never held to the theory that the chair’s remarks were sacrosanct. I’ve been tempted far too often to cut them short myself. Please. Your clarification, Mr. Undersecretary.”
“Thank you, sir. You stated that it was the responsibility of this panel to search for and express doubts.… I’m not sure how to say it, but I feel that a similar responsibility is shared by this table. Quite honestly, I’ve had doubts myself, Mr. Chairman.”
“Doubts, Mr. Trevayne?” asked Mitchell Armbruster, the small, compact Senator from California whose wit was as much a part of his reputation as his judgment. “We’re born with doubts; at least, we grow to recognize them. What doubts do you refer to? Pertinent to this hearing, I mean.”
“That this subcommittee will be given the degree of cooperation it needs in order to function. I sincerely hope the panel will consider the implications of this question.”
“That sounds suspiciously like an ultimatum, Mr. Trevayne.” Knapp spoke.
“Not at all, Senator; that would be totally unwarranted.”
“It nevertheless strikes me that your ‘implications’ are insulting. Is it your intention to put the Senate of the United States on trial here?” continued Knapp.
“I wasn’t aware that this was a trial,” replied Trevayne pleasantly, without answering the question.
“Damn good point,” added Armbruster with a smile.
“Very well, Mr. Undersecretary,” said Gillette. “Your clarification has been placed into the record and duly noted by this panel. Is that satisfactory?”
“It is, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman.”
“Then I shall conclude my opening remarks, and we may proceed.”
Gillette droned on for several minutes, outlining the questions which should be raised and answered. They fell into two categories. First, the qualifications of Andrew Trevayne for the position under consideration, and second, the all-important factor of conceivable conflicts of interest.
At his conclusion, the chairman made the customary statement. “Any additions or clarifications, beyond Mr. Trevayne’s previous inclusions?”
“Mr. Chairman?”
“The Senator from Vermont is recognized.”
James Norton, early sixties, close-cropped gray hair, down-easter accent very pronounced, looked at Trevayne. “Mr. Undersecretary. The distinguished chairman has described the areas of this inquiry in his usual clear and forthright manner. And we certainly will raise the questions of competence and conflict. However, I submit there is a third territory that should be explored. That is your philosophy, Mr. Undersecretary. You might say, where you
stand
. Would you grant that privilege to us?”
“No objections, Senator.” Trevayne smiled. “I might even hope that we could exchange such views. My own and the panel’s collective position, of course, relative to the subcommittee.”
“
We
are not standing for confirmation!” Alan Knapp’s voice crackled harshly through the speakers.
“I respectfully refer the Senator to my previous remarks,” answered Trevayne softly.
“Mr. Chairman?” Walter Madison placed his hand once more on Trevayne’s arm and looked up at the platform. “May I have a word with my client, if you please.”
“Certainly, Mr.… Madison.”
The Senate panel, in the courtesy of such hearings, talked among themselves and shuffled papers. Most, however, kept their eyes on Trevayne and Walter Madison.
“Andy, what are you doing? Are you trying to deliberately confuse the issues?”
“I made my point.…”
“Unforgettably. Why?”
“I want to make sure there’s no misunderstanding. I want this record to specify—not indicate, but
specify
—that I’m putting everyone on notice. If they clear me, they do so knowing what I expect from them.”
“For God’s sake, man, you’re reversing the function of the hearing. You’re confirming the
Senate!
”
“I guess I am.”
“What’s your point? What are you trying to do?”
“Setting up the
“Thank you, sir. You stated that it was the responsibility of this panel to search for and express doubts.… I’m not sure how to say it, but I feel that a similar responsibility is shared by this table. Quite honestly, I’ve had doubts myself, Mr. Chairman.”
“Doubts, Mr. Trevayne?” asked Mitchell Armbruster, the small, compact Senator from California whose wit was as much a part of his reputation as his judgment. “We’re born with doubts; at least, we grow to recognize them. What doubts do you refer to? Pertinent to this hearing, I mean.”
“That this subcommittee will be given the degree of cooperation it needs in order to function. I sincerely hope the panel will consider the implications of this question.”
“That sounds suspiciously like an ultimatum, Mr. Trevayne.” Knapp spoke.
“Not at all, Senator; that would be totally unwarranted.”
“It nevertheless strikes me that your ‘implications’ are insulting. Is it your intention to put the Senate of the United States on trial here?” continued Knapp.
“I wasn’t aware that this was a trial,” replied Trevayne pleasantly, without answering the question.
“Damn good point,” added Armbruster with a smile.
“Very well, Mr. Undersecretary,” said Gillette. “Your clarification has been placed into the record and duly noted by this panel. Is that satisfactory?”
“It is, and thank you again, Mr. Chairman.”
“Then I shall conclude my opening remarks, and we may proceed.”
Gillette droned on for several minutes, outlining the questions which should be raised and answered. They fell into two categories. First, the qualifications of Andrew Trevayne for the position under consideration, and second, the all-important factor of conceivable conflicts of interest.
At his conclusion, the chairman made the customary statement. “Any additions or clarifications, beyond Mr. Trevayne’s previous inclusions?”
“Mr. Chairman?”
“The Senator from Vermont is recognized.”
James Norton, early sixties, close-cropped gray hair, down-easter accent very pronounced, looked at Trevayne. “Mr. Undersecretary. The distinguished chairman has described the areas of this inquiry in his usual clear and forthright manner. And we certainly will raise the questions of competence and conflict. However, I submit there is a third territory that should be explored. That is your philosophy, Mr. Undersecretary. You might say, where you
stand
. Would you grant that privilege to us?”
“No objections, Senator.” Trevayne smiled. “I might even hope that we could exchange such views. My own and the panel’s collective position, of course, relative to the subcommittee.”
“
We
are not standing for confirmation!” Alan Knapp’s voice crackled harshly through the speakers.
“I respectfully refer the Senator to my previous remarks,” answered Trevayne softly.
“Mr. Chairman?” Walter Madison placed his hand once more on Trevayne’s arm and looked up at the platform. “May I have a word with my client, if you please.”
“Certainly, Mr.… Madison.”
The Senate panel, in the courtesy of such hearings, talked among themselves and shuffled papers. Most, however, kept their eyes on Trevayne and Walter Madison.
“Andy, what are you doing? Are you trying to deliberately confuse the issues?”
“I made my point.…”
“Unforgettably. Why?”
“I want to make sure there’s no misunderstanding. I want this record to specify—not indicate, but
specify
—that I’m putting everyone on notice. If they clear me, they do so knowing what I expect from them.”
“For God’s sake, man, you’re reversing the function of the hearing. You’re confirming the
Senate!
”
“I guess I am.”
“What’s your point? What are you trying to do?”
“Setting up the
Similar Books
