Evening star., 1938-09-21
A Question of Ethics.

Secretary Morgenthau Of the Treasury
Department has declined to take any
action against M. Hampton Magruder,
collector of internal revenue at Balti-
more, because of his political activities
in the recent Lewis -Tydings primary
campaign. Mr.. Magruder supported
Representative David J. Lewis, the Presi-
dents candidate for the Democratic
senatorial nomination, against Senator
Tydings. The Senate Campaign In
vestigating Committee vigorously criti-
cized Mr.. Magruder because he called
employees OF his Office before him and
read them statement pointing out that
he intended to vote for Lewis.
There could have been only one reason
for Mr.. Magruders action. He hoped to
influence his subordinates to vote for
Lewis. There was no other conceivable
purpose. In support Of Mr.. Magruder
it is urged that he called In only those
employees of his ONCE who are not under
the civil service and presumably, there
fore, not covered by the law against
pernicious political activity on the part
of civil service employees. It IS urged,
too, that Mr.. Magruder specifically
asserted in his statement to his employees
that he was not seeking to "coerce" any
of them into voting for Lewis. The dif-
ference between advice and open coer-
cion, when the advice is given by 4
superior officer, is usually no difference
at all. Furthermore, when the advice Is
given to Government employees who are
not under the protection Of the civil
service laws, it amounts exactly to
coercion.
Secretary Morgenthau, however, makes
the cause Of Mr.. Magruder his own. In
his letter to the Senate committee he
says that Mr.. Magruder submitted the
statement he read to the employees Of his
ONCE to his superiors in the Treasury
Department and had their approval be-
fore he called in the workers. Mr.. Nor
genthau adds that he himself sees nothing
wrong with the statement or Mr.. Magru-
der's use of it.
The attitude Of the Secretary of the
Treasury ties the Roosevelt administra-
ton directly with the effort to influence
Government employees to vote in accord
ance with the wishes of the White House,
The fact that this influence is directed
to non-civn service employees, who have
no protection whatever against summary
removal from ONCE, is all the more
reprehensible. Mr.. Magruder did not say
to any Of the employees under him that
they would lose their Jobs or fail to
obtain advancement If they voted for
Senator Tydings. But the implication
was there
When Mr.. Harry L. Hopkins, head Of
the w. P. A., spoke out for Representative
Wearin, one hundred per cent New
Dealer, In the senatorial primary CAM
patgn in Iowa, against Senator Gillette,
who, like Tydings, has been on the White
House black books, the effort to influence
the non-civil service employees of the
Government was just as evident Is in the
case Of Mr.. Magruder. Yet not one word
Of condemnation has come from the lips
OF the head Of the administration.
It seems clear that the New Deal
administration looks with equanimity-
and perhaps with approval-upon efforts
to use the vast Government pay roll to
carry elections. And yet the New Dealers
set themselves up as past masters when
1t comes to the definition of "ethics" In
politics or anything else. President
Roosevelt not long ago criticized Repub-
licans for going into Democratic pri-
mary to help defeat Senator Pope, New
Dealer, In the Idaho senatorial contest.
In Idaho the law does not prevent Re-
publicans from going into Democratic
primaries. Nevertheless there was reason
IN the Presidents criticism. As between
the action of the Republicans in Idaho
and the use Of administration influence
to line up voters in Maryland there can
be no doubt rs to which is the blacker
incident from the point of ethics and