“If the subcommittee is denied the right to examine the facts in specific cases where there appears to be a breakdown in the loyalty program, it cannot make a complete appraisal of the program.”
I had the switch in Rogers’ thinking very much in mind when, less than a month after his appearance, the Hennings subcommittee called me to testify as a representative of the freedom of information committee of the national journalism fraternity, Sigma Delta Chi. I told the subcommittee I opposed any general legislation to allow officials to hide records, and felt that in those areas where secrecy is needed it could be covered by specific legislation.
“We have seen the proof year after year,” I testified, “that the unlimited grant of the right to hide the record will lead to abuse of power, corruption and mismanagement.
“Of course, the Attorney General tells us he does not believe that secrecy is being used to hide errors or crimes in the executive branch of Government. Mr. Rogers felt different about this ten years ago. Then he was ... busy digging out and exposing the crimes, favoritism, and errors which he felt were being covered up by secrecy.... We might say that Mr. Rogers was highly successful.”
I continued:
“Mr. Rogers may feel things are different today. However, we can never trust the judgment of those in power who might be inclined to make self-serving declarations on their own virtues. This has happened often in the past. We know now that at least eight or ten congressional committees have made it clear they are not as sure as Mr. Rogers that secrecy is not being used to hide crimes, favoritism, and blunders today.
“It is not necessary to arrive at any conclusion on the virtues of this administration or any administration, to conclude that secret government is not in keeping with democracy.
“Even if we accept an administration’s declaration on the many virtues it possesses, we must be guided by this principle: ‘Never trust a good man to make secret decisions for you, if it would frighten you to lodge the same power in an evil man or a man who is on the other side of the political fence.’”
In the course of my testimony, Senator Roman Hruska, the Nebraska Republican, sought to defend the Eisenhower administration’s claim of “executive privilege” in the May 17, 1954, letter:
“He [President Eisenhower] directed that the Secretary of the Army instruct his employees not to disclose information, and the large segment of the American press at that time hailed that decision as being something very fine and very wise and very just.”