Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-06-24

the court, in effect, called for such
hearings.
No matter what is finally decided
on the point. this much is certain
now: The employe security pro-
gram, which the high court limited
to sensitive jobs, will continue. 1t
will be amended. of course, to meet
the criticisms of the court.
In the Cole decision the court
ruled 6 to that Kendrick Cole, a
: Department of Health, Education
and Welfare Employe with no sen
sitive" duties. was Illegally dis
charged under Federal employee Sc
curity program procedures.
There are two schools of though,
at Justice on the question of new
loyalty setup and each group, to
support its position. can quote from
the Harlan opinion. Furthermore
each feels that the Supreme Couri
majority itself probably is divider
on this issue.
This lack Of ready agreement on
what the court meant points up
the Grade A headache the Justice
Department has as it begins its
third week of trying to map a new
course in the complicated field of
internal security.
Two New Twists
The loyalty program now under
discussion would differ from the old
Truman system in two ways: 1t
would not cover all employees
(holders of sensitive jobs would be
covered by the security program
and there would not be an appeal
to the Civil Service Commission.
The agency head, as under the Sc
curity program, would have the
final say. (Some private lawyers
have suggested that the Interna-
tional Governmental EMPLOYEES
Loyalty Board at csc could be used
to handle appeals.)
Attorneys who hold the Supreme
Court ruled that holders of non
sensitive jobs should be given hear
ings if the Government has a rea-
sonable doubt as to their loyalty
cite two statements in the major
ity opinion:
. The court said that it lis difficult
to justify unreviewable dismissals
on loyalty grounds of employees who
are not in sensitive positions.
. The court said that lin view of
the stigma attached to persons dis
missed on loyalty grounds. the need
for procedural safeguards seems
even greater than in other cases
Those who feel that the court
did not demand hearings point out
that the majority said the Lloyd
LaFollette and Veterans Preference
Acts each authorize dismissal of an
employe for such cause as will
promote the efficiency Of the serv-
ice and that reasonable doubt as
to his loyalty has been recognized
as a cause" since 1912.
Under the Veterans Preference
Act. former serviceman may have
his dismissal reviewed by the Civil
Service Commission for both pro-
cedural grounds and for sufficiency
OF cause. But nonveteran, who
Is governed by the Lloyd-LaFollette
Act, has no appeal on sufficiency of
reasons-unless the removal was
made for political reasons or re-
suited from discrimination because
OF marital status or physical handi-
caps
Thus a person in a NONSENSE
tive job who is removed under the
security program for so-called suit
ability reasons is more fully pro-
tected than the nonveteran fired
for the same reasons under Lloyd
LaFollette. The old saw about it
being easier to fire a person under
the security program than under
civil service laws simply is not true.
Those lawyers seeing no court
demand for providing hearings for
persons who are to be dismissed
for loyalty reasons under Lloyd
LaFollette fear that If the Gov
eminent establishes such a pro-
cedure the court might later rule
that hearings should be given in
all dismissal actions. whether they
be for unreliability, drunkenness or
what have you. Personnel man