Evening star., 1953-12-09
Conflict Of Interests

4OuT culCOrlal november IL, enClCle0
Conflict Of Interests" scratched the
surface of q problem which believe
deserves fuller treatment. At the out
set, however, should like to point out
that this letter is not intended to pass
on the innocence or guilt of Herbert A.
Bergson, about whose case I have no
knowledge whatsoever.
In the first place. Congress has legis-
lated on this subject many times, and
the statute under which Mr.. Bergson
has been indicted (18 U. S. Code 284) is
not the only one dealing with what is
loosely labeled conflict of interests"
For example, IS U. S. Code 28l prohibits
members of Congress or other officers or
employees of the United States from
receiving any compensation for services
rendered in relation to 'any proceeding,
contract, claim, controversy, charge,
accusation, arrest or other matter in
which the United States is a party or
directly or indirectly interested :"
Also, 18 U. S. Code 283 prohibits pres
emily employed Government personnel
from performing the same acts that
are prohibited to former personnel un-
der 18 U. S. Code 284. And title S.
U. S. Code, section 80 contains virtu-
ally the identical provision of title 18,
section 284. However, the Renegotia-
ton Act of 1851 contained a provision
exempting former Government person.
mel from the prohibitions contained in
title 18, sections 281 and 283 and title
5, section &c. except with respect to
prosecuting claim Involving any sub
ject directly connected with which such
person was SO employed" Curiously,
this exemption did not extend to sec
ton 284 Of title 18. although it is vir-
tually identical with section 90 of
title 5.
The foregoing are by no means the
only statutes Congress has enacted to
deal with this problem, but they will
serve to illustrate that C1) Congress is
aware Of the many facets and nuances
in this field and legislates with speci-
f1city concerning them, and (2) the null
tiplicity Of legislation and lack Of pre-
else definition of many of the terms
used therein leaves very much in doubt
the permitted and prohibited areas of
activity of former Government person.
mel, particularly lawyers.
Now to Mr.. Brownell's Interpretation
OF title 18, section 284, issued in a
memorandum last August. The statute
itself says: Whoever, having been en-
ployed in any agency of the United
States -. within two years after the
time when such employment or service
has ceased, proSecuteS or acts as coun-
sci. attorney or agent for prosecuting,
any claims against the United States
involving any subject matter directly
connected with which such person was
so employed or performed duty, shall
be fined, etc, etc." Now, this is a crimi-
nal statute, and there is no better
known principle of law than the one
that criminal statutes are to be con-
strued strictly, that is to say, in the
narroWest sense in order to give every
benetlt to the accused. Yet, Mr.. Brow
nell in his memorandum says that this
statute must be given an inclusive con-
Structlon, and so he Immediately says
that it must be interpreted to include
non-monetary claims as we'll as none
tary ones, and includes defending
against claims as well as prosecuting
them. Also, he says. the phrase in the
statute about prosecuting claims doesn't
mean just prosecuting claims but en-
compasSes representation in any mat
ter In which the United States has any
interest whatsoever. Thus, he con-
cludes that section 284 prohibits any
former Government employe for two
years after leaving Government service
from representing ANY non-govetn-
mental interest in any matter whatso-
ever, involving any subject matter di-
rectly connected with which such per-
son was so employed or performed
duty, in which the United States is in
terested, directly or indirectly, whether
as a party, as an enforcement agency.
or otherwise
1 believe that this Interpretation of
the statute is clearly erroneous. 1t is
an expression of what Mr.. Brownell
would like the statute to say, rather
than what it says.
Charles H Maver