Evening star., 1961-01-11
EquoI Justice?

The supreme Courts majority rul-
ing in the Dixon-Yates matter is an
interesting study in the application of
law and the working of morality.
Chief Justice Warren, speaking for
the majority, finds that Adolphe II.
Wenzell back in 1854, was guilty of
violating the conflict-of-interest law,
a criminal statute. In passing, it should
be noted that this holding overrules the
Court Of Claims and conflicts with the
view of three of the Supreme Court
justices.
What interests us most, however, is
the contrast between this ruling by the
court and its attitude toward other types
of cases in which violation of GRIM
inal statute is involved. For this case,
we think; has some bearing upon the
meaning which one should attach to
the concept of equal justice under law.
Generally, in criminal case, the
Supreme Court will hold the Govern
ment to the strictest standard of good
behavior. In the Mallory case, for ex-
ample, the conviction of a rapist was
reversed, with the result that he was
turned loose in Washington, because the
court thought he had been questioned
too long by the police. The idea was to
force the Government to observe high
standards Of fair play in dealing with
criminals.
But what of the courts attitude in
this Dixon-Yates case? There is not an
exact parallel since Wenzell was not
before the court on a criminal charge,
even though the court majority con-
cluded that he had violated a criminal
statute. The parallel is close enough,
however, to raise question as to what
is really meant by equal justice
: In the Dixon-Yates case the Gov
ernment made a contract with Missis-
sippi Valley Generating Co. (MVG) to
build an electric power plant near Mem
,phis, Tenn. Later on, the power require
ments changed and the Government
decided to cancel the contract. MVG
sued for compensation for work already
done, and the Court of Claims said it
was entitled to nearly So million. The
Government disputed this, or any,
award, contending that 1t could wriggle
out OF payment because Wenzell had
been guilty of a conflict of interest.
What were the real facts? Perhaps
Wenzell was involved in a conflict of
interest. If so, where does the Govern
ment stand? 1t knew all about the
Wenzell role in connection with the MVG
contract. In fact, the Government (the
Budget Bureau) actually urged Wenzell
to push hard for the contract Only
after the matter had become political
issue did the administration maintain
that there was no conflict of interest.
In court, however, faced with $18
million suit, the Government reversed
its field. Yes, it asserted, Wenzell after
all was involved in conflict of interest,
and although the Budget Bureau knew
all about 1t and condoned it, the Gov
ernment was not obligated to pay any,
thing since this same Government
condoned conflict of interest vitiated
the contract. In other words, the con-
tractor, MVG (not Mr. WenzelD could
swallow its loss and whistle for its
money.
The Supreme Court majority had
no special sympathy for MVG, suggest
ing it must have known about Mr.. Wen
Zell's role. Nevertheless, said the Chief
Justice, no matter how harsh" the re-
suit might be, culpable Government
in situation Of this kind must be per-
mitted to welsh on its contract. Other
wise, the public interest,"" where con-
tract is involved, is likely to suffer.
Perhaps, in time, although we doubt
it, a similar philosophy will be invoked
in the case of common crimes-murder,
rape, robbery and the like. If the Gov
ernment, in prosecuting the offender,
Judges little bit, perhaps the court
will say: The protection of the public
interest" comes first, and let's not worry
too much about the criminal whose
guilt is obvious but who claims the police
did not do what the judges say they
should have done.