John Foster Dulles left a lot unexplained when he tried John Carter Vincent last week. The State Department's Loyalty Board had found Vincent innocent of any disloyal action. Dulles, himself, maintained that the career officer was not a security risk. Yet, Dulles cased him out of the State Department as failing to meet standards "required at this critical time."

The Secretary of State has a legal right to withhold the details of his decision, but Vincent's case has larger implications than a run-of-the-mill dismissal. Many mistakes are made in policy making, but top-ranking career officers are seldom fired because of this. The combination of accusations of disloyalty and firing for lack of confidence suggests that Vincent's loyalty is in question.

By exercising his privilege of silence, Dulles leaves the cloud of suspicion over Vincent. He also makes one wonder whether or not he is sacrificing the man to the accusations of the public. Loyalty within the State Department was made a huge issue during the past election, and it is only natural that congressmen have questioned and will continue to question those officials who participated in policy-making under Democratic administration. If the Secretary of State allows accusations to be tantamount to guilt, he is going to encourage a lot of muckrakers to hound his and other government departments.

If Vincent has been retired for incompetence, as Dulles implies, the Secretary of State should publicize these mistakes. Incompetence is a lesser sin than disloyalty, and a few senators believe that Dulles is glossing over details to prevent any more probing into Vincent's past activities.

Dulles has, then, aroused both those who think he is covering up for Vincent and those who feel he has cowardly sacrificed him to prevent unpleasant accusations directed at his department. He can only clear the air by baring all the facts of the matter.