(3 of 7)
"Contumacious" Conduct. In addition to reaching down to an individual member, McCarthy's misconduct toward the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson committee extended to the Senate as a whole, the Watkins committee found. Said the report: "The conduct of Senator McCarthy has been contumacious toward the Senate by failing to explain . . . questions raised in the subcommittee's report . . . Senator McCarthy has given to the Senate, on the Senate floor, an explanation of the Lustron matter only.* It is our opinion that the failure of Senator McCarthy to explain to the Senate these matters . . . was conduct contumacious toward the Senate and injurious to its effectiveness, dignity, responsibilities, processes and prestige."
With a sharp reminder of the Senate's prerogatives, the Watkins committee disposed of McCarthy's argument that it had no right to investigate the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson affair, because the people of Wisconsin had re-elected him in 1952 after it occurred. After pointing out that the Senate is a continuing body, the committee said: "The people of Wisconsin can only pass upon issues before them. They cannot forgive an attack by a Senator upon the integrity of the Senate's processes and its committees. That is the business of the Senate."
"Inexcusable" Conduct. While the committee's first recommendation for censure concerned McCarthy as a minority member of the Senate, the second was a judgment of him as a committee chairman. The report's comments on the Zwicker case were a resounding blast at Chairman McCarthy's methods.
First, the committee carefully outlined the history of the Zwicker incident. In New York last February, McCarthy called General Zwicker to testify about the case of Major Irving Peress, the drafted dentist who was promoted and finally given an honorable discharge, although he had refused to sign loyalty forms. Zwicker, commander of the separation center where Peress was discharged, pointed out that a presidential directive prohibited him from revealing some details of such an Army loyalty case. At that, McCarthy became furious, roared that Zwicker should "be removed from any command," was "not fit to wear that uniform," and was "a Fifth Amendment general."
Pointedly noting that men who conduct congressional investigations are expected to "maintain high standards of fair and respectful treatment," the Watkins committee contrasted this principle with the McCarthy practice: "The conduct of Senator McCarthy toward General Zwicker was not proper. We do not think that this conduct would have been proper in the case of any witness, whether a general or a private citizen, testifying in a similar situation. Senator McCarthy knew . . . that General Zwicker had been directed by higher authority to issue an honorable discharge to Peress upon his application.