Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-06-19
Ordeal Ends-Or Does Iii?

year ago, when the Court of APP
peals upheld the dismissal of John Stew
art Service by Secretary of State Dean
Acheson, we ventured the prediction that
an ordeal had ended under circumstances
about as felicitous as one could expect.
But we were mistaken. The Service case
has taken a new lease on life with the
Supreme Courts ruling in his favor, and
where it will go from here is anyones
guess.
The ordeal to which we referred was
the protracted up-and-down history of
the Service case. Mr.. Service, a State
Department career man, became involved
years ago with Philip Jaffe, left-wing
editor of AmeraSia magazine. He gave
Mr.. Jaffe some State Department docu-
ments stamped secret" and was sus-
pended. The departments loyalty board,
concluding that at most Mr.. Service had
been guilty of a "single serious indis-
erection" cleared him on loyalty grounds
and ordered his reinstatement. The case
was reopened, however, by the Loyalty
Review Board. That board found That
Mr.. Service checked on Mr.. Jaffe after
giving him the documents (Mr. Service
said the information in them was mat
ter of common knowledge) and was
warned that Mr.. Jaffe was bad medi-
cine" and very sympathetic to commu-
niSm. Nevertheless, according to the re-
view board, it learned from the FBI zap
parently from recordings) that Mr.. Serv-
ice subsequently held conversations with
Mr.. Jaffe in the latter's hotel ROOM These
conversations, the boards report said,
indicate that there was some convivi-
atty and that Service talked very freely,
discussing, among other things, troop
dispositions and military plans which
he said he had seen and which he said
were very secret" The review board con-
cluded there was reasonable doubt as
to Mr.. Services loyalty.
Mr.. Acheson, although stating that
he did not consider himself bound by
the review boards finding, discharged
Mr.. Service. An act of Congress, then
in effect, gave him absolute discretion"
to discharge any employee if he deemed
1t necessary or advisable in the interests
Of the United States.
But the Service case was far from
over. Mr.. Service brought suit for REIN
statement, and shortly thereafter the
Supreme Court, in the Peters case, ruled
that the review board could not reopen
a case in which an employe had been
cleared, as was Mr.. Service, by his de-
partmental loyalty board So the review
boards findings went out the window.
The lower courts sustained the dismissal,
however, under the discretionary author
ity which had been conferred upon the
Secretary of State.
The Supreme Court now has reversed
the lower courts. It seems that the State
Department had provided for certain
procedural steps, even in a dismissal
under the discretionary authority, and
that Mr.. Acheson, according to the SUI
preme Court, did not follow them. So
Mr.. Service wins this latest round in a
10-year struggle.
We do not know whether Mr.. Service
will apply for reinstatement, or, If he
should do so, whether he can get his
job back and keep it. The high courts
language seems to indicate that, while
ne might get his job back, he could be
fired again II the proper procedures were
followed. So Mr.. Service may decide that
his Supreme Court victory is sufficient
vindication, and that he is tired of the
struggle. But we are through making
predictions in this case. It may 90 on
for another 10 years.