(2 of 4)
Testimony. In answer to this Congressional call, General Hagood traveled to Washington from his headquarters at San Antonio and appeared three months ago before the House subcommittee in executive (secret) session. Congressmen plied him with questions which he answered "freely, fully and frankly." Typical Hagood testimony: "I want to say to you gentlemen that, since I came home from the World War, I have seen families of soldiers and civilian employes of the Army living under conditions worse than anything I saw among the Belgian refugees. ... In one case, at Omaha, as late as 1929 there were 16 families with only one bathhouse and toilet among them. Women on one side and men on the other, not even a suitable partition for privacy between the occupants of the different sides. . . .
"I am asking that you take the Army and its supplies out of Wartime shacks and put it into permanent buildings. You have got to do it. You have no choice. If you do not do it this year you have got to do it next year, or the year after that, or you have got to abolish the Army.
"I am suggesting that you do it now, when there is a lot of money floating around, and not wait until you are skinning the budget to the bone in order to make up for past extravagance.
"I got $45,000,000 last year for the CCC and I got a lot of stage money from the WPA. I call it stage money because you can pass it around but you cannot get anything out of it in the end. Now the CCC is a fine thing—the best thing perhaps in the whole relief program. But the $45,000,000 I spent on it last year will all be gone next year. Give me $38,000,000 for Army housing and my great-grandchildren will show it to your great-grandchildren 50 years from now."
The subcommittee questioned General Hagood so long that its members apologized to him.
Publication. Back to his Texas post went the free-spoken General with mind at rest. Month ago, when he heard that his testimony given in private was about to be published, he wired to the Committee: "Please eliminate my entire testimony from the printed copy of the hearings, but if this cannot be done at least strike out everything that is inconsistent with the budget or could be construed as a criticism of the New Deal.*"
Same day the printed record of the hearings was delivered to the House Appropriations Committee by the Government Printing Office, distributed among newspaper men for future release. Last week Senator Byrnes charged that the printed record contained General Hagood's testimony but not the questions put to him by members of the subcommittee. Thus the impression was given that General Hagood made a stump speech, volunteered nearly everything, whereas the Committee had, as a matter of fact, led him on to express his opinion in full. Two days later the Press published the testimony and General Hagood's "stage money" made headlines. The General sent another telegram to several members of Congress: "I am deeply shocked at being accused of criticizing the President. No criticism could have been intended, as I am personally a staunch advocate of the Administration and know full well that the President has done more toward proper housing of the Army than has ever been done before. . . ." By that time, though, the fat was in the fire.