Washington attorneys are similar in one respect--they both must make it explicit that they are handling matters only on their merits and that they are not attempting to tip the scales of justice, if they wish to discourage the belief that influence exists.

The challenge to the integrity of Government through the acceptance by public officials of gifts, favors, and lucrative employment from persons or organizations which seek favorable decisions from Government agencies was amply demonstrated by the investigations of the subcommittee which dealt with the RFC under the chairmanship of Senator Fulbright and by later investigations under the direction of Senator Hoey. When public officials fail to show a fine sense of propriety as to what their high responsibility requires them to do in order to maintain complete objectivity and impartiality, subsequent faulty decisions inevitably become suspect. Public servants who exercise discretion in making or helping to make important decisions should take every possible step to make certain that they have no personal motives or interest in the decisions which they make If they do not take this precaution, they deliberately expose themselves to charges of favoritism and bias. This necessity has not yet been fully recognized within all branches of the Government, but it should be.

The penetration of organized crime into the American system of government through its ability to control American politics at the grass roots was demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt by the Kefauver subcommittee. Those disclosures challenge the integrity of American politics at its base, the local community. They suggest that the failure to find a better way of financing necessary political activities on the part of Americans, who are known to be a resourceful people, can be attributed only to negligence and a failure to take politics seriously. This inference is perhaps the most damaging of all to the ethics of American society.

The investigations of the Maritime Commission by the House Committee on Expenditures emphasized the dangers which are inherent in a policy of discretionary subsidies handled by a regulatory commission, particularly by an agency which has for its sole clientele the industry which receives the subsidies. Although the situation was confused by apparent faulty structure, by lax management, and by a statute that was not entirely clear, the committee found an apparent tendency to use the administrative processes to fix a wishedfor amount of subsidy rather than to determine, in a reasonable way, the proper amount of the subsidy. The perils of such a tendency are obvious.

of

The House Executive Expenditures Subcommittee headed by Congressman Hardy has also been investigating procurement practices of purchasing agents of automotive parts for the armed services. Already it has revealed unfortunate instances in Detroit and Toledo of highly questionable gratuities from Government contractors. Charges apparent favoritism and exorbitant prices will be examined when the subcommittee opens its hearings on the cost, profits, and sale contract figures of these parts producers. As we face the necessity of an unprecedented, peacetime expansion of the country's military power, and as defense appropriations rise to the $60 billion level, the Hardy committee's work makes it clear the opportunities for such

90707-51- -2

unjust enrichment at the expense of the public treasury are more numerous than ever before.

Another series of disclosures have already involved collectors of internal revenue in New York, Boston, Detroit, St. Louis, and San Francisco. One indictment for alleged kick-backs in tax settlements, three removals from office by the President, numerous suspensions and resignations and a grand jury investigation indicate that some public officials and taxpayers are willing, for personal gain, to undermine the fairness with which tax laws are enforced. Recent hearings before the Investigations Subcommittee headed by Senator Hoey have implicated another group of internal revenue employees on a lower level in acceptance of gifts and outside employment. Beyond the dereliction of duty by individuals thus disclosed, it is clear that these practices weaken the essential public confidence in the fairness of the tax laws and their enforcement. If repeated, such cases may make more difficult the successful financing of the national defense and necessary nonmilitary programs of the Government.

The advent of a new member-lobbying-in the ranks of big business was documented by the Buchanan committee of the House of Representatives. The evidence indicates that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent annually to influence both legislation and administration. The activities of pressure groups were once thought to be merely a segment of American politics. It would be more accurate, today, to say that the political parties themselves have become a segment of a much vaster system of pressure politics, a year-round business with an infinite variety of forms and almost unlimited funds. The changes in magnitudes and in the constancy, variety, and volume of pressures have created additional problems and dangers for public servants and have at the same time made the objectivity and integrity of the public service more essential. These pressures are at the heart

of the problem of ethics in Government.

In the light of these facts, the broad outline of which cannot be doubted no matter how much men may differ over the details, there is no cause for complacency, either as to the conduct of public servants, the ethical standards which prevail, or the moral climate of the country.

