Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

in refutation of these charges and other matters contained in S. Res. 304.

On September 8, 1952, one day prior to Senator McCarthy's primary election in Wisconsin, Jack Poorbaugh, a Subcommittee investigator, resigned after issuing a statement to the press, giving as a reason for his resignation that the Subcommittee was not fair in its treatment of the two resolutions to the prejudice of Senator McCarthy, and that alleged information was supplied to certain correspondents for the apparent purpose of smearing Senator McCarthy (Exhibit 35). (This resignation will be mentioned later in this report.)

By letter of September 9, 1952, Senator Herman Welker, of Idaho, submitted his resignation from the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections to Senator Carl Hayden, Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration (Exhibit 36). By letter of September 10, 1952, to Senator Hayden, Senator Gillette, Chairman of the Subcommittee, submitted his resignation from the Subcommittee effective September 26, giving as his reason, the fact that he was seriously disturbed over the recent action of Senator Welker and investigator Poorbaugh, both of whose resignations were given to the press prior to the time he received them, and to the situation which had developed with reference to the Subcommittee work seeming to indicate a purpose on the part of adherents of both Senator McCarthy and Senator Benton to discredit the work of the Subcommittee, which efforts recently had been directed to attacks on Senator Gillette personally (Exhibit 37).

At the Subcommittee meeting of September 26, 1952, Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., of Missouri, was delegated to serve as Chairman of the Subcommittee and Senator Robert C. Hendrickson, of New Jersey, to serve as Vice Chairman, and the Subcommittee was reduced to three members, the third member being Senator Mike Monroney, of Oklahoma. Subsequently, in view of Senator Monroney's absence in Europe, his resignation from the Subcommittee was accepted and Senator Carl Hayden became the third member.

At the instruction of the Subcommittee, its Chief Counsel, under date of November 7, 1952, addressed letters to both Senators McCarthy and Benton, inviting them to appear before the Subcommittee in executive session in connection with the Subcommittee's consideration of S. Res. 187 and S. Res. 304, and advising that the Subcommittee would make itself available during the week of November 17th for that purpose (Exhibits 38 and 39).

Senator Benton telephoned in response to Subcommittee Counsel's letter and advised that he would make himself available at any time. By letter of November 10 (postmarked "9:30 p. m., November 13, 1952"), Senator McCarthy's Administrative Assistant, Ray Kiermas, advised the Subcommittee that Senator McCarthy was away from Washington and did not know just when he would return, and that it did not presently seem he would be available to appear before the Subcommittee during the week mentioned; however, if the Subcommittee would let Senator McCarthy know just what information was desired, he would be glad to try to be of help (Exhibits 40 and 40a). On November 21, 1952, Senator Hennings, on behalf of the Subcommittee, wrote Senator McCarthy suggesting Senator McCarthy's appearance any time between November 22 and November 25, 1952, and, in pursuance of Senator McCarthy's offer of assistance, pointed out

that the Subcommittee wanted to make inquiry with respect to the following matters:

(1) Whether any funds collected or received by you and by others on your behalf to conduct certain of your activities, including those relating to "communism," were ever diverted and used for other purposes inuring to your personal advantage.

(2) Whether you, at any time, used your official position as a United States Senator and as a member of the Banking and Currency Committee, the Joint Housing Committee, and the Senate Investigations Committee to obtain a $10,000 fee from the Lustron Corporation, which company was then almost entirely subsidized by agencies under the jurisdiction of the very Committees of which you were a member.

(3) Whether your activities on behalf of certain special interest groups, such as housing, sugar and China, were motivated by self-interest.

(4) Whether your activities with respect to your senatorial campaigns, particularly with respect to the reporting of your financing and your activities relating to the financial transactions with, and subsequent employment of, Ray Kiermas involved violations of the Federal and State Corrupt Practices Acts.

(5) Whether loan or other transactions which you had with the Appleton State Bank, of Appleton, Wisconsin, involved violations of tax and banking laws. (6) Whether you used close associates and members of your family to secrete receipts, income, commodity and stock speculation, and other financial transactions for ulterior motives.

(For a complete copy of this letter, see Exhibit 41.)

This letter was delivered by Subcommittee Counsel to Senator McCarthy's office and when informed that Senator McCarthy was in the woods hunting and could not be reached, the Subcommittee sent a telegram immediately to his Appleton, Wisconsin, address, advising him of the dates available for him to appear and referring to the letter of the same date (Exhibit 42).

