Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-10-31
'Mogruder Cleared

In letter appearing elsewhere on
this page. Robert w, Cox, former chair
man of the Arlington County Board,
takes exception to an editorial in The
Star stating that J. Maynard Magruder
had been cleared" Of the recent charges
made against him. The charges were
made by Ralph Kaul, a member Of the
County Board and a supporter Of Her.
bert Brown. Mr.. Magruder's opponent In
the current race for the board.
Mr.. Cox is mistaken In thinking the
editorial assumed that the investigation
Of the charges by the County Board was
a criminal proceeding in which "the ac-
cused is presumed innocent until proved
guilty." OF course 1t was not a criminal
proceeding But we do not think 1t
follows from this that Mr.. Magruder was
to be presumed guilty until he proved
himself innocent.
AS Mr.. Cox says. the charges were
serious" We understand the principal
accusation to be that Mr.. Magruder may
have charged the county for work which
he did not perform in connection with
real estate reasSessments. We think
impression, that this actually was the
impression derived by most Of the people
of Arlington. and 1t was on the basis OF
this understanding that We had previ-
ouSly urged an investigation by the
County Board. In doing so. however,
we had supposed that Mr.. Raul would
produce some evidence to support his
charge. as we understood 1t. The fact
is that no evidence was produced to
prove that Mr.. Magruder had over
charged the county or that he was guilty
of any wrongdoing. In these circum-
stances. the majority Of the board
completely abSolved" Mr.. Magruder Of
the accusations In short, he was
cleared" by the board, in the investiga-
ton demanded by Mr.. Kaul. and We
think rightly so.
Mr.. Cox also says that 1t was Mr..
Magruders duty" to maintain "ade-
quate basic records" referring, we sup
pose. to the missing work sheets. 1.-THE
circumstances of their disappearance
were brought out at the hearing.) We
are informed by Commonwealth Attor-
ney william J. Hassan that no official.
including Mr.. Magruder. was required
to preserve these work statements be-
cause they are not official records.
Possibly this falls within the area Of
poor administration. to which Mr.. Cox
also refers. We do not. doubt that the
record of this case reflects some lad
miniStrative incompetence, confusion
and responsibility" It Is also clear
from the record, however, that primary
responsibility for this rests on regular
county of1cials, not on Mr.. Magruder.
If there is evidence to sustain a contrary
view. 1t was not produced at the board
hearing. And II the improvement Of
administrative practices was Mr.. Kauls
objective, that objective was obscured
by the timing and the methods chosen
to reach 1t.
Our belief is that the matter of
administrative practices was a minor
aspect Of the charges against Mr.. Ma
gruder. The principal accusation. or
certainly It's plain implication, was that
Mr.. Magruder was not At to serve on
the board because he apparently had
overcharged the county for his services.
Had this been proved. the effect would
have been to help Mr.. Brown and hurt
Mr.. Magruder's election chances. 1t was
not proved, and Mr.. Magruder's cate
gorical denial. given under oath, is on
the record. This means that he is liable
to subsequent prosecution II Mr.. Raul,
or anyone else. can produce the requisite
evidence. In the absence Of proof. how
ever, we do not think such a serious
charge should have been made in the
closing stages of a political campaign.