¹ Sharp criticism accompanied this appointment. Whether because of it or not, Mr. Cole has exhibited balance and open-mindedness regarding his responsibilities in office.

² A special irritation was also removed with this order. Many positions acknowledged to be policy-level, and therefore in the excepted Schedule A, had been given the protection afforded classified employees as a result of President Truman's order of 1947 which provided that if an employee with civil service status moved into an excepted position, his civil service protection rights continued. The Eisenhower order terminated such special rights.

³ New York Times, July 23, 1953.

⁴ In its December, 1953 report the National Civil Service League commented on Schedule C as follows: “If this category is honestly used to unblanket from civil service protection those jobs which are truly policy-making, rather than removing them for patronage purposes only, the career system will have been strengthened. To date the CSC has exercised proper discretion in placing positions in this Schedule. It is also making progress toward setting up basic workable standards for distinguishing between these two types of positions.” Some Republican members of Congress have voiced criticism of the Commission's record. On November 10, Congressman A. L. Miller of Nebraska called for Chairman Young's resignation on the grounds that by rejecting more than half the requests for Schedule C positions by federal agencies he was not supporting “the Administration in helping to remove those who would sabotage the very Administration who gave you a job.” New York Times, Nov. 11, 1953.

⁵ The Department of Labor was attacked by Senator Butler (R., Md.) because he thought it had failed to comply with the spirit of the President's order in supplying a list of only 28 jobs for Schedule C.

⁶ The Clawson case has a special history. He was originally a symbol of the attempt to take land management out of the political battle. He came from the arch-enemy agency, Agriculture, and cut his ties there to take this job which he was given to understand would be in the protected civil service. Hindsight, at least, throws considerable doubt on the wisdom of trying to protect such a job with civil service tenure.

⁷ In December, 1953, in the Roth case, a Federal Judge sustained the Justice Department and overruled the Civil Service Commission in deciding that lawyers have no protection in civil service, despite President Truman's declaration, in the order transferring attorney jobs out of civil service to Schedule A, that it would apply only to future lawyer appointees and that it would not disturb the status and job rights of lawyers so long as they remained in the jobs they then held. The ruling of the District Court (District of Columbia) is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

⁸ The process of contraction started under the previous Administration. About 51,000 jobs were eliminated during Truman's last seven months, as compared to 105,000 in the first seven months of the Eisenhower regime. The latter figure was in part related to the termination in 1953 of the temporary economic control agencies, such as the Wage Stabilization Board and the Office of Price Stabilization.

⁹ The Undersecretary of the Interior publicly boasted that he had booted out “a group of Ph.D.'s from Harvard and Columbia” whom he found on his staff. Washington Post, Sept. 29, 1953.

¹⁰ Five distinguished former American diplomats jointly wrote that “a Foreign Service officer who reports on persons and events to the very best of his ability and who makes recommendations which at the time he conscientiously believes to be in the interest of the United States may subsequently find his loyalty and integrity challenged and may even be forced out of the service and discredited forever as a private citizen after many years of distinguished service. A premium therefore has been put upon reporting and upon recommelidation which are ambiguously stated or so cautiously set forth as to be deceiving.” Letter to the Editor, New York Times, Jan. 17, 1954.

¹¹ In the State of the Union Message it was stated that “Under the standards established for the new employee-security program more than 2,200 employees have been separated from the Federal Government.” Neither in this statement nor in an earlier White House announcement of October 22, 1953, when the number was given as 1,456, was any distinction made between loyalty and security cases; thus people who drink too much or talk too freely were lumped with those suspected of disloyalty. No distinction was made between those in sensitive posts and those in routine positions. No mention was made of the fact that many of these employees were temporary and were employed pending completion of their investigations.

¹² “The JMA Program,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 13, pp. 106–12 (Spring, 1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ “Bullying the Civil Service,” Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 188, p. 46 (Sept., 1951)Google Scholar.