of the Secretary of the Army, Jan. 1, 1954, to June 30, 1954, 135-136.

Thus we see that the program has for 18 years been carried on under the express authority of the President, and has been regularly reported to him by his highest Cabinet officers. How the Court can say, despite these facts, that the President has not sufficiently authorized the program is beyond me, unless the Court means that it is necessary for the President to write out the Industrial Security Manual in his own hand.

Furthermore, I think Congress has sufficiently authorized the program, as it has been kept fully aware of its development and appropriated money to support it. During the formative period of the program, 1949-1951, the Congress, through appropriation hearings, was kept fully informed as to the activity. In 1949 D. F. Carpenter, Chairman of the Munitions Board, appeared before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations to testify concerning the requested appropriation for the Board. While the report indicates much of the testimony was "off the record" it does contain specific references to the program here under attack."1 Significantly the appropriation bill for 1950, included an item of $11,300,000 for the maintenance inter alia, of the Board.

Again, in 1950 General Timberlake, a member of the Board, testified:

"Then we are going to intensify the industrial mobilization planning within the Department of Defense, with particular emphasis on industrial security "House of Representatives, Hearings

11 House of Representatives, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations on the National Military Establishment Appropriation Bill for 1950, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 91.

before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations on the Supplemental Appropriation for 1951, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 264.

While, again, some of the testimony was "off the record" it was sufficiently urgent and detailed for the Congress to appropriate additional funds for the Board for 1951.12

By the 1953 Reorganization Plan, the functions of the Munitions Board were transferred to various Assistant Secretaries of Defense. The industrial security program was put under the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Personnel, and Reserve Forces. Of course, this office received an appropriation each year. These hearings, to cite but two, certainly indicate an awareness on the part of Congress of the existence of the industrial security program, and the continued appropriations hardly bespeak an unwillingness on the part of Congress that it be carried on. In 1955, the Eighty-fourth Congress, on the motion of Senator Wiley for unanimous consent, caused to be printed the so-called Internal Security Manual, S. Doc. No. 40, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. It is a

12 The reason for the dearth of legislative reference to the program. appears in some 1955 hearings on an appropriation bill. Under consideration at the time was a proposal for a fund to reimburse contractor employees who had been suspended during a security check and subsequently cleared. General Moore testified that in the past, such reimbursement had been made by the service secretaries out of their contingency funds. Then followed this colloquy.

"Mr. Mahon. Under that [the contingency fund] you can buy a boy a top, or a toy, provided the Secretary of Defense thinks it is proper?

"Gen. Moore. That is right, and we come down here and explain to this committee with respect to this in a very secret session how much we have spent and precisely what we have spent it for." House of Representatives, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations on Department of Defense Appropriations for 1956, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. 780.

compilation of all laws, regulations, and congressional committees relating to the national security. Contained in the volume is the "Industrial Personnel Security Review Regulation," i. e., a verbatim copy of the regulations set up by the Secretary of Defense on February 2, 1955. This Manual outlined in detail the hearing procedures which are here condemned by the Court. And it is important to note that the final denial to Greene's clearance was by a Board acting under these very regulations. Still not one voice was raised either within or without the Halls of Congress that the Defense Department had exceeded its authority or that contractor employees were being denied their constitutional rights. In other cases we have held that the inaction of the Congress, in circumstances much less specific than here, was a clear ratification of a program as it was then being carried out by the Executive. Why, I ask, do we not do that here where it is so vital? We should not be "that blind Court . . . that does not see what '[a]ll others can see and understand . United States v. Rumely,

345 U. S. 41, 45 (1953).

While it certainly is not clear to me, I suppose that the present fastidiousness of the Court can be satisfied by the President's incorporating the present industrial security program into a specific Executive Order or the Congress' placing it on the statute books. To me this seems entirely superfluous in light of the clear authorization presently existing in the Cabinet officers. It also subjects the Government to multitudinous actions and perhaps large damages by reason of discharges made pursuant to the present procedures.

And I might add a nota bene. Even if the Cabinet officers are given this specific direction, the opinion today, by dealing so copiously with the constitutional issues, puts a cloud over both the Employee Loyalty Program

and the one here under attack. Neither requires that hearings afford confrontation or cross-examination. While the Court disclaims deciding this constitutional question, no one reading the opinion will doubt that the explicit language of its broad sweep speaks in prophecy. Let us hope that the winds may change. If they do not the present temporary debacle will turn into a rout of our internal security.

Per Curiam.

TAYLOR v. MCELROY ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.

No. 504. Argued March 31-April 1, 1959.-Decided June 29, 1959.

Petitioner, a lathe operator and tool and die maker at a plant which manufactured aircraft for the Government, lost his job because of revocation of his security clearance in proceedings similar to those involved in Greene v. McElroy, ante, p. 474. After this Court had granted certiorari to review a judgment sustaining that action, his security clearance was restored and the Solicitor General assured this Court that petitioner now stands in precisely the same position as all others who have been granted clearance, that the evidence in petitioner's file will not be used against him in the future, and that the findings against petitioner have been expunged. Held; The cause is moot: and the judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded to that Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint as moot. Pp. 709-711. Judgment vacated and cause remanded.

Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were John Silard, Eugene Gressman, Harold A. Cranefield, Daniel H. Pollitt and Richard Lipsitz.

Solicitor General Rankin argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Doub, Samuel D. Slade and Bernard Cedarbaum.

J. Albert Woll, Robert C. Mayer, Theodore J. St. Antoine and Thomas E. Harris filed a brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

PER CURIAM.

This is a companion case to Greene v. McElroy, ante, p. 474, decided today, and concerns an industrial worker who was denied clearance to classified defense information