Administrators,

Unfortunately, a good deal of complacency exists. who lament the imperfectibility of human nature and suggest that nothing can be done except to try to get better men in Government, seem to be ignorant of the power of leadership to set and maintain high standards in an organization, and that there is a responsibility for leadership to do so. For a department head to avow "deep faith in the basic integrity * * * of my Department" is not very reassuring when he does so, after three or four important officials of his department were involved in serious improprieties which had come to public attention and where subsequently still more improprieties were revealed. A defensive view that "You can't legislate the Ten Commandments" overlooks the fact that wherever the Ten Commandments are held in high regard, legislative bodies have found it necessary to elaborate and enforce their basic principles. It is the function of a considerable part of the penal code to deal in more detail with matters which are specifically prohibited by the Ten Commandments. Every civilized people supplements its moral code with an extensive criminal code and with a vast body of civil law.

Indeed, a major index of advancement in the scale of civilization is the extent to which a society enforces this code. Administrators must be on guard lest they become more anxious to defend the reputation of their administration than they are to make sure of its integrity.

On the record, we in Congress must also seem unduly complacent. Neither House has acted vigorously to tighten its discipline in moral matters or to raise its ethical standards. In recent years, some Members have been convicted of crime and sent to prison, but they have not been expelled. Neither House has been particularly diligent in searching out and punishing questionable conduct on the part of its Members. It is hard for every institution to discipline itself, and Congress is no exception.

The public has been more outspoken. There is no doubt that the failure of some administrators and legislators to comply with decent standards of conduct has caused genuine distress among thoughtful people and has fostered cynicism among many others. This is the reaction of the general public. Among those better-organized special groups which are accustomed to press both legislators and administrators for favorable decisions, however, almost no recognized spokesman has yet come forward to say with equal conviction that pressure groups and aggressive interests have responsibilities as well as privileges. They speak up quickly in defense of the sacred right of petition, but they do not assert that they have a corresponding obligation of restraint. The legitimacy of lobbying is stoutly defended, although it is no longer challenged. But there is little evidence that the pressure groups concede that such a right carries with it an obligation to use only acceptable methods and tactics. Lobbying is a profession which has not yet felt the need of establishing a code to distinguish between proper and improper practices. In fact, some of the sharpest criticism of the ethics of administrators and legislators comes from groups which have shown the least scruple about their own methods.

Complacency over ethical standards is unfortunate. It is true that over a long period there has been progress, but has it been enough when measured by the need? There is little to justify the assumption that progress is automatic in the field of moral standards. Perhaps the country is living off its moral capital. The embarrassing deviations which have popped into view in the investigations that Congress has undertaken and in the revelations of the press are not the product of intensive inquiries or a search for misdeeds, and are, therefore, doubly significant as evidence of a possibly serious deficiency in American life. A thorough study by the Commission on ethics in Government is needed to reveal more fully the nature and the dimensions of this problem.

Conflicting values and difficult decisions

But it is easy for men who have not shouldered any responsibility for public affairs and who have not had to make decisions as representatives or agents of the public to be completely unrealistic in their estimate of the moral problem in Government.

The choice between good and evil is inescapable in life-public as well as private. Public servants, like other men, have to be on guard against temptation. But the simple choice between the public interest and private or personal interest is not the biggest problem today. The difficult thing is to choose between or to harmonize vari

ous interests, each of which is so substantial as to lay claim to being "public" in character, yet all of which are smaller than the total public. Conflicting policies are advocated, any one of which, if considered alone, would seem to be highly meritorious. Yet these proposals cannot be considered alone. They have to be integrated in some way to the common advantage of society as a whole.

It is not the choice between "good" and "evil," but between diverse and competing "goods" which makes the task of public servants difficult. They must judge between diverse and sometimes conflicting values. The scale of activity, the complexity of the technical matters involved, and the impact of public policies on the national welfare is such that we dare not leave any stone unturned to safeguard the integrity of Government. Decisions must be made on their merits as objectively and relatistically as conscientious and intelligent men can make them. Fairness, impartiality, and freedom from irrelevant considerations are now as important for the legislator and the administrator as for the judge, perhaps even more important.

