Evening star., 1953-01-25
he Mountain Lubors

1t looks now as though Charles E. Wilson
wiser, sadder and poorer, but certainly not
more honest man-will be confirmed this week
as Secretary of Defense.
This has come to pass by virtue of Mr.
Wilson's decision to dispose Of his General
Motors stock holdings and to make satisfac-
tory disposition Of future stock payments for
past services to the corporation.
The question which emerges is whether the
public interest is really served by the financial
sacrifices Mr. Wilson has been required to make
Presumably he was picked as Secretary Of
Defense by General Eisenhower because he
believes him to be the best qualified man for
that job. And from the standpoint of the public.
interest especially the taxpayer interest, it is
of high Importance to have the best available
man in that post.
In order to qualify however Mr.. Wilson
first had to sever his connections with General
Motors, giving up an income Of around 5000
year His salary in the Defense post will be-
$22,500. Next he had to sell his stock holdings,
taking loss which is uncertain in amount but
which has been estimated to be about 100000.
In addition he will take further loss in dis
posing Of his bonus stock payments
Why is this assumed to be in the public
interest? Because there is law on the books,
passed originally in 1868, which forbds an officer
of the Government to transact Government
business with any Arm In which he has
pecuniary interest, direct or indirect
The plain purpose of this law is to prevent
Government officer from transacting business
with any firm in such way as to enrich him
self In other words, it is intended to remove
temptation from an officials path
Is MIR. Wilson, having disposed OF his stock
more likely to be an honest official than if he
had retained it? If any Senator thinks this is
the case he ought to vote against confirmation,
for a man who would yield to such temptation
is not fit In any circumstances to be Secretary
OF Defense. Most Senators seem to believe
however, that Mr. Wilson is an honest man and
that he would not have been dishonest official
If he had kept his stock. If this is correct the
law is futility-another evidence of the
infeaSlbiity Of trying to legislate such qualities
as integrity and character. man either has
these qualities or he has not. and if he lacks
them all the laws in the world are not going
to make him honest.
Another difficulty with this law is that, If
enforced literally, it would produce absurd
results. What is meant by the words directly
or indirectly interested in the pecuniary profits
or contracts OF any corporations" Would Mr..
Wilson have been barred from Office if he had
owned single share of General Motors stock
instead of some 10000 shares? strict applica-
ton Of the statute would bar him. but that
would be patent absurdity If ownership of
one share would not bar him, however, what
degree of interest is necessary before the statute
applies? The answer, presumably, is that this
is matter for the discretion of the Senate
But if the Senators think Mr.. Wilson is an
honest man. then why compel him to dispose
of 10000 shares, which, after ALL represent
less than one-half of one per cent of the out
standing GIN stock?
The best practical argument that can be
made for requiring Mr.. Wilson to dispose of
his stock is that, with the law on the books,
it would be politically unwise for him to serve
and politically unwise for the Senators to vote
for confirmation This is political considera-
tion, however, which can work against the
public interest by barring competent men from
public service without producing any COM
pensating advantage. When the furor over
the Wilson case dies down the law should be
revised to bring it abreast of the facts of life
in 195S-facts which differ greatly from those of
1853 And the appropriate aim of revision
should be. not to penalize an honest man who
wants to serve his Government, but to facilitate
the detection and punishment of a dishonest
man who might slip through the pre-conf1rma-
ton scrutiny by the Senate.