McCarthy-Stevens Arouse Faculty Comment

The McCarthy-Stevens controversy has "turned the sword" upon the Republican Party, according to Arthur M. Schlesinger, Francis Lee Higginson Professor of History. "They campaigned in 1952 on the issue of 'that mess in Washington' and now an even bigger mess confronts them," Schlesinger concluded, referring to the hearings as they entered the third week.

Cherington Agrees

Schlesinger felt the controversy will have a decisive effect upon next November's elections only if they come to a speedy, decisive conclusion. He felt it doubtful, however, because "The Senate is just too archaical, and they have to deal with a wild, clever man who has succeeded in employing his usual obstructionist tactics."

Government Professor Charles R. Cherington '35 also felt the hearing's results will be a potent political weapon for the Democrats, but felt sure no perjury citations would be called for, "just because McCarthy is McCarthy."

McCarthy has created a bad impression with his familiarity, Cherington said. "Let us hope Stevens never calls him Joe, because it's never good policy to be buddies with an enemy," he added.

Another Government professor, associate professor Robert G. McCloskey disagreed with Cherington as to the controversy's political value. "This isn't an issue to win a general election," he said. He agreed that McCarthy had looked bad so far, "because of their irrelevant investigations into minor side issues which later prove not the bill of goods they were advertised."

Two Law professors, Arthur E. Sutherland and Robert Braucher, both thought nobody would be prosecuted for perjury as a result of the hearings.

No New information

"The number of sensations per hour has been extremely low because no new information has turned up," Sutherland said. He said the hearings have at least served to add to the public record, and advocated extending the hearings to evenings and Saturdays so working people could see them.

Braucher said Secretary Stevens had left an impression of cander rather than evasiveness. "How can a man answer yes or no to 25 questions all at once?" he asked. "Cohn, Adams, and McCarthy all seem to be making arguments from the witness stand, while Stevens seems to be trying sincerely to reveal the facts. "I'll bet my marbles on a witness like Stevens," he added.