circumstances which
would justify altering this deci-
sion, and I have determined that
it is my duty, in the interest of
the people of the United States.
not to set aside the verdict of
their representatives"
Explains to Cabinet
The next day, Lincoln's Birth
day, the Cabinet met. and the
President explained in detail
why he had not granted the
Rosenbergs' petition.
In reaching the decision, he
told the Cabinet, he had asked
himself four questions. and he
enumerated the questions and
the answers he had arrived at,
as follows:
/. @. Was there in the entire
record of the trial any disagree
ment among duly constituted
officials?
A. There was none. The deci-
sion Of all who heard the case
was unanimous that the Rosen-
bergs were guilty of the charges
against them.
2. @. Was there any advantage
to be gained for the United
States by committing the death
sentence?
A. Possibly if the Rosenbergs
were allowed to live, they might
furnish valuable evidence against
other conSpirators. Notwith-
standing. such a procedure was
better adapted to a police state
than to a democracy, and the
President could not bring him.
self to decide the case on the
basis OF such a consideration.
3. @. Was there sufficient sub
stance to the crime to warrant
the death penalty?
A. In the Presidents Judge
ment there was.
4. @. What would the psyche
logical effect through the world
be II the executive branch of the
United States Government re-
versed the decision of the Judi
ciary in this case?
A.-There would be a signif1-
cant adverse reaction. The i'm
preston abroad, the President
felt, would be that American
democracy was unable to take a
definite action in a clear-cut
case.
U. s. Had More Evidence
Finally, the President had been
told by Attorney General Brown
ell that the Government DOS
sessed information which cor
roborated the guilt of the
Rosenbergs. but which could not
have been used in the trial.
The President notified the
members Of the Cabinet that he
would be willing to reopen the
case at any time before the
executions if any one of them
believed that to do SO would
serve the best interests of the
United States. The Cabinet re-
spected the Presidents decision
Mr.. Eisenhower thought the
Rosenberg case had now been
disposed of. Not so: it was to
haunt him clear into June.
The electrocution OF the two
spies was set for June IS at Sing
Sing Prison in New York. On the
the day before, Justice Douglas
Unexpectedly issued a stay in the
supreme Court. 1t was based on
previously unargued technical
question as to whether the es-
pionage act OF 1917, under which
the Rosenbergs had been con-
vlcted, had been superseded by
the atomic-energy act OF 1916.
On June 10 the Supreme Court.