On November 21, 1952, the Chairman also addressed a letter to Senator Benton, advising him that the Subcommittee would be available to hear his testimony between November 22 and November 25, 1952 (Exhibit 43). On November 23, 1952, Senator Benton was examined in executive session.

On the evening of December 1, 1952, there were delivered in person to Senator Hennings office two letters from Senator McCarthy; the first was dated November 28, 1952, and advised that Senator McCarthy had just received the Subcommittee's telegram of November 22, which had been sent even though Senator Hennings had previously been informed that Senator McCarthy was not expected to return to Washington until November 27, on which date he did return (Exhibit 44); the second letter, dated December 1, 1952, acknowledged receipt of the Subcommittee's letter of November 21, questioned the honesty of the Subcommittee, pointed out that two members of the staff had resigned, giving as a reason that the Subcommittee was dishonestly used for political purposes, and that two Senators had also resigned, one indicting the Subcommittee for complete dishonesty and the other without giving any plausible reason, and that he would not ordinarily dignify the Subcommittee by answering the letter of November 21, 1952, but, in order to have the record straight, "The answer to the six insulting questions in your letter of November 21, is 'No'." (Exhibit 45.)

Why the Subcommittee didn't subpoena Senator McCarthy

There would appear to be no reason, under the law, why Senator McCarthy would not be subject to a subpoena issued by this Subcommittee

summoning him to appear before it for questioning. Although recognizing its authority, the Subcommittee did not choose to do so. Senator McCarthy is a member of the same Senate from which such authority to subpoena stems and, until this year, was a fellow member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the parent of this Subcommittee. He is quite familiar with the rules governing the operation of the Senate and the responsibility placed upon the individual members by committee assignments. The issues of this case involve an internal procedure of the Senate itself, stemming from the Constitution, whereby that body has the authority and responsibility for keeping its own house in order.

In S. Res. 187, this Subcommittee had before it, at the outset, merely the issue of determining the merits of Senator Benton's charges relating to Senator McCarthy's fitness to sit in the Senate. As indicated, Senator McCarthy was invited to attend Subcommittee hearings on six occasions to present his explanations of the issues raised in S. Res. 187 and the investigation made pursuant thereto. Three of the invitations were extended prior to the Senate vote on April 10, 1952, and three invitations were extended subsequently. Senator McCarthy should have known that the most expeditious way to resolve the issues would have been to appear before the Subcommittee to make such statements and refutations of the charges as he saw fit. For reasons known only to Senator McCarthy, he chose not to accept this course, but to charge that the allegations were a smear and that the Subcommittee was dishonest and doing the work of communists. Between October 1951 and April 1952 he refused to honor the invitations of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction and that the members of said Subcommittee were dishonest in their motives for insisting on any investigation, which, he contended, was solely because of his exposure of communists in Government. Subsequent to April 10, 1952, and in the face of the Senate's 60-0 vote confirming the integrity of the members of the Subcommittee and its jurisdiction to investigate the matters involved, Senator McCarthy continued to reject the invitations of the Subcommittee to appear before it for the purpose of presenting testimony in explanation of the issues raised by the investigation, and continued his attack upon the members of the Subcommittee.

Such action on the part of Senator McCarthy might appear to reflect a disdain and contempt for the rules and wishes of the entire Senate body, as well as the membership of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections.

For much the same reason, the Subcommittee did not subpoena members of Senator McCarthy's office staff and family, or his close associates. Until very recently, there was a chance that Senator McCarthy would himself come in to give explanations with respect to the many transactions under question which he has had with such persons, and which will be mentioned later in this report. Senator McCarthy, by his failure to cooperate, placed those people in the position where, if they had been subpoenaed, they would have had to give testimony and explanations which Senator McCarthy had refused to give or else be in contempt of the Senate. It would have been an unfair position to place them in.

The reason for the long delay in the investigation and report

The Subcommittee desires to be the first to admit and, further, resent that S. Res. 187 pertaining to Senator McCarthy has taken up an excessive amount of its time and has deprived the members thereof of time and effort which they could have spent on other pressing matters for which, as Senators, they were responsible. The magnitude of the unpleasantness connected with the assigned responsibility of the present inquiry can only be demonstrated by setting forth, as above, the record of what transpired. It is quite apparent that too much of the time from September 1951 through June 1952, and again between November 7 and December 12 of this year, was spent in carrying on correspondence with Senator McCarthy and smarting from his diverse attacks upon the membership of the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee members did not ask for the assignment to investigate Senator McCarthy's activities. It was willing, as early as September 28, 1951, to hear him for the purpose of determining whether there was any merit to S. Res. 187. The record of what took place thereafter leaves the inescapable conclusion that Senator McCarthy deliberately set out to thwart any investigation of him by obscuring the real issue and the responsibility of the Subcommittee by charges of lack of jurisdiction, smear, and communist-inspired persecution. Senator McCarthy's methods, his contempt for the Subcommittee's efforts, even after the unanimous vote of the entire Senate, and his refusal to cooperate in any way, were very effective up to a point, but did not resolve the issue. The Subcommittee was continually faced with the alternative of having to throw up its hands and admit that the task of investigating Senator McCarthy was too difficult and unpleasant, or to keep proceeding with the inquiry, which raised additional questions with respect to his activities as a Senator.

