◆ SpookStack

—— But no American waiter, seed a et They took he tase of the seven State. ployees. and began casting 1¢ way to help them. They a powerful ally, Arnold was peak at the New York Herald Tribune S annual forum, and while there dis- cussed the case with Mrs, Helen Reid, the owner of that great newspaper. Mrs. Reid telephoned. Bert Andrews, the Herald Trib- une Washington Bureau. manager, and ‘asked him: to look into the story. Andrews did, and wrote a series of articles that shocked . the nation and won him a Pulitzer Prize. “With the help of Andrews’ exposé, the attorneys had little trouble persuading the State Department to remove all. unfavorable notations from the records of the ousted employees. ‘They were perniitted to resign without prejudice and soon found jobs cise- where. A short while thereafter, President ‘Traman issued his now-famous executive order setting up elaborate machinery for FBI investigations, departmental hearings, and appeals to a Civil Service Commission Review sah in Joyalty cases, or a time, Arnold, Fortas & Porter thought they had won a clear-cut vic- : tory for their point of view. But they soon began to receive more visits from gov- - erament workers. These men and women told of bemg called before Loyalty Boards “were confronted with unspecific ; charges, made by anonymous witnesses who ‘never appe ed at the hearings. The loyalty- k procedures: were not working out, in as the partners had hoped. y “They took o the cudgels again. tried to represent. every do’ wh hee pales: they would for any loyalty case; they would il disclosure” from the govern- and oy would warn any a swamped. > The ae | around for a “test case” in which, they hoped. cent government : who got in alty crouble could get free legal aid bos Arnold,’ Fortas & Porter. The firm was harassed attorneys began looking 4‘ the broad. principles at stake conld be settled ‘once and for all. They thought they had oun what they were looking for in wise case of Dorothy Bailey. Miss Bailey was an $8,000-a-year eraining officer on the staff of the United States Employment Service. She was called before the agency's Loyalty Board in 1948 and was told that she had been accused of being a _ member of the Communist party. The charge — was made by an anonymous informant who claimed to have seen her at Communist meet- Neither Miss Bailey nor her attorneys were ever able to find out the identity of her accuser, nor where and when she was alleged — to have attended Commumist meetings. Por ter was, and is, certain that she was the victim of a frameup by real Communists who resented her opposition to their programs within a government employees’ union. But Porter was never able to persuade the Loyalty Board that this might be “a modern Dreyfus Case." He was compelled to base Miss Bailey’ | defense entirely on “positive” character wit nesses who swore that she had favored Lend- Lease before Germany attacked Russia: that she strongly endorsed the Marshall Plan; and that she bitterly opposed Henry A. Wallace's third-party candidacy for President. The Loyalty Board found “reasonable grounds” to doubt Miss Bailey's loyalty, and ordered her dismissed. The Review. Board apheld the action. Arnold, Fortas & Porter _ appealed to the courts. They felt they had an’ | open-and-shut case and were confident that it was just a matter of time before the Federal | Judiciary would thunder with righteous Gon- * Sometimes they went even farther thaa that, Owes ‘Lattimore has described in bis recent book how Fortas “tested” him, with a convincing threat af imprison- ment for. perjury. before the firm agreed to repre sent him at his Senate Heurbig,