Evening star., 1950-03-22
Court Refuses
ToRu|eonU.S ).
Subyersiive LIST
Workers Order
Decision Follows
Earlier Case

With a similar case awaiting
Supreme Court hearing. tho
United States Court of Appeals
ruled today that the Attorney
Generals action in listing an or
ganization as "subversive" is not
subject to judicial review.
The decision turned down
claims by the international Work.
ers' Order, Inc. that the Federal
loyalty program is unconstitu-
tional and that the Attorney Gen.
eral should be ordered to remove
the organizations name from a
"subversive list"
AS in a ruling last year against
the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee
Committee the appellate courts
decision held the Attorney Cen
eral acted under a presidential
executive order that was not re-
viewable by the courts. 1t held
also that the International Work
ers' Order had not shown damages
to itself as direct" result of the
Attorney Generals action.
Arguments Due Next Month.
The Supreme Court last week
agreed to review the appeal Of
the refugee committee that raised
substantially the same issues as
those in the TWO suit. The COM
mittee, listed as "subversive,"
contests District Court and Court
of Appeals findings that its COM
plant did not present a "justi-
fable controversy"
The Supreme Court may hear
arguments on that appeal late
next month or early in May.
In the TWO case decision today.
the Court of Appeals held in a
two-to-one decision:
1T is true that TWO differs from
the Refugee Committee in some
respects, but in our view those
differences do not distinguish the
two cases. The committee was
an unincorporated association de-
pendent for financial support on
voluntary contributions, while the
TWO is a business corporation
with income from insurance
premiums which it says has been
impaired by the action Of the
appellees. It has, therefore, q
property right but neverthe-
less the statute and the executive
order have not been applied to
TWO by the appellees.
Edgerton Dissents.
And if the commissioner OF
internal revenue has revoked
IWO's tax exemptions because the
Attorney General designated it as
subversive, he did not do so under
the direction of the Presidents
order" ,T-Se asa5 sct ~sf~7@g
Judge Wilbur K. Miller wrote
the majority opinion, in which
Judge James NJ. Proctor con-
Cured. Judge Henry w. Edgerton
fdissented on the same ground he
did in the Refugee COMMITTEES
case. He said the TWO had .
right to sue because it claimed "ir-
Ireparable financial damage"
caused by a permanent Govern
ment regulation.
Coupled with the TWO appeal
was a plea by Arthur Lowndes
Drayton. a former Post Office en-
ploye, who declared he was dis
missed because of alleged disloy-
atty through membership in the
TWO. The appeals court upheld
the District Courts refusal to
allow Mr.. Drayton's Intervention
in the case.
Damage Claims Denied.
The majority opinion added
that so far as the company's
damage claims were concerned ths
organization would have to find
remedy" elsewhere than in the
courts.
The decision suggested that the
company could seek an admin
istrative review of the Internal
Revenue Bureaus revocation Of
tax exemption possibly with later
review by the courts. It also
might have hearing on whether
it is actually subversive, the opin-
ion added.
"Since the IWO's complaint
sets forth no injury which it sus-
tanned as a direct result Of the
appellee's action under the execu-
tive ORDER" the opinion concluded.
I'VE hold it could not maintain
this action Gin the courts)."