Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-06-13
A Blow to Security

Whatever its finer shades. of meaning
may be, the Supreme Court, in deciding
the Kendrick M. Cole case, has dealt
severe blow to the Governments Federal
employe security program. 1t may be
that the program was in need of revision
anyway, and the courts opinion will
hasten it. At any rate, Congress or the
administration itself must now consider
the need, and the extent, of revisions
to meet the courts objections.
The opinion of the six. majority
judges hangs on what they call "chain
of differences" Its principal effect is
substantially to nullify the Presidents
executive order of 1858, which was de-
signed to rid the Government of security
risks, including employees of doubtful
loyalty.
In Simplified form, this is the story:
Congress in 1850 enacted the Summary
Suspension Act. This law listed as "Sen-
Sitive" II Federal agencies. 1t provided
that the head of any such agency, if he
deemed it necessary in the interest of
national security could suspend ANY
civilian officer or employee" of his agency.
the employe an opportunity to answer,
the agency head was authorized to dis
charge the employe if this was deemed
necessary or advisable in the interests of
national security. The law also author
lied the President to add other agencies
to the sensitive" list if he felt it neces-
Sary to do So Mr. Eisenhower added the
agency in which Cole was employed, and
based his executive order of 1853 on the
statute.
According to the court majority,
however, the President miSinterpreted the
intent of Congress- His executive order
was framed to require all Federal en-
ployeS to meet minimum standards of
loyalty. But the court said that Congress,
In using the words "any civilian officer or
emplOye" did not mean to include all
employees The real intent of Congress,
according to the court, was to make the
law apply only to employees who actually
hold sensitive jobs.
This means that Cole, who refused to
answer the charges against him and who
refused to seek any agency hearing, must
be reinstated because there was no spe-
ciflc finding that his job was sensitive
one
1t probably also means a great deal
more than this, although it is difficult
to estimate the full consequences of this
decision. 1t certainly means that great
many employees, including employees in
the agencies designated as sensitive by
Congress, cannot be dismissed under the
ha lie
missed only if they are in sensitive" jobs.
Who is to determine the definition of a
sensitive job? How is the determination
to be made? On these points the court
is silent-perhapS because it does not
know the answers. The opinion does sug-
geSt that it may be possible, under other
procedures, to get rid of employees of
doubtful loyalty who are in "nonSensitive"
jobs. But officials close to the admin
iStration of the program are doubtful
that this can be done effectively.
In short, the court has crippled the
security risk program through what seems
to us to be a strained Interpretation of
the intent of Congress, which has given
no visible evidence that its intent was
miSinterpreted by the President, and by
relying on chain of differences" to
strike down the executive order.
In the belief of the dissenting justices,
the court, in this ruling, has interpreted
the intent of Congress in such a way as
to "intrude itself into presidential policy
making" Further, they said, it has Gre
ated situation which might leave the
Government honeycombed with subver-
sive employees" That is an unlikely
prospect, in our opinion, for neither Con-
gress nor the administration will permit
1t to happen. But the next move is now
up to them.