Evening star., 1948-09-22
The $64 Question

Attorney General clark mas COME lor-
ward with what looks to be an et1ectlve
answer, as far as it goes, to the recent
criticism of the Federal loyalty program
by the Ferguson committee.
This is one of those situations in which
it is hard to tell precisely what Is what.
Earlier in the month Senator FerguSon's
committee came out with what appeared
to be we'll supported, though temperate,
criticism of the loyalty program. Mr..
Clark's reply is to the effect that the
committee report contains "a mass OF
incorrect and misleading statements"
Senator Ferguson retorts that the Attorney
Generals criticism of his criticism is Gun
founded" So the onlooker is left with the
privilege of paying his money and taking
his choice.
1t is worth noting, however, that Mr..
Clarks reply is something more than
personal statement. 1t was prepared in
conjunction with Civil Service Commis-
sioner Mitchell and Arthur Flemming, for
merly member of the commission and in
charge of the loyalty program until last
August 3O These men ought to know what
they are talking about.
In the Ferguson report there were two
complaints which seemed to be of more
than average substance. One was that
investigations were handled indiscrim-
inately, with no attempt being made to
give priority to important cases. Accord
ing to the Senate committee, "the case of
an employe suspected of being an espio-
mage agent, with daily access to highly
confidential information, is given the same
routing treatment as the case of an ele-
vator operator who is alleged to be affiliated
with a suspected front organization" The
other complaint was that applicants for
Federal jobs are still appointed prior to
any investigation of their loyalty, and that
under the present system it is possible for
disloyal employe, presumably with access
to confidential information, to remain in
office for total of 120 days before being
caught up with and ousted.
Mr.. Clark takes issue on both counts.
Where an employe works in a sensitive
position, he says, it is the duty of the
employing agency to request priority and
a prompt check. Further, these prioritieS
are being given in all cases where requests
are made. With respect to the second
complaint, the Attorney General points
out that the csc requested funds to make
full field Investigations of all applicants
for sensitive positions, but that Congress
refused to provide the money. Neverthe-
less, according to his statement, checks of
available records prior to appointment are
made at the request of any agency.
On the face of the matter, this is an
effective answer to the complaints. But
it is an answer that does not touch upon
what might be called the s64 question.
The Ferguson committee wanted to
know, and the public wants to know, how
it happened that William w. Remington
was able to hold several important Gov
ernment positions between December, 1945,
and June, 1948 although the FBI had in
formation which, to say the least, made
the wisdom of his employment highly
dubious.
If Remington was permitted to hold
these jobs with the concurrence of the
FBI so that be might be watched, it is hard
to see any reason why that fact cannot
be stated now. If this was not the case,
If the explanation is to be found in official
negligence, incompetence or indifference,
the public has every right to want to
know who the responsible officials were.
For the nonce the wave of vegetable
throwing at political occasions has sub