Evening star., 1955-03-28
BY ROBERT X. WALSH

BY ROBERT X. WALSH
The Justice Department wants
as much to win public opinion
for the Governments loyalty
security program as it does to
get a clear-cut Supreme Court
decision this year upholding dis
misSal of DR.. John p. Peters
under that program.
Attorney General Brownell
and some Of his associates. to-
gether with various other top
level administration officials,
are known to feel that the pro-
gram is in serious danger. This.
in their belief, springs in part
from a deliberate attempt by
Communists and others to
scuttle the investigative and
hearing procedures by misrep-
resentation and ceaseless at
tack.
The greater threat, according
to this opinion, lies in what
these officials consider to be
misunderstanding and made
quate information among the
general public There is ap-
prehension that most people,
while seeing the necessity for
loyalty and security checks,
might conclude that the present
system is essentially a star
chamber device shot full Of in
efficient and unfair methods and
unblushingly bent on depriving
every suspect" of basic consti-
tutional rights of free speech
and due process Of law.
Objectives Explained
In any event, speeches or COM
ments by the Attorney General
and others in the Department or
elsewhere high in the adminis-
tration are increasingly intent
net merely on defending loyalty
investigations in specific cases.
They also are striving to explain
and justify the .objectives and
the procedural methods of the
program itself and to warn of
what might happen If the pro-
gram is weakened or destroyed.
The Peters appeal, tentatively
scheduled for Supreme Court
oral argument during the week
of April 18, will give Government
attorneys only a limited oppor-
tunity to discuss and defend the
detailed operations by which
evidence is obtained and sub
mltted to loyalty boards.
The bulk of the argument will
center on broader constitutional
points. These involve disputed
authority of the judiciary itself
to interfere with the Presidents
power to hire and fire Federal
employees. They also deal with
the claimed constitutional right
of an employe to know and con-
front all his accusers in a
loyalty-security hearing that is
essentially administrative rather
than judicial.
Cites Effects IL Peters Wins
AS to the possible plight of
Government employees as well as
the Government If DR.. Peters
scores smashing and full vic
tory on all his contentious in
the Supreme Court. Justice De-
partment authorities warn of at
least three major results:
l. A judicial ruling against
such administrative procedure
would be the first of its kind
and scope in the history of the
United States. 1t would set up
a basically new constitutional
Interpretation that could greatly
affect other presidential powers
by putting them within the field
Of judicial review and reversal.
2. The effectiveness of the
loyalty-security program would
end If DR.. Peters were upheld
IN his contention that everyone
given a hearing on question of
loyalty must be allowed to con-
front all persons providing de-
rogatory information against
him.
3. Such a ruling would "dry
up" sources of information
forwarded to loyalty boards by
the FBI or others. 1t probably
would result in putting a stop
to loyalty security hearings.
Thus, according to Justice De-
partment officials. no employe
suspected Of being a loyalty or
security risk would have an op-
portunity in the future to de-
tend himself at any hearing.
Present law requires no hear
ings. except for war veterans in
some instances. on misconduct
cases. The same no-hearing
method might have to be adopted
in dismissing employees where
disloyalty charges come up.
Attorneys for DR.. Peters, the
Yale University medical school
professor dismissed from a nom
sensitive, part-tirne consultant
AnVyEnTUc