Evening star., 1950-03-23
When Rights Clash

The decision by the Court of Appeals in the
Dorothy Bailey case, if upheld by the Supreme
Court, will end the legal argument over the
Federal loyalty program.
The majority opinion set out the problem in
these words: "We are dealing with major
clash between individual and public interests
We must ascertain with precision whether lndl-
vidual rights are involved, and we must then
weigh the sum of those rights, If there be any,
against the inexorable necessities of the Govern
ment"
This was done And to the extent that a
clash was found to exist, it was resolved un-
eouivocally in favor of the Government.
Miss Bailey had attacked the order dismiss
ing her for suspected disloyalty several fronts
She argued that the procedure in her case vio-
lated the sixth amendments guarantee OF
public trial and its incidental safeguards. she
said that in the circumstances of her dismissal
she was denied that due process of law pledged
by the fifth amendment. Contesting the validity
of the dismissal ITSELF she charged that it was
based political activity and therefore lmplnged
upon the rights of free speech and assembly
protected by the first amendment She asserted
that the President and Congress had exceeded
their power to regulate the conduct of Govern
ment employees And, finally, Miss Bailey in
sisted that dismissal for suspected disloyalty
is akin to dismissal for treason, and that
person in her situation is therefore entitled to
projections which do not attach to diSmiSsalS
for other causes
All of these contentious were struck down
by the court. Asserting that there is no right
as such to Government job the majority de-
cision, written by Judge Prettyman, went on to
say: "It is our clear opinion that the President,
absent congressional restriction, may remove
from Government service any person Of whose
loyalty he is not completely convinced. He may
do so without assigning any reason and without
giving the employe any explanatory notice. II,
as matter of policy, he chooses to give the
employe general description of the informa-
ton 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. We conclude that
the executive order before us and the proceedings
under it violated no congressional limitation
upon the executive power of removal; that no
constitutional right was involved in this nom
appointment or dismissal; and that insofar as
the circumstances imposed hardship upon the
individual the exigencies of Government in the
public interest under current conditions must
prevail as they always must when similar clash
arises
Judge Edgerton dissented in vigorous terms.
But the dissent is one which takes little notice
of the real world in which we live. If Judge
Edgerton is right in his conclusions, then it
follows that this Government has little if any
effective power to purge its rolls of disloyal en-
ployes and this in an age when the Communist
technique of infiltrating other governments has
become notorious. 1t Is very difficult to believe
that such self-defeating result is dictated by
the Constitution or any act of Congress.