Evening star., 1954-11-06
future Of one ciyil servant.

OI the magnitude OF MS PROD
lens. And with this awareness
comes a determination not to
add to them.
There has been enough re-
elimination. I am not prepared
to add to 1t and thereby detract
from the strength of my country
in its mortal struggle with the
Communist enemy.
$50 I shall not contest the
Secretary's decision nor seek to
compare my record with those OF
others. I must be content to
let history be my judge. And
to that end ! have informed the
Secretary that / would, per-
sonally. welcome release to the
public of the whole record on
my case, including my 1850 rec
concentrations that we seek a
preventive Showdown with the
Soviet Union.
"I can hope that my departure
from its ranks will add to the
American peoples confidence in
their foreign service, which has
been so unjustly undermined. If
this is the practical result of my
separation, / can have no real
regrets over what is for me, per-
sonally. a melancholy outcome .
Criteria Different.
Mr.. Dulles said that the ninth
investigation of Mr.. Davies was
under different criteria than the
previous investigations. He ex-
planned:
Executive Order 10450, issued
pursuant to the act of August
26, 1850, became effective May
q, 1858.
"It deals with security re-
quirements for Government En-
ployment.' It establishes new
criteria related not only to 10y
atty, but also to reliability and
trustworthiness.
"The new security program
which this order establishes
provides for various procedures
eliminating in a final determina-
ton by the head of the depart
ment as to whether continued
employment is clearly consistent
with the interests of the national
security If not. the head of the
department Is required to term
mate the employment.
Case "Readjudicated."
"The executive order requires
that the cases of all depart
mental and foreign service en-
ployes who had been invests
gated under the provisions of
the old loyalty program should
be readjudicated under the new
security standards established by
the new executive order. Ac-
cordingly the case of John Patton
Davies, jr., previously so investi-
gated, came on for readjudica-
ton.
ION December 20, 1858, the
departments Office of security
concluded that Mr.. Davies should
be suspended and processed
under the newysecurity program,
"On January 20. 1854, I di-
rected that a statement OF
charges be submitted to Mr.
Davies with a view to obtaining
his sworn answers prior to my
determination with reference to
his possible Suspension. This
was done and Mr.. Davies made
his sworn answers.
81 thereupon made a careful
examination of the charges, the
answers and the information
upon which the charges were
based. I concluded that the
matter required further inquiry
In this connection it might be
noted that Mr.. Davies had previ-
ously told me that he would
welcome whatever further exam
ination I deemed appropriate.
Accordingly, on March %
1854, ! asked that a Security
Hearing Board be designated to
consider the case. Mr.. Davies
voluntarily accepted the juris-
diction of the Security Hearing
Board, and was not then sus-
pended as would have been the
normal procedure. I agreed to
non-suspension because I con-
cluded that under the circum-
stances then prevailing the in
terests of the United States
would not be prejudiced thereby
Lengthy Hearings.
"On May IA, 1854, a Security
Hearing Board of five persons,
drawn from other agencies. was
duly designated and convened
for the purpose of conducting a
hearing according to the statute,
the executive order above re-
ferred to and departmental regu-
lations. After the board had
studied the complete record. it
held hearings throughout the
latter part of June and the first
half of July.
Throughout these proceedings
Mr.. Davies had the benefit of
able counsel. Mr.. Davies testi-
fed and called six witnesses who
testified on his behalf. Five wit
nesses who had furnished de-
rogatory information appeared
and testified under oath; all but
one did so in Mr.. Davies pres
ence and subject to cross
examination by his counsel.
"On August 80. after con-
sideration of all the available
information and the entire rec
ord in the case. the Security
Hearing Board reached a
unanimous decision. 1t was
that the continued employment
of Mr.. Davies is not clearly
consistent with the interests of
the national security. The