By his attacks upon the Subcommittee, which hampered its progress, Senator McCarthy nevertheless kept the inquiry open. His charges, as set forth in his letter of December 6, 1951 (Exhibit 6), that the Subcommittee was spending tens of thousands of dollars and had a horde of investigators going into his life back to a time before he was old enough to sit in the Senate, are, of course, without foundation. The record will reflect that the great percentage of the investigation of Senator McCarthy has been conducted by one staff member. This was particularly true until the Subcommittee staff was reconstituted in September and October of this year.

In the early Fall of this year, the Subcommittee was confronted with the burden of work which occurs incident to a national election (it also has the responsibility for matters pertaining to Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections as well as senatorial contests, remedial legislation, etc.) and had reached a point where little progress was being made in the investigation of Senator McCarthy, because of the Senator's continued attitude, attendant charges and counter-charges of partisanship on the Subcommittee staff, leaks to the press, etc. As a solution, the Subcommittee employed a new Chief Counsel Paul J. Cotter and a staff of experienced investigators. The only employee of the previous staff retained for work on the Senator McCarthy and Senator Benton inquiries was the one mentioned above, an accountant.

At this late date, there was little time left to resolve the issues, in view of Senator McCarthy's continued refusal to cooperate. It is true that much too much time and expense have been spent on the investigation of Senator McCarthy which, the record will reflect, was directly caused by the attitude and methods employed by said Senator. Reasons for treating with S. Res. 187 and S. Res. 304 in the same report

For the reason that it is quite apparent that S. Res. 304 would not have been introduced had it not been for the introduction of S. Res. 187, 304 being in the nature of a cross complaint, any discussion of the two resolutions would appear appropriate in one report.

At the present time, there is little comparison between S. Res. 187, introduced by Senator Benton with respect to Senator McCarthy, and S. Res. 304, later introduced by Senator McCarthy with respect to Senator Benton, in view of Senator Benton's recent defeat in the senatorial election, which makes the issues raised by S. Res. 304 moot. However, in the interests of remedial legislation, it was determined to continue the investigation with respect to certain phases of S. Res. 304 to bring it to its logical conclusion and to include it in the same report with S. Res. 187.

I. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION PURSUANT TO S. RES. 187

The Subcommittee, from the outset, was forced to take cognizance of the fact that Senator McCarthy was a highly controversial figure. His critics represented him as a ruthless opportunist who would use any cause for self-advancement and who has confused and hampered the fight of constituted agencies against communism in this country by his self-appointed crusade and ungoverned accusations against anybody whom it would serve his best purpose to charge. His admirers represented him as a vital force who, regardless of methods employed, has been responsible for penetrating the indifference to Communists and fellow travellers in Government and other high positions in the country. This fact, plus the fact that Senator McCarthy, from the outset, has taken the position that S. Res. 187 was communistinspired, and that this Subcommittee, by making any investigation of him, was aiding the Communist cause, has made the Subcommittee's assignment exceedingly more difficult and, because of it, this Subcommittee and staff have made a particular effort to confine themselves to the more fundamental issues.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

Senate Resolution 187 called for the further investigation of Senator McCarthy's participation in the 1950 Maryland senatorial campaign and other acts to determine his fitness to serve as a Senator (Exhibit 1).

On September 28, 1951, Senator Benton, in further support of S. Res. 187, gave testimony before the Subcommittee, in which he outlined ten specific charges: (1) that Senator McCarthy had perjured himself with respect to statements he had made on the radio concerning Communists in the State Department; (2) that Senator McCarthy had been highly unethical in accepting a $10,000 fee from the Lustron Corporation; (3) that Senator McCarthy had alleged that General Marshal was a member of a "conspiracy to aid Russia"; (4) that Senator McCarthy had engaged in calculated deceits in his

« ÎnapoiContinuă »