Dodd's Defense

It hardly seemed an even contest. There was Mississippi Democrat John Stennis, backed by a reputation for judicial probity and five fellow members of the Committee on Standards and Conduct, demanding the censure of Connecticut Democrat Thomas Dodd for perpetrating "a grievous wrong" against the entire Senate. And there was Dodd, his name sullied by 18 months of accusation and investigation, his own records and statements hurled as weapons against him, his only asset an instinct for political survival.

Yet for four days on the Senate floor last week, the Connecticut Democrat fought doggedly and at times eloquently to prove "my honesty and my honor." In defense of what Dodd called "these marks of my manhood," he cried out to his peers and judges: "I am telling you the truth and concealing nothing! May the vengeance of God strike me if I am doing otherwise."

"Character Assassins." Dodd portrayed himself as the aggrieved party rather than the offender. The Senator depicted four former staff members, who started his ordeal by stealing his private records and passing them to Columnists Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, as victims of a "pathological desire for vengeance." He branded the columnists as "the most unscrupulous character assassins ever spawned by the American press." No doubt this argument had its effect, for hardly any Senator would relish having his employees hand private documents from his files to a pair of muckrakers.

Dodd even rounded on the ethics committee, which was well intentioned, he allowed, but judging him "completely on the basis of nonexistent standards." Dodd clearly scored points, forcing his opposition to work harder than it had anticipated. A vote had been expected last week, but Dodd obtained a weekend extension in which to prepare still further arguments.

"Forger & Thief." Although numerous other accusations of peculation and improper use of his office have been made against Dodd, the Stennis committee based its formal recommendation for censure on two charges: that Dodd billed both the Senate and private groups for the same travel expenses, and that he wrongfully appropriated to his personal use at least $116,083 from political campaign funds.

Dodd's arguments seemed to create enough question about his role in the double-billing episodes to make some Senators accept his word above that of Michael O'Hare, one of the aides who stole Dodd's records. O'Hare had testified that Dodd ordered him to collect travel money from both the Senate and private organizations. Last week Dodd contended that if he had wanted to cheat in this manner, he could have done so on a grand scale rather than take merely $1,700 over five years. It was all O'Hare's fault for sloppy bookkeeping, Dodd argued, calling him "a liar and a forger and a thief." Moreover, Dodd declared, if the Senate really believed one of its members guilty of larceny, it should expel him outright rather than censure him. It was a shrewd challenge. At week's end the Senate agreed to vote separately on the billing and campaign-fund counts.

Lacerated Arguments. Dodd made little headway against the campaign-fund charge. It has been his contention all along that seven testimonial social functions held for his benefit between 1961 and 1965 yielded personal, tax-free gifts for use at his discretion, not campaign contributions that had to be spent for political purposes. Dodd clung to his story, conceding only that he spent just $3,100 out of other contributions, again by error rather than design. But Stennis and Utah's Wallace Bennett, the ranking Republican on the ethics committee, repeatedly lacerated his arguments, some of which glossed over a stipulation of facts agreed to earlier by Dodd and the investigating committee.

The stipulation showed that Dodd fund raisers, in written solicitations for two of the testimonial affairs, emphasized the Senator's campaign needs and made no mention of his personal finances. It showed, too, that the Democratic National Committee got $7,500 from one of the dinners "for providing the Vice President [Hubert Humphrey] as speaker." Also, Dodd admitted the accuracy of a newspaper report that quoted a 1963 letter to Lyndon Johnson in which Dodd thanked the then Vice President for agreeing to appear at a daylong round of testimonials "to assist me in my forthcoming campaign." Dodd insisted that he had profited "not one penny from public office," had bought no yachts or Cadillacs with the testimonial funds. But Stennis reminded the Senate that the "morass of money" financed "repairs to a house, alterations to a private home, payments of thousands of dollars to a son," among other nonpolitical causes.

Objections Flying. In addition to all his other troubles, Dodd was burdened by the unsolicited advocacy of Louisiana's Russell Long, the only Senator who openly championed his cause. Huey's son whooped and wambled through the debate, arms waving and objections flying, as if bent on infuriating the rest of the Senate. In a rambling six-hour diatribe that approached filibuster proportions and reduced attendance on the floor from more than 70 to 13, Long invoked his father, Uncle Earl, Daniel Webster, Christ and John F. Kennedy, along with a number of others. He capped the week by exclaiming: "I understand the case for Tom Dodd better than Tom Dodd understands the case for Tom Dodd."

In the face of Long's overblown theatrics, Chairman Stennis maintained his customary dignity. The business of spearheading the attack on a fellow Senator was plainly saddening to him, and he said as much, recalling his part in the Senate's last censure case in 1954, when he was among those who pressed successfully for condemnation of the late Joseph McCarthy. In words reminiscent of his opening statement on that occasion, Stennis said last week: "If we pass up this matter, then some time, somewhere, in some way, something big will slip out of this chamber, and a lesser standard will have gotten to be accepted."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.