Evening star., 1954-06-08
Much Ado

1t looks now as though there will be sharp
debate in Congress over the proposed legislative
change to designate the chairman of the Atomic
Energy Commission as the commissions "prin-
cipal officer" However judging from the pro
and con testimony heard to date, 1t is difficuiL
to see why there should be heated controversy
over such revision or why the AEC-in kind
OF polite family tin-has split to against it.
The three opposing commissioners DR..
Henry De Wolf Smyth, Thomas E. Murray and
Eugene M Zuckert, all appointed during the
Truman adminiStration-have told the Joint
Congressional Atomic Committee that they are
against the change because they fear that it
would destroy the present co-equal status of
the Aces five members and thus expose the
agency to potentially dangerous form of
"one-man rule" Further, they have intimated
that Lewis L. Strauss, their chairman, has
already begun to move in the direction Of that
type of rule.
But the three dissenters have at best only
poorly Substantiated their criticism. Mr. Muir
ray, it is true, has asserted that Mr. Strauss
has failed to consult in advance with the whole
commission on such matters as the Presidents
atoms for-peace plan, but the failure-if it may
be called that-can hardly be described as evi-
dence of "one-man rule" or as good argument
against recognizing the Acc chairman as "prin-
cipal officer" And DR.. Smyth has been even
less specific than Mr.. Murray; he has spoken
merely Of an "atmoSphere"-a vague feeling
that there has not been co-equal teamwork
under Mr.. Strauss. AS for Mr.. Zuckert, whose
term expires at the end of this month, he has
acknowledged that information has never been
withheld from him, but he has been disturbed
by certain underlined ''intangibles" and a per-
sonal sense of not being told things early
enough by Mr.. Strauss
All this adds up to something less than
persuasive case when measured against what
Mr.. Strauss and Joseph Campbell-both ap-
pointed to the Acc by President Eisenhower
have said to the joint committee. They are
for the proposed change because they believe
that it would enable the agency to function
more efficiently without ending the commits
sionerS' co-equal status Actually, as MIR.
Strauss has testified, the principal officer" idea
is in accord with the unanimous Hoover task
force findings on Federal commissions in gen.
eral These findings-urgng more authority for
the chairmen-have stressed the following
point: Our recommendation is not intended
to deprive the other members of fully equal
participation in the making of policies and sub
stantive decisions 1t is only designed to
center the administration in one member, re-
effective supervision for :. the orderly dispatch
of business"
Clearly, such change in the Acc would
be far cry from setting up system of "one-
man rule" Mr.. Strauss, for his own part, has
made very clear that he does not want that
sort of power, and Representative Cole head
OF the joint committee, has repeatedly and
convincingly emphasized that the chairmans
designation as principal officer" would not
diminish the co-equality of his colleagues AN
assurance supported by the fact that further
provision of the amendment would require that
commission "action" (meaning presumably "the
making of policies and substantive deciSons')
be determined by majority vote of the
members present"
Everything considered, therefore, the oppo-
sition to this revision in the 1946 Atomic Energy
Act seems altogether ill-founded. Certainly,
if able and distinguished men like Dr. Smyth,
Mr.. Murray and Mr.. zuckert can offer no better
arguments than they have offered thus far the
whole attack on the change must be dismissed
as teapot tempest