Appendix I




Hearings before the Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, United States Senate, Eightieth Congress, second session, pursuant to S. Res. 189, a resolution authorizing the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments to carry out certain duties.


PAGE 23:

SENATOR MCCARTHY:   One further question: I would like to get your thought, if you care to give it today — I have been personally very much disturbed by the attitude demonstrated on the part of the Judge Advocate General, both when he was down here before the Expenditures Committee last week on the ILSE KOCH case, in the report and in the conduct I have had with some of the underlings, there seems to be an attitude, if you go over the case and if there is doubt whether the man is guilty or not, then the situation can be taken care of by cutting down his sentence.

That is a fantastic attitude to take.  Either a man is guilty or he is innocent.  If he has been proven guilty of a crime charged, he should suffer, and if not, he should not.

I cannot understand the system of compromise with justice by saying, “Well, it doesn’t look like he was fully guilty and, on the other hand, he may be; therefore, instead of giving him 20 years or so —

SECRETARY ROYALL:   I never heard that suggestion by the Judge Advocate General and I have dealt with him a long time. If he ever suggested that, it must have been to someone other than me and I am the man that has to pass on them.

I never heard of that principle.

SENATOR MCCARTHY:   From going over this report the Judge Advocate General signed —

SECRETARY ROYALL:   Are you talking about the Judge Advocate General here, or –

SENATOR MCCARTHY:   In the area.

SECRETARY ROYALL:   In the area?  I have never talked to Mr. Harbaugh, I don’t know him.

SENATOR MCCARTHY:   I am not speaking of the Judge Advocate General here in Washington.  I am speaking of the one abroad.