Evening star., 1950-12-10
Conflict of Court Opinions


Court of Appeals in the Deak-Patton security
dismissal case, involving two Army employees,
with the reasoning of the same tribunal in the
much-discussed Dorothy Bailey case. Putting
1t more bluntly. Appellate Judge Barrett Pretty
man, dissenting from the courts ruling that
two accused employees are entitled to Traditional
information as to the reasons for their sum-
mary firing, says the majorityS position is Gin
explicabe."
The aptness of Judge Prettyman's comment
becomes apparent when one compares the Court
of Appeals language in upholding the discharge
under loyalty procedures of Dorothy Bailey with
the majority decision in the Deak-Patton case.
In the Bailey case the majority (of which Judge
Prettyman was one) said: 'It is our opinion
that the President absent congressional restric-
ton, may remove from Government service any
person of whose loyalty he is not completely
convinced. He may do so 1Oithout assigning any
reason and without giving the employe any
explanatory notice. If, as matter of policy, he
chooses to give the employe general description
of the information which concerns him and to
hear what the employe has to say, he does not
thereby strip himself of any portion of his
constitutional power to choose and remove
In so far as the circumstances imposed hardship
on the individual, the eXigencies of Government
In the public interest under current conditions
must prevail, as they always must when a similar
clash arises Gtacs suppliedD
It is important to note that the courts
decision in the Bailey case concerned the dis
mssal of an employe of "nonsensitive" agency
Department of Labor But the ruling in the
latest case, in effect, interposes complications
in the way of dismiSsng suspected employees of
such sensitive branches of the Government as
the Army, Navy and Air Force. 1t is unreason-
able to suppose that Congress, in giving certain
sensitive agencies outright powers of summary
dismissal, intended those powers to be less alb
solute than those of departments not concerned
with national security.
The ARMY clerks were told they were fired
because they had attended meetings openly
sponsored" by the Communist Party or affiliated
organizations and one charged with at
tending meeting open only to Communist
Party members. The majority opinion stressed
that the dismissal notices failed to specify times
places and organizations" although the law
accords the dismissed employe the right, on
request to be fully informed of the reasons for
such removal" Judge Prettyman contended
that, for reasons of security discretion must rest
with the Government as to how detailed the
information should be. Furthermore, he pointed
out, the Army Security Board gave "times, places
and organizations in series of questions put
to the employees when they appealed their dis
missals. What Traditional information" other
have been supplied is not made clear by the
court.
Judge Prettyman we'll summarized the Sc
curity problem when he said in his dissent: 1.-The
whole question in these cases involving Govern
ment employees and the loyalty program is
whether an employe has a right to adequate
defense in the judicial sense. I Fundamentally
agree that it disturbs us to say that he does not
it raises American hackles to have the sugges-
tion made But the fact of the matter is that
Government employe has never in our history
had any right to his job except such rights as
Congress or the Executive gave him, and the
further fact is that the security of the country
is involved in the methods of detection by which
responsible officials protect the internal oper-
ations of the Government. 1t should not be
forgotten or overlooked that the executive
branch of the Government is not required either
by law or by morals to retain employe until
he commits an overt act of sabotage; reasonably
grounded suspicion of disloyalty is enough"