Washington

on the World Today

A VISITING Englishman who comes to Washingion regularly was amazed at the anti-Communist hysteria that he encountered. He had in mind both the loyally investigations and the committee hearings in Congress. “In England and on the Continent,” he said, “we are either next door to Communism or embroiled in it, yet there is far less panic on the subject than you display.” Certainly the visitor had some reason for wonderment. The question arises in many sober minds whether the measures that have been taken are not more menacing to our liberties than the danger.

To many observers the methods of conducting Congressional investigations nowadays are a distortion of our institutions. Chairmen “try” individuals in the newspapers before they come up for questioning. There are no rules of evidence and cross-examination. The practice of framing an indictment prior to the establishment of evidence is common. The remedy lies with Congress. A fairer procedure is clearly in order if the great value of the Congressional investigation is to be conserved.

Do government employees Have rights?

The hubbub caused by the loyalty probes of government employees has died down for the time being, a result of the State Department decision to accept the resignations of the men who were fired bearing the stigma of disloyalty. In this instance Secretary Marshall bowed to public criticism.

Little is known about the discharged officials. Some are said to have nothing more against them than that they “leaked” to well-known columnists. Others are said to have been attached too passionately to such causes as Zionism. The extent to which these rumors are based on fact is impossible to trace, for a shroud of secrecy covers the whole proceeding. Nobody doubts that there were “ rotten apples” in the barrel; but, as in the case of the investigation committees, it is the procedure that has been called in question.

The President’s Committee on Civil Rights declared that each employee of the government facing dismissal “should have the right to a bill of particular accusations, the right to subpoena witnesses and documents where genuine security considerations permit, the right to be represented by counsel, the right to a stenographic report of proceedings, the right to a written decision, and the right of appeal.” Nothing approaching these privileges has yet been provided, although President Truman stated some admirable principles aimed at putting an end to witch-hunting. The caliber of the men he has appointed to the newly created Loyalty Review Board seems to guarantee more fair play than has hitherto been practiced.

There are those who feel that employees are entitled to the protection of judicial process. Here, as in the case of the Congressional Committee controversy, a confusion exists. The judiciary has nothing to do with the protection of jobs in the Executive Department. Recourse is always possible to the Court of Claims for any citizen with a damage suit against the government. But the status of a person as an employee is vastly different from his status as a citizen.

Moreover, there is a very real problem involving national security. As was disclosed in the Cana dian spy trials, the government has to contend with skilled practitioners of infiltration. A government must protect itself against such infiltration in the so-called sensitive agencies.

Freedom versus security

The prime question of these dangerous times is the balancing of our liberties and our security. At present we know little of what is going on in the Soviet Union. But the freedoms we enjoy are bound to work to the Soviet’s advantage. Press accounts of the scientific work of our government may give valuable information to Moscow. Even reports on the direction of our research might be of inestimable benefit to the Soviet’s research workers. One of the worst leaks took place during the Pearl Harbor hearing when details about the cryptograph used by our intelligence system were divulged. But we cannot solve the dilemma by sacrificing our own freedom in order to save the world’s.

Some of the more scary officials are constantly seeking to shackle the press completely. Look, for instance, at the proposed code drawn up by the Security Advisory Board of the State and Defense Departments. In its original form this code would have forbidden the disclosure of information which “although not endangering the national security . . . would cause serious administrative embarrassment or difficulty.” The only comment on this is an exclamation point. It was withdrawn when newspapers protested.

There should be better policing inside the Administration. Most of the leaks arc, in fact, official releases. If the security job were centralized, then there might be an improvement. At present it is scattered. And it is incumbent on the security officials to realize that we are struggling to maintain our liberties.

Administration of the ERP

The terms of the European Recovery Program will no doubt be debated long and earnestly. The basic concept is that American aid can be effective in putting Europe on its feet only as internal stability is produced by the Europeans themselves and by the establishment of the nucleus of a working economy for Europe.

How shall American leadership be exercised? The answer to that question depends on the kind of organization that is set up and the personnel chosen to man it. The Herter Committee suggests an eightman bipartisan corporation, subject to strict Congressional control, to manage the program. It also calls for a committee in each of the sixteen participating countries in Europe to control the spending of local currencies which thecountries would get from selling American supplies to their people. Americans named by the President and acceptable to the foreign nations would sit on these committees.

Experience has shown that the ERP kind of enterprise is best managed by giving maximum authority to a single person working under a board having general responsibility.