2. THE NEED FOR AN INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

The weight of the testimony as well as the evidence produced by investigations of other committees of the Congress, indicates that a thorough investigation of the problem of ethical standards in the Federal Government and in American life is needed. Witnesses from private life argued strongly for the establishment of a commis

On the whole, their feeling was that the problem is serious. They do not say that the Government is exclusively responsible, but they rather fear that there is danger of a retrogression in moral standards generally. They believe that some leadership by the Federal Government is strongly desirable. With this view, the subcommittee agrees.

Only one witness who appeared before the subcommittee, an attor ney with a practice in Washington, opposed the establishment of such a commission. Most of those who did not appear in person but presented written statements also favored investigation by a commission. A few administrators, however, opposed the establishment of a commission, or showed no enthusiasm for it. They doubted either the need or the possibility of effective action.

Witnesses who had thought about the composition and function of the Commission believed that it should consist primarily of persons of gewaine wisdom and experience who are now in private life, but that there should be a few Members who are active in Congress and the executive branch. There was general agreement that the Commission should not be partisan and that it should not represent any organized groups. The members should serve as individuals and not as representatives of groups to which they might belong. It was pointed out that the problems are of such a nature that the Commission should have among its members, if possible, persons who are expert in the social sciences, such as psychology, sociology, and political stonce, in relevant fiells of the humanities such as philosophy, and in relinous thought Protestant, Cathee, and Hebrew); It was recognized that the Commission would require and could function most effectively with a professional staff, which it should

be authorized to employ. With these views, the subcommittee agrees fully.

Although the center of the Commission's interests would be ethical standards in the Federal Government, particularly the legislative and executive branches, it should also be authorized to inquire broadly into that part of the field of public morals which is related to the conduct of public affairs. Witnesses from private life were particularly insistent on the need for a broad and not a narrow survey. It is clear that the Commission's role should not be either inquisitorial or punitive. Its function must rather be to take stock of conditions on a broad front, to go beneath the surface in getting the facts, and to bring to their interpretation man's deepest wisdom, both scientific and historic. Through the Commission, the country should be able to gain a better understanding of its net worth in ethical terms, its moral assets and liabilities, and the steps which are needed to strengthen adherence to its basic ethical standards. The Commission will be more concerned with moral dynamics than with abstract standards, and its work will be in large part educational.

Recommendation: Commission on Ethics in Government

The subcommittee, therefore, recommends the establishment of a Commission on Ethics in Government as follows:

(1) The Commission should be authorized: (a) To investigate and report to the President and to Congress on the moral standards of official conduct in the Federal Government; the moral standards in business and political activity of persons and groups either doing business with the Government or seeking to influence public policy and administration; and the moral standards generally prevailing in society which condition the conduct of public affairs, or which affect the strength and unity of the Nation; and (b) to recommend measures to improve and maintain at a high level moral standards of official conduct in the Federal Government, and of all persons who participate in or are responsible for the conduct of public affairs.

The Commission's inquiry should primarily be focused upon the legislative and executive branches, but it should not exclude the administration of justice, the federally supported activities of the States, and such ideas, attitudes, habits, practices, and standards of American society as are relevant to the Commission's functions. The Commission would not be concerned with the morals of individualsgovernmental personnel or private citizens-except as they are involved in the conduct of public affairs.

(2) The Commission should have the authority and funds to conduct a thorough inquiry. It should be authorized to hold hearings, to take testimony, require the attendance of witnesses and compel the production of documents in evidence, employ a staff, having printing and binding done, and make such expenditures as are necessary. It should be authorized to receive funds which may be appropriated. The emphasis should be on a thorough survey and a well-considered report, or reports. The subcommittee is convinced that anything less than the most thorough study that it is possible to make would be inadequate. The Commission should be fully equipped for its job. (3) The Commission should be composed of 15 members, 5 appointed by the President, 5 by the President of the Senate (i. e., the