Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-04-01
Security Setup Again Faces Court Test
BIZ ROBERT K. WALSH

By ROBERT 4. WALSH
constitutionality Of key pro-
cedure Of the Governments
loyalty-security program could
be left undecided this year. -
it was In 1881. by an unresolved
a. Supreme Court split.
This possibility developed to-
day because Of q belief By some
lawyers that Justice Clark might
disqualify himself from particle
patton in the Peters case. tenta-
lively set for argument In the
week Of April 10.
Four years ago In q case which
raised identical constitutional
issues Justice Clark disqualified
himself. The case concerned
loyalty board hearings and or
ders that led TO dismissal OF
Miss Dorothy Bailey from y
United States Employment Serv-
ice Job as q ltyalty risk. Justice
Clark had been Attorney Gem
eral at. the outset Of those pro-
ceedings.
The qually-diyided vote in
the Supreme Court In 1861 au-
tonnatically afiirmed rulings BY
the United States District Court
and the United States Court Of
Appeals for the District Of
Columbia In refusing TO order
reinstatement Of Miss Bailey.
But there was no written opinion
and no disclosure Of how the
individual Justices stood either
on the Bailey claim for REIN
statement or her attack on con-
stitutionality Of the loyalty pro-
gram.
CLARK stepped Down
The announcement merely
showed that Justice Clark did
not participate. Most observers
assumed that he stepped aside
because Of an earlier connection
with the Bailey case as Attorney
General. The present case Of Dr.
John p. Peters. originated after
Justice Clark assembled the SUE
preme Court bench.
It was recalled from the
Bailey case brief that Justice
Clark, while Attorney General.
gave an advisory opinion to the
late Seth Richardson, then
chairman Of the Subyersive Acc
tivities Control Board. This out
lined his views on the loyalty
Investigations and discussed In
some detail the question Of pre-
sentation and weighing Of in
formation, including evidence
from informants undisclosed to
the suspected employee and pos
sibly to the loyalty board itself.
The opinion did not deal with
any specific case.
New Decision Possible
This might not be deemed
sufficient for Justice Clark to
disqualify himself In the Peters
case. In any event. even II he
did not participate. there can
be no certainty at this time that
another 4-4 decision -0r any
majority opinion for that matter
will again uphold the loyalty
dismissal Of o Federal employe
who claims his constitutional
right OF due. process Of law was
violated.
That Is the basic question In
the appeal Of Or. Peters. Yale
University medical school pro-
lessor, dismissed from q nom
sensitive part-time Government
job as consultant on q loyalty
board finding in 1853 that he
had been, among other things.
a member Of the Communist
Party.
DR.. Peters contends. as did
Miss Bailey. that his constitu-
tional rights were violated when
the Government fred him as q
loyalty risk without letting him
confront and cross-examine wit
nesses giving informa alton
against him. He declares that
the loyalty program is uncon-
stitutional il construed to au-
thorize denial Of that claimed
right.
Program Defended.
The Government. through the
Justice Department, defends
constitutionality Of the program
and validity Of the manner In
which DR.. Peters was dismissed.
It also holds that "never in our
history has a Government en-
ploye been granted a judicial
trial on q quasi-judicial admin
istrative hearing upon his dis
miSsal from ONCE"
Despite a disagreement among
some department officials, the
Government has asked the SUI
preme Court to uphold that posi-
ton. Department officials ex-
plain that the position has con-