For the position of ERP administrator in Washington, the name of Robert M. La Follette, one of the Harriman Nineteen, is frequently mentioned. He did a signal service in the drafting of the Harriman report. He has “got religion” about the historic undertaking. This is strange for the son of “Fighting Bob,” the greatest, isolationist of them all, and for one who rationalized as well as inherited isolationism. But the metamorphosis of “Young Bob” is no more curious than that of many of our public men, not least Senator Vandenberg.

Many internationalists were created on the legislative journeys of last summer. Perhaps the most notable was Representative Thomas A. Jenkins of Ohio. From the internationalist point of view, he has as bad a record as any in Congress. Yet, as a member of the Herter group, he wrote a report on Italy which, for broad sympathy and insistence on the American responsibility, could not have been excelled.

For the ERP post abroad, assuming that there will be a special ambassador, Lewis W. Douglas’s name is most frequently mentioned. “Lew" is a former Congressman from Arizona. He did the best job of exposition to the committees before Congress returned. The Herter Committee came back with a good word about his coöperation in London. The British like him as ambassador and friend, though they are somet imes irked by his gratuitous advice on mining, remembering that conditions in England are sui generis and that “Lew’s” knowledge of mining has nothing to do with coal.

In the ERP assignment abroad he would be expected to give more authority to his advice. But he is equipped, as few Americans are, with the finesse to make intervention an art. He has charm as well as knowledge, though some people find his slightly deferential attitude a trifle uncomfortable. In public he is altogether different, having a somewhat pompous way of delivering himself.

Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman, and William L. Clayton all have the quality of urbanity, and have experience for one of the world’s outstanding appointments. The four of them are dedicated to the mission and the spirit of the Marshall Plan.

Why trade with Russia?

A question that constantly comes to Washington is why trade continues with Soviet Russia. Both Senator Taft and Mr. Stassen have helped to foment the curiosity with their criticisms. Trade with Russia seems to some Americans the same kind of idiocy that was perpetrated when we helped to build up Japan’s war machine after it had become obvious that Japan had embarked on aggression.

The answer to the question about Russia is that the trade is strictly two-way. In other words, Moscow is sending us raw materials in which we are deficient and which are critical in the maintenance of our manufacturing operations. We get chrome and manganese ores for the farm machinery, locomotives, and freight ears we send to Russia, Indeed, at the present time Russia has a small export surplus in her trade with the United States.

Senator Taft asserts that the export controls idready in possession of the Administration have not been applied rigorously enough. He is probably right. American goods in short supply have been allowed to go abroad in excess quantity. And some have been going to countries which might well have been told to wait awhile. A case in point is Argentina, where President Peron is developing at double pace an industrialization program, not only to create an economic balance in Argentina, but also to build up political power in South America.

But there is hound to be more discipline of our export trade when the Marshall Plan comes into operation. Argentina will be asked for t he same kind of quid pro quo that we get from the Soviet Union. A painful impression has been created by the revelation that Argentina is charging $5 to $6 a bushel for wheat to the hungry nations. Under the Marshall Plan the United States would put Marshall Plan dollars at the disposal of Argentina for buying this grain. If the same price continues to be charged, there is bound to be a hullabaloo.

The Mood of the Capital

The mood of the Capital is one of realism about the Soviet Union. There are no illusions that the cold war is over. It is felt with the Harriman Committee that the “ideological ward the Communists is as ruthless and as determined a drive to achieve world domination as a hot war.”There is no illusion about the strides in modern warfare made by the Soviet Union.

To be sure, the Russians lack our technological efficiency and organization. But it is not forgotten that a police state is in a position to harness men and resources without limit to the attainment of a single objective, no matter how much is sacrificed in the process. What is of chief concern is the atom bomb. Men of top scientific rating do not scoff at the report that the Russians have got the bomb. Nor do they depreciate Russian progress in other research for instance, bacteriological warfare. That is the major reason for the general backing of the President on the Marshall Plan.

Politics arise with the entry of the question of price controls and their extent into the discussion of the Plan. If existing controls work, there will be no resurrection of the notion of consumer controls, which are now dubbed Truman politics. The President is said to have been more impressed by the verdict of the voters than by the statistics. In November prices were the great issue, and in many quarters Taft’s responsibility was established for ditching controls. So the President, who a while ago associated rationing and price control with the police state, decided to rub it in. It may be that the existing controls will arrest the inflation. But if the present rate of a 16 per cent a year rise in prices keeps up, price control will stay in the center of the public stage, and prices will be the dominant issue in the Presidential election.