Evening star., 1950-05-31
The Investigation Should Be Held

Secretary of Commerce Sawyer's decision to
get rid of two employees, decision reached
under pressure of Senate committee, offers a
pretty good illustration of one Of the many
dilemmas of the loyalty program. The Star
believes that his decision was unwise. But he
had substantial justification for deciding as
he did.
Both cases involve men whose loyalty has
been questioned. One of them, William M.
Remington, has been through the mill of
Loyalty Board investigation and has been
cleared After being cleared, he was again
brought before the House Un-American Activ-
tiles Committee and the case reopened. TeS-
timony of witnesses claiming they were members
at one time of the Communist Party may involve
legal proceedings Mr.. Remington has been
called before New York Grand Jury and asked
to testify on matters that have not been publicly
disclosed.
The other man. Michael E. Lee, chief of the
Far Eastern branch of the Office of international
Trade, has been the target of criticism by
Senator Malone of Nevada. Mr.. Malone last
February asked the Senate to investigate the
Department of Commerce and its employment
OF personnel in certain branches and singled out
Mr.. Lee by name as the subject for investiga-
ton. The resolution was referred to sub
committee of the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce, and the committee was
ready to report favorably the resolution for the
investigation.
Last Thursday Mr. Sawyer was asked to
appear before closed session of the committee
and apparently was shown what the committee
had found to support the proposed investigation
Reporters were told that he was offered the
choice between getting rid of the two men or
having the investigation proceed. He returned
to the Department of Commerce and on Satur-
day the announcement was made that he had
asked Mr. Remington and Mr.. Lee to resign.
The meaningless disclaimer that this action is
in no wise intended to reflect in any way on the
loyalty of these two men" was contained in
the statement.
If the investigation were dropped, Mr.
Sawyer and perhaps many others would be
spared embarrassment Names of people, who
may be wholly innocent, probably would be
brought into the investigation and we should
witness again the repetition of some of the
more distasteful results of the Mccarthy charges
and Investigations. It is conceivable that Mr..
Lee might come out of the affair with nothing
proved against him, in the sense of legal proof
admissible in court. 1t is also conceivable that
he would come out of the investigation with
unremovable suspicion lodged in the minds of
many people which would make his continued
employment in Government a difficult thing
from the standpoint of practical politics
another name for public policy.
Such considerations may have been pre-
sented to Mr.. Sawyer, who chose the easier way
out He is probably within his rights to get
rid of the employees, with or without hearing
or proof of their unftness. The two men in
volved say they will not quit under fire and
they naturally demand an opportunity to defend
themselves-both cases are now pending before
the Departments Loyalty Board.
The Star does not believe that the principle
on which these men stand is one that can be
compromised for expediency. 1t does not see
how an investigation if the facts show that one
is justified, can be dropped on Mr.. Sawyer's
preference of avoiding it. For if the investiga-
ton should show that Mr.. Lees employment or
Mr.. Remingtons retention in employment have
been improper, the identity of the responsible
officials who committed this impropriety should
be revealed and the full circumstances developed
no matter who gets hurt