◆ SpookStack

hoa Lo gthaba des. et ober Suna om Pe ee ‘aes a RAE Ae ge Mgt Sheet eg Hemp vet hee sey peti Ge ae Ay epee p —Devid Lawrence: Odd Procedure in Loyalty C narte rocedure in Loyalty Cases san. Inconsistencies of State Department’s Board Only Confuse Tracy - And Make It Difficult to Understand Certain Decisions =. Laughlin There’s something very puz- ment'’s Loyalty and Security The foregoing. which came Mohr zling about the procedures or Board. but there are rumors from a Slenographic record of Tele. Room attitudes of the Loyalty ang ‘hat some persons inside the sume of the minutes of the ° mEAUCES OL UNE _ OYA ang department held a grudge President's Loyalty Review Nease e Security, Board. of the. Staip Department, “Tnconsistencies_ ip public annpuncements_and_yn- explained rujes_have inade it difficult to appraise just wh certain decisions are made Here. for example, is what one Membcr of the President's Loy- alty Review Board said just a year ago in the course of a dis- cussion about State Department procedures: “On this luvalty business— now, take the ‘name omitted) case, where the record shows the man was living over there with a +». woman who we know and the record shows was under the pay of the Russian government . And you say that he can be loyal, perfectly loyal to this Government, and ‘he's a safe employe for the State Depart- ment, when we know that he’s Hving with a woman who’s under the pay of the Russian govern- ment, but we are prohibited , from passing on that or finding , him disloyal?” The rule then widely discussed was changed to require dts- missais in case of “reasonable doubt,” but even after the change, the diplomatic officlal was “Cleared” nevertheless by the State Department’s Loyalty and Security Board. Such a clearance is still incomprehensi- ble, especially in view of the fact that the evidence was not dis- puted by the employe. Then there's another ease in which a member of the Presi- dent's Loyalty Review Board raised a question concerning a man whose wife was a Commu- nist. Could the man be loval to his Government and to his wife at the same time? Stil another case concerns an individual who was ordered dis- iG by the State Depart- against him. Instead of dismiss- ing him, Secretary Acheson re- versed the department's board and allowed the man to resign. Whether this was or was not justified is something that will never be known because no ex- planation was ever issued to the public. The fact that the State Department's own board had ruled against the man was with- held from the press, and only the fact that he had resigned and had been “cleared” by the State Department was ever formally revealed. One of the bers of the President $__Aovaliy Review B as Chareed that the han- dling of some of the cases at tbe State Department constitutedsa “fraud oy on the Dublic””_ Another e board made member ¢ of the same board m the following comment at that same ame meeting: "It_has come to my attention th pariment toroughout the program for two and one-half years, has “not dis- charged a single person on the grounds of loyalty. What they o isto bring the employe in and say, “now, we are going to file charges against you unless you resign,’ so the man resigns. Or they'll hold a hearing and bring him in and teli him, ‘we are about to render a decision of ineligibility against you un- jess you resign. ... They have caused several people to resien where they would normally have gone on through the hear- inc “Now, I don't object to that so much up to that point, but they even go up on appeal to the person who hears it from the secretary. and if he comes out adversely, they, _permit the appellant tor 19§2 Board — documents that have never been made public in full —indicates that there are some trange forngs-on in the Stale 8) ‘epariment’s Laval. and_Se curity Board. Small wonder that one of its spokesmen can boast in_publie “spreches that. w Baer off his regime nobody has been dis- ised on disloyalty” Biounds and _ only at a handful fired for “Oe Ts phar / security Teasons. . hate sa that the : State_.Departnent’'s bungling - N has given Senator Mefarthy his bigvesk UiTE There ought not tp be_any tendency to deeide these cases with the idea of either sunporting ig r disparaging the . McCarthy viewpoint. Fer if Jo- f { geph McCarthy were put of ef 0 —_ a — ! z) 4 aS / the Senate, another Senator would rise to take his place and /] make a fight against Com+ munistic influence exerted upon State Department policies in the Far East. Actually there_fs_ no Consti- raters ai “right as such to con t 1 employment in the qcumentfor_anyeegy Where A an_ employe happens to, be F charged ¢ or accused, he is pre- sume’ “Bul ty uncil Ul proved Th- Tn- agcent” That’s the procedurein the “Government a and, though it's _a_tough one, it can _can_ be handled fairly an hd impartially and do justice to the real party ai_interest—tne people and the Government of the United States. But however distressing . it may be to an individual's Times-Herald — __ repuiation the procedures should never be allowed to pro- tect anyone guilty of actions that pte: ailer proper hearing, found tobe nat th the Interest af nationat s i_security or r loyalty Wash. News to the United States (Reproduction Rien; Reserve T—— a by Wash. Post Wash. Star N.Y. Mirror N.Y. Compass Date: