◆ SpookStack

Medh ye ete Cpe om 4 wattage bor woe toil | | - After Helpin The use of the grand jury as. a weapon of fear by the executive! department, as in the DeHaas case, could establish a precedent, |leral experts say, with alarming potentialities. These will be dis- cussed in # following article. The sufferings of Miss Dehaas started last January scon after Sen. McCarthy had made public in the Senate minutes of a loyalty review board meeting in February 1952. The minutes disclosed sharp} criticism by board members of the manner in which the State department had conducted its loy- alty program. There was a great furore in gov- ernment circles aver the source of McCarthy's information. The authenticity of his report was jhever questioned by the board. Called Suddenly On Jan. 16, 1952, Miss DeHaas Was peremptorily summoned to an interrogation by Col. James E. Hatcher, chief of the investiga. tions division of the civil service commission, The grillings lasted , three hours and was marked, ac-: cordng to Miss DeHaas, by ‘an! extremely discourteous and bellig- erent attitude” on the part of the questioner. . Chairman Hiram Bingham of the loyalty review board was also present but took almost no part in the quiz. A stenografer was present and recorded the ques- tions and answers but the tran- script finally made public, Miss DeHaas attested in s sworn affi- davit, omitted important state- ments made by her and by Hatch- er and had been edited in other respects. During the questioning, . Miss DeHaas made freo ent references fo yenorls- Sheba. made_to_the Es eral_pureatl—ot snvestigation., é chargec * ateher ended the-interriew with “stern waun-| ig” “thet she-no: glye_any—in-! {ornidfion to, the FBL This was. Idenied by Hatcher. An aitempt ‘WW peitig made to determine if the recorder was ordered to delete ‘any exchenge on this Poliitesmunnnd _ (Continued from first page} ; ' becoming known as anti-Commu-’ nist. iwith a blameless 12-year record ‘sion, even in the edited and de- ‘leted form charged by Miss /DeHaas. nego Harsh Quiz ..——- The grim nature of the ques- tioning of a 52-year-old woman, as & government employe, is dis- eiosed in the transcript {led in court by the civil service commis- There has been violent protest in government circles for years over the deprivation of the ‘‘con- stitutional rights” of alleged Com. munists at loyalty hearings and congressional investigations, Such individuals have complained of abuse of their legal rights, even the they have been accompanied by asitorneys, are fully aware of the charges against them and ad- vised that they may refuse to answer questions if they so de-; sire. The summons to Miss DeHaas for questioning came without pre-| vious notice of any sort. Hurried: into a private session for three hours of exhaustive probing, she: was not allowed an attorney. Nor! was she informed of her rights. Displaying remarkable courage, she more than held her own against what she termed “insuit- ing” inquiries by Hatcher. But the terror of such an inquisition might well have shaken a woman with less determination. She was, moreover, the transcript Fevéals fortified by a faith in the FEL agents, with whom. she had. had contacts, | No Direct Charge Made : Hatcher, after preliminary: questions, concerning her duties, hurled questions dealing with the press publication 13 days eariler) of the loyalty review board min-, utes, read in the Senate by Sen. McCarthy. The questions implied suspicion that Miss DeHaas was the senator's informant but the direct charge was never made. The authenticity of the infor- mation put into the Congressional _ Garrett Hoag, ‘poard, aS saying the loyalty pro- Record by McCarthy seems to have been conceded in the present court proceedings. The loyalty d never has denied the afcuracy of the quotations atirib- uted te its members. These quoted Member of the gram in the State department had been “completely ineffective” and the department at the time had the “remarkable record of never having fired anybody” on loyalty grounds. Miss DeHaas said she had no knowledge of how tae board minutes gained publication. She said she had not much thought to where the & had come from. She was badgered at great length concerning her access to transcripts and readily admitted that her duties included examination of such material, Resembled “Back Rooms” The transcript revealed at times an atmosphere such &3 Pre-. yails in the back rooms of police stations where criminals are ques: tioned under glaring lights. Ques- tions were repeated endlessly in an apparent attempt to break down the middle-aged woman who sat alone without counsel. Suspicion was directed at periods when she had worked overtime and whether she had gone to her office on holidays. Miss DeHass referred her glower- ing questioner to the records of the guatds who keep a note of all entries and exits to the loyalty board offices. Much was made of an incident when she had re- turned to her office to pick ub s| compact she had forgotten. “This seems to be developing, into a rather strange line of ques: - tioning, Col. Hatcher,” Miss De Haas remarked eventually. “yell, we have a number of questions we want to ask you,” was Hatcher's response. “Do you recall now why you worked until 10:30 p.m. on Dec. 14, 19537" Trick Questions “T certainly do not,” was the spirited answer, “I would have to check. I have no very Eo0c reason for rushing home now tha’ I don’t have my mother.” The endless questioning con tinued. Miss DeHaas was informe: menacingiy that her fingerprint had been found on & transcrip of loyalty board proceedings. Sh replied calmly that she didn doubt it, that she had handle many transcripts in the course « her duties. ; “Ts it customary,” she final’ asked, “to call these hearings 1 of = clear sky, to call someone : and begin to catechise them—” “would you question the authc ity of the commission to ask su: questions?” interrupted Hatch: “Ty am just asking you.” sr Miss DeHaas, “in view of the p cedures that are set up for ag cies in general, and the great ft do that is always made abr wich nrocedures.”