Evening star., 1961-01-24
Horsl,-ond Silly

One Of the first and most welcome
moves Of the Kennedy administration
was the appointment Of a three-man
panel to see what can be done about
introducing little common sense into
the operation of our conflict-of- interest
laws. We hope that something worth
while, for change, will come out Of
this panels study.
~] The things that are being done in
the name Of guarding against a con-
f1ict Of interests border on the ridic-
ulous. Take the case Of Defense Secre-
tary Mcnamara. In hope Of satisfying
the Senate Armed Services Committee,
which had to approve his nomination,
he sold SIS million Of Ford Motor Co.
stock and set up trust fund to handle
the proceeds Of the sale. Mr.. Mcnamara
would have no control over the man
agement Of the trust. He would not
even have known what securities the
money was being invested in.
This, however, did not satisfy the
committee members, who, incidentally,
are not required to divest themselves
Of anything even though conflicts of
interests might well arise in their votes
for or against particular measures. In
fact, we suspect that United States
Senator would be highly offended II
anyone should even suggest that he
ought to be compelled to sell his Ford
stock, for example, before voting In
favor Of an appropriation which might
iVaAFAa "a f9aA ,Nwr.<a%. - %laA UAsSA ARo%o,
Co., and, correspo ndinsly. the value Of
the Senator'S Ford stock. It Just hap
pens that the law, particularly the 1873
conflicts -of-interests statute, applies to
cabinet officers, not to Senator'S But
this doesn't mean that the law makes
sense.
Before Mr.. Mcnamara was let OF
the hook he had to stipulate that the
trust he set up could not buy any stocks
which he, as Defense Secretary, could
notsbuy. And to add what seems to us
a,touch OF humiliation, he was required
to file with the committee a written
statement to this effect. His verbal
assurance, we suppose, wasn't good
enough.
Senator Russell, chairman Of the
committee, conceded that this is a every
harsh rule" We think it is both harsh
ana silly. For in most cases 1t will do
one Of two things. In addition to the
ha1miliating aspect, 1t will require man
tostake q substantial financial loss in
order to serve his country. Or, If he
cannot afford to absorb the loss, it will
deprive the Government Of his needed
services.
There must be some better way.
Certainly it is possible to protect the
public interest against dishonest on
cials and to insulate honest oficials
against undue temptation without, at
the same time, making 1t impossible to
recruit outstanding men whose services
arr 80 badly needed by the Government
i1 this complex age. ~
s.. As a starting point, we suggest re-
peal or modification of that 1873 law
which troubled the Senators so deeply.
We do not know what prompted its
enactment, and we doubt that many
Senators know. But this is 1861, not
1873. Things have changed, especially
the magnitude Of the job Of running
our $42 billion Defense Department.
There may have been reasons SO years
ago for treating the man in charge of
defense as though he were a potential
chicken thief. But we don't think the
same reasons could possibly be valid
today.