Anyone who followed the Senate appointment of retiring President conant in the Boston Post was treated to one of the greatest examples of hind-end reporting in recent years. Publisher John Fox, never a friend of the University or Conant, hustled a "special correspondent," John G. Kelso, to Washington. This is the Post interpretation:

On January 7, when most newspapers were discussing Conant's probable activities in Germany, the Post headlines screamed FOES OF CONANT PROMISE BATTLE. "It is likely the furor kicked up by the Charles E. Wilson affair is nothing to that generated by the proposed Conant appointment," the story stated. Relying on a "source" close to Senator McCarthy, the front-page story said the Senator felt the appointment might cost the Republicans the 1954 Congressional elections, and "was of the opinion Conant's name would never reach the Senate floor."

"It is certain that once a single lawmaker raises his voice in the halls of Congress over the Conant appointment, others will join promptly to create a veritable flood of criticism."

The next day the angle was PROTESTS MOUNT OVER CONANT. "Informed sources" were most verbose, stating that the Democratic Minority leader in the Senate had received 1,000 telegrams protesting the appointment. "If Lyndon B. Johnson got 1,000 it is a cinch that Eastern and Mid-Western Senators got plenty more."

The fact that Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts had received but one letter made the twentieth paragraph. One Senator observed that the letters were "organized promotion," but the Post found no room for that.

Once the secret hearings started, the Post was less eloquent. It had to grub up what it could from loosetongued Senators. On February 3, the following bit appeared:

"When reporters talked with senator Wiley (of Wisconsin) Dr. Conant was in the adjoining room using a telephone. He appeared to be talking anxiously."

By this time, a favorite parlor game was comparing the Post's dispatches on Conant to the regular Associated Press reports. With unusual frequency, the leading sentence in the Post dispatch was buried in the bowels of the AP.

Naturally, when the Foreign Relations Committee approved the appointment, everyone wondered how the Post would mend its shettered innuendos. They were not disappointed by a mere acknowledgement. It was "a left-handed endorsement, despite the 15-0 vote." The Post had not deserted its ship. Gathering together its largest type forms, it followed the confirmation into the halls of the Senate:

Feb. 6: SENATORS DELAY VOTE ON CONANT; 20,000 LETTERS OPPOSE HIM. "It is expected the testimony (before the Foreign Relations Committee) will provide new ammunition for the behind the scenes bloc of Senators who are apposing the Conant appointment tooth and nail." The 20,000 letters were an "estimate" of the ever-resent "informed source."

Feb. 7: When the blow fell, the Post was ready with its biggest and blackest streamer. CONANT CONFIRMED BY VOTE OF ONLY 6 SENATORS, 4-2. "The behind the scenes maneuvering, with Senator Saltonstall making an obviously determined fight for immediate confirmation, was as slick as any veteran Capitol observers have witnessed for a long time. . . Saltonstall's face was flushed when he ended his appeal on behalf of Dr. Conant--and Harvard."

It remains to be seen whether the Post will send a reporter to cover conant in Germany.