◆ SpookStack

i” for other employnient es Me: Meloy: a aw eal “ and bis to gd n° ning around the Gurternnent: ta find That there fé, ant investigatlon on that inidit SE think, in yiew of the, fact that. the -) State “Departinieit’ is taking advantage Sof our owti regulations ih forcing people to. resign, we should reveke the regula. jon wc. The Stafe Department hasn't had a single’ gating of ineligibility, and, Ht is due lo this one-thing ff _ Me. Hoag: “If you revoke this, why curt thes tolluw the same procedure re atch Say. “HE vote dowt resign, we'll hold “They can, bud they won't bé hiding behind our regulation.” ": ‘The’ provision regarding resignations wis revoked. " - yi aie , Review Hoard. members ther: voleed other criticisins of the State Department: about the State, “Departir markable. record at “hever having fred anybody for loyaltyand yet, we do nothing about it ag’ far’ as the Board is converted, 00 EMR cm “t don't’ doubt that Larry. (Meloy] does all he cab in the echelons ‘that he can reagli, but 1 have been troubled about whether gr nut we awe the duty of hav- ing somebbdy call the attentioH of the President, for .exatnple, to the fact that program sing’y does ot work dn that Departmer £4 eg} let him worry about it. It seeins th eB: MwEessume more responsi- bility whigpve sh back for threé years and. know that the country: rests ina false sense. of security. that’ we ate fooking after their interests, heté when we know darn wel that it is completely ineffective in one of the most important departments Agrees & Ewlne HIRAM BINGHAM, CHAIRMAN OF THE LOYALTY BOARD. He complained to the Secretary ee re re John K. Clark, Board member: “What are yout! going to do.when the attaruey fo oowho is presenting the charges acts us © thengh he were the attorney for the in- cumbert? Poread 100 pages of a reedrd where the three members of the Board were acting as atterners for the em- plove ov” ; .. Mr. Meloy: “Oh. youre tiking about ithe State Department’ Vhoy re taking Mi the attitude that theyre there to clear the canploy e. and not to protect the Gav- ermment. Weve been arguing with them since the program started.” Me. Hoag: “That brings up a question that has been on inv mind a little, and I we have been accused a few times in con- neclow with it, L have been disturbed * 20 | * of the Government, and I wonder whether we ought to say anything to anvbedy about it...” Chairman Bingham:. “Your present chairman thought about that for a couple of weeks and took counsel of two persons in who he had confidence, and then asked for an appointinent with the Sec- retary of State. The Seerctary of State, who isa very busy nan, very graciously gave me an appotutment last Friday alter- noon... T called his attention to the fact that his Buard was out of step with all other ageney boards. In the Post Office Department, 10 per cent of all persons examined were found to be worthy of separation from the Govern- ment. In the Commerce Department, 62 m. ‘4 per cent. The average. was about 6 pe cent. The State Department, zero. «39 “The Secretary of Stale was very im4 pressed by what I said. He received myg remarks very kindly."He asked me on or two questions about resignationis, ete Fortunately, thanks. to the.. document} which had been prepared for me by Mr. Meloy, I had the facts with regard to al departments in connection with resig- nations and so on. When I showed him: my confidential statement, he was great- ly impressed. He said, ‘I will take the matter up at once.’ That was Friday after- noon. Pe FT id t i “He obviously took “it ‘up Mouday morning, because Monday afternoon at§ 2:30 one of his security, officers, called § to know whether ariybody “at the Btate g Department had bee up any change fh the regulalians.. 1 talked change which you authorize re to oppose g me. td sug: § over with the Secretary he the . gest to the President yestetday, and Hi was very heartily in favor of it and. very § anxious about it. He suid no one in, the g ossibly ‘have # State Department could said a word against it. It has now been 8 called to their attention. There are quite § a number of cases pending befote that ¥ Board [State Department Loyalty Board]. § I feel quite certain from, the attitude af @ the Secretary of State that there was very 9 great uttention paid to what ¥ tuld him, § “T hadn’t been instructed by the Board § to do it, but I thought it waa my duty to 3 do it, so it is known now te the Secretary § of State, und as he is very close to the 9 President, I presume it wilt be kuown'to @ him... So the mutter is known now to § the Administration and } think will be Z taken care of ... Soon after the Review Board meeting q ~—on April 28, 1951—President Truman § changed the rules so as to permit removit of employes where “reasonable donbt™ 2 exists as to their loyalty. Ten months Jater,.on Oct. Chairman Snow of the State Depart- ment's Loyalty Board had this to say cat- cerning the operation of Department's Jovalty program: ; “Since December 17, 1947, when the President’s loyalty program was iniple- mented by directive of the Loyalty Re- view Board of the Civil Service Conimis- sion, the Loyalty Security Hoard of the Department of State has had before, it over 500 cases of State Depattiient em- ploves who have been investigated for lovalty@ by the Federal Bureau of Lives- tigation, and not gne case has becn found of a present Communist working in the State Department, Over that pel riod, eight employes have been held to be sectirity risks, but not one of these ad- mitted present membership in the Cdm- miinist Pacty, nor was there evidence of present meinbership.” . U. $. NEWS & WORLD REPORT ch q 95, 1951, |