Senator O’Mahoney characterized the Dixon-Yates matter as violating “every concept of decent government and fair and impartial administration of applicable law.”
The stentorian-toned Wyoming Senator gave a “partial listing of the wreckage left strewn in the path” of Dixon-Yates!
1. “The independent character of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Tennessee Valley Authority was brought into serious question.
2. “Officials of the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission were placed in the position of having been persuaded to take legal positions which ran counter to precedent of many years standing.
3. “The administration of the law by SEC was brought into disrepute because of SEC’s flagrant departures from accepted interpretations of the Public Utility Holding Company Act and its succumbing to pressures from ‘higher authority’ emanating from the White House.
4. “AEC was forced to execute and sponsor a contract which the Department of Justice has since asserted violated the Holding Company Act, the Atomic Energy Act, and the conflict of interest statutes.”
O’Mahoney said that there “is no way that we can ascertain the full facts” because “the Subcommittee has been completely blocked from getting to the bottom of the Dixon-Yates contract by the very men in the White House who were involved in these negotiations.”
After this debacle, it surprised me more than ever to discover that few people saw the full evil of the broad principle of “executive privilege” as set out in the May 17, 1954, letter.
There was still a general lack of awareness of the possible dictatorial power lurking behind the secrecy curtain.
As I have said, I did not believe that President Eisenhower would knowingly use secrecy to cover crimes, but I had doubts about some people in his administration. Even if it could be assumed that every member of his administration was totally honest, “executive privilege” was still too potentially dangerous a doctrine to have in force.