Senate Internal Security Investigations Subcommittee

The Senate Internal Security Investigations Subcommittee, chaired by Democrat Clyde R. Hoey of North Carolina and referred to in this account as the Hoey Committee, investigated so-called “five percenters”: people who claimed influence and used it to secure government contracts or favorable treatment in exchange for commissions of five percent. Its examination of Harry Vaughan brought the informal currency of Washington favors into public view. The inquiry found no evidence that Vaughan had acted corruptly, yet the disclosures made his judgment—and his closeness to Harry S. Truman—a political liability.

Mandate and Context

The inquiry concerned arrangements that could trade on access to public officials without necessarily violating the law. The witnesses’ category of “five percenters” described people who purported to use influence to obtain government business or special treatment for a commission. Vaughan was not himself identified as one of these operators; the committee examined how he had helped some of them reach officials and agencies.

That distinction mattered to the inquiry’s public meaning. The conduct under scrutiny was not presented as a proven illegal scheme, but as an exercise of access that blurred the boundary between ordinary introductions and the use of public standing on behalf of private associates. Vaughan’s office, military rank, and personal relationship with the President gave those introductions a significance they would not otherwise have had.

Vaughan’s Favors and the Testimony

Several witnesses described Vaughan as using “his general’s stars, his White House telephone and his place in Harry Truman’s affections” to ease the way for James V. Hunt and John Maragon. Hunt, a former Army officer who claimed to be one of Vaughan’s best friends, and Maragon, an old friend of Vaughan’s, had both moved in Washington circles. Maragon had appeared so often in the West Wing during the first weeks of Truman’s presidency in 1945 that some people thought he was a member of the staff.

The examples ranged from help with scarce materials to access to wartime transport. For Hunt, Vaughan helped obtain lumber for a California racetrack, despite restrictions intended to reserve building materials for housing. For Maragon, he secured a permit to buy molasses, which was also scarce. For a Chicago perfume manufacturer who was Hunt’s client, Vaughan arranged a priority Air Transport Command flight to Europe shortly after Germany’s surrender, when transport facilities were largely reserved for military use. The manufacturer returned with perfume essence valued at $53,000.

The inquiry also examined gifts from that manufacturer, David A. Bennett. Bennett gave Vaughan a deep freezer valued at about $400; at Vaughan’s suggestion, he sent five more to other recipients. One went to the First Lady, but broke down and had to be discarded. Others went to Fred M. Vinson, then Secretary of the Treasury; J. K. Vardaman; Matthew Connelly; and John Snyder, who returned his. Vaughan maintained that the freezers were “an expression of friendship and nothing more.”

Summoned before the committee, Vaughan explained that he had only been trying to help people make their case to the relevant officials: “I do these people a courtesy of putting them in contact with the persons with whom they can tell their story.” After two days of testimony, Hoey acknowledged that there was no evidence of corruption on Vaughan’s part. The arrangements described were not illegal, and public officials commonly received gifts from friends and constituents. But the freezers had been kept confidential, and the use of Vaughan’s privileged position appeared inappropriate and inept even without proof of a crime.

Hearings and Public Spectacle

Vaughan’s appearance lent the proceedings an image that sat uneasily beside the distinction between illegality and bad judgment. His manner was calm and respectful, and at times impressive, but his heavy build and uniform, with its brass and ribbons, prompted the account to compare him to a cartoonist’s portrait of corruption. He slouched in the witness chair and lit a large cigar. The committee thus presented a contrast: testimony that did not establish corruption, set against a witness whose appearance and favors made the allegations easy to turn into a political caricature.

Republicans had prepared for what Time described as a “political barbecue” with Vaughan as the pig on the spit. Joseph McCarthy, glaring at the witness and pointedly addressing the uniformed general as “Mr. Vaughan,” asked whether Vaughan had taken campaign contributions from “Racket King” Frank Costello. Vaughan answered, “Am I supposed to know Frankie Costello?…How did he get in here?” The exchange did not establish a connection to Costello; it added to the spectacle surrounding the hearings.

Findings and Political Consequences

The committee’s account left Vaughan’s legal culpability unproven but did not undo the damage. “Five percenters” and “deep freezers” became odious political catchwords. The controversy made Vaughan an embarrassment to the administration: his conduct had lent the appearance of courthouse-style influence dealing to the President’s own circle, even though the inquiry found no evidence that he had been corrupt.

Eben Ayers recorded that he and Charles Ross considered Vaughan responsible for the trouble he had caused Truman and others, while believing that he did not understand the harm he had done. Truman, however, took the commotion over Vaughan as a personal attack and was not prepared to sacrifice an aide he liked. He also admired Vaughan’s combative attitude toward the press. When reporters confronted Vaughan at Washington Union Station during the hearings, Vaughan warned them to go easy on him because they might someday want favors at the White House. Asked about the five-percenters, he replied, “That’s nobody’s goddamn business and you can quote me.” Truman was so pleased by the response that he pinned a mock decoration on Vaughan for “Operation Union Station.” The committee’s inquiry therefore exposed not only the risks of Vaughan’s favors but also Truman’s attachment to the aide whose judgment had become a liability.