Evening star., 1954-09-12

cross-examine accusers also is due
for court test in the widely pub
licized Army security cases at the
Fort Monmouth. N. j., radar labora-
tories. ATTORNEYS for the suspended
men at Monmouth say that the in-
former procedure used in Govern
ment security cases is a direct vio-
lation of the sixth amendment.
They plan to make their court test
as soon as the Army rules finally,
in each of the cases involved
Government attorneys, in brief
in connection with another security
case. expressed the same view as,
that held by Assistant Secretary
Smith concerning secret informers.
but it was done in more formal
terms.
considerations Of national se-
curity," the lawyers said, ''have
made 1t impossible in practice to
confront an appellant with the wit
nesses against him where they arc
confidential informants :. our most
practical and useful way of deter
mining the existence of security
risks is through our sources of con-
fldential information"
Official View -
A Justice Department spokesman
said the Government Is on solid
ground since hearings in security
cases are administrative matters. not
criminal cases, and that therefore
there is no constitutional requires
ment to confront an accused man
with his accusers. 4&. &
Government lawyers also argue
the view that a Government worker
holds his job as matter of privilege.
not matter of right. The Govern
ment feels it is justified in setting
standards for its employees. whether
for security, competence or mere
compatibility. and in getting rid OF
employees who do not meet those
standards. ~
Security case lawyers counter that
while administrative procedures may
necessarily depart from courtroom
procedures because of varying COM
ditionS within Government divisions.
the final determination must come
from procedures which are basically
fair. Refusal to confront man
with his accusers, they argue, Is not
basically fair. @ss
They say the Government still can.
have its informers without violating.
the due process provisions of the
Constitution.
Informer's Role
Such informers would act much
as "stool pigeons" do in police work
tipping off the police to illegal
activities, giving authorities basis
on which to work In building case
through other witnesses. But. the
lawyers argue, information from
such secret informers should not be-
made part of a case against a
suspected security risk unless the
informers are subjected to cross
examination.
They point out that prosecutors
in criminal cases do not ordinarily
put s'stool pigeons" on the witness
stand. but neither do they use state
ments from such persons as part Of
these cases. If they did, their cases
would be thrown out of court. Under
present security regulations. the
security boards consider accusations
from secret informers as part of the
material against suspected risk,
but the accused man and his at
torneys are not permitted to seq
such material.
The lawyers in the Greene case
have presented this strong argument
from an opinion by Supreme Court
Justice William o. Douglas:
1.-THE use of statements by in
formers who need not confront the
person under investigation or accu-
sation has such an infamous history
that it should be rooted out from
our procedure. A hearing at which
these faceless people are allowed to
present their whispered rumors and
yet escape the test and torture Of
cross-examination Is not a hearing
in the Anglo-American sense"