People talk back; Ethics in government, part one

And I think's in government by Senator Paul H Douglas of Illinois. An analysis of some of the deeper causes of corruption in government. Past Present and Future and analysis for all Americans. Listen with us for a moment to Senator Douglas speaking at Harvard University on ethics in government a member of the audience has just suggested to Senator Douglass that he would be more successful in curtailing corruption if he spent less time on codes of ethics and gave more attention to higher pay for public officials. The senator replies I'm for more pay but I still think a code of ethical propriety is for print outs sorry for $20000 yet that's for $10000 you know. And besides this you shouldn't expect to get in public employee the same salary that you get in private industry. Well I'll tell you why. Because presumably you're serving the public and you should get a sense of psychic

satisfaction from doing it which is the most precious thing on earth. This. Is the final program in the series. The people talk back presented by the National Association of educational broadcasters and for this broadcast. Senator Douglas recorded a special statement of his views on ethics in government which was sent to Columbus Ohio Birmingham Alabama New York and Boston and E.B. producers took their microphones and tape recorders out into these four cities so that people could hear Senator Douglas and then talk back to him. We wanted to get their comments the questions uppermost in their minds. All riginal plan was to have Senator Douglas listen and record an answer to each question. The senator himself wanted to do this but a problem

arose as to just when he might be able to free himself from his many legislative duties. It was then that we asked Senator Douglass if he would allow us to try a little experiment. We knew that he had presented his views on this topic quite thorough way in a three day God can lecture series at Harvard University during January 1962 and that these lectures were recorded by WGBH Boston. We also knew that the Godkin lectures had been published under the title ethics in government by the Harvard University Press. Copyrighted 1052 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. And so we asked Senator Douglass if we might take the various questions raised by the people in talking back and go to the book as it were through the lectures to get his answers. Senator Douglass gave his permission. And that's how this program came about. Now for the issues one of the issues which erupted during the recent presidential campaign was the

matter of funds and gifts by private citizens and organizations to public officials. The attitude of Senator Douglass on this is clear. He says senators congressmen and administrators should not accept costly gifts and entertainment from private parties and should avoid being put under obligation to those who have an open or secret axe to grind. In his God can lectures he points out that Time has changed the methods of corruption in former times the ways which men used to corrupt public officials are both crude and direct. The black bag stuffed with banknotes. But in the mean the trails across today are a far more southerly nature. Probably not illegal under the criminal law. They consist of an act a series of acts whereby the public servant gradually loses his sense of mission and of stewardship to protect the interests of the public.

And by putting himself under a series of obligations to private persons gradually comes to shift his loyalties. The shift of loyalties goes on until he regards his first duty not to the community but to these private persons and he makes his decisions on the basis of private friendships and loyalties rather than on the basis of the public good. Throughout all this process the public confession of the others will claim in the public official may believe that there is no connection between the favors which the public official receives and the decisions which he makes. They're isolated acts not bound together by any web of causality. Contention will be made that the favors that men receive are on the basis of friendship or merit. The decisions which are made on the basis of equity that the east is east of the West is West and never the twain shall meet. The whole process more will be made so subtle that the connecting link may not

be detected even by the public official himself. It will happen gradually more or less as a matter of course or in the lines of Philip's book so quietly so quietly the blessid gift is given. Senator Douglas conviction that public officials should not accept costly gifts and entertainment raised a very practical question and this is John Walsh a Brooklyn housewife mother of three grown children and four grandchildren put it this way. I just like to ask you now for instance if somebody gave you a little token a little gift a little token some time I mean that really didn't have too much value like a little bottle of how the spirit to put it mildly or perhaps the God of the cigarette that something like that. You wouldn't really consider that. Now where would you go out

on. Where do you draw the line. For Senator Douglas this is a very real personal problem and he answered it in his lecture by telling of his personal experience. One of the surprises which came to me after I was elected to the United States Senate was to discover how many friends I had. I had never realized that I had so many friends and they sprang up from all portions of the state. They were about a week the mailman and the express man staggered on the parcels which they brought up the stairs to our apartment. Bottles of whiskey of course cases of whiskey no mink coats but bolts of expensive cell and the most subtle gift of all a beautiful ten volume work on the painting and sculpture of Italy. Someone discovered that was one of my hobbies

and is beautifully bound specially bound set with its illustrations which must have cost hundreds of dollars. It was given to me in order to further my sense of the higher things of life threatening. We decided to send them back we spent the next week nailing and tying up these factories and sending them back collect. Atl. That sound very priggish in the form that I put it. And I did not wasn't saying this in order to it might thank you for my own virtue but when you get some of the difficulties that I was thought I was through with these difficulties by returning these initial gifts but they continue to pour in candy Lego

fruit colas upon occasion watchers friend of mine just receive the hansoms Silver said that she had praised it cost $500 because these gifts are poor you know. Television sets radio sense and so I want to go out to do. It's obvious that if you accept all gifts and Mr Carnell apparently did accept every gift that came his way you accept the gifts. Put yourself under obligation Mr. Caudle in that most extraordinary testimony of his that the fund he was a federal attorney down in Charlotte North Carolina used to leave the door of his automobile open had people in his absence would pull out a gift I

think. And he would drive off. On the other hand suppose you refuse all gifts. So that even the gift of a cigar you say no Sep. Except that that's rather priggish. What should you do. I suppose you decide each case on its merits or you spend a lot of your time deciding and it becomes very time consuming. Not only time consuming but you get racked in pieces over decisions which don't matter so much and you use up your nervous and Mar energy. Mind I'm out. So I have adopted the rule now any rule is

ridiculous because you get a dividing line and the difference is on the dividing line a minute and a man who draws the lies used to be an ass. You may remember the agent of the Internal Revenue Bureau saying you got many gifts which you received giving gifts of ham and Congressman King said take all haves said no he said I draw the line at £12. Then I think about the profound ham I regard as improper to receive anything less than 12 pounds I think perceive that as a god is ridiculous in the sense of buzz I have a rule is probably equally ridiculous but it's my rule. My line is two dollars and a half. I don't take anything that's worth more than two dollars and a half I send back. Anything less than $2 my Bible. Thank you

Donna for so far as possible distributed to members of my staff and to people in the hospitals. Friends of mine have said that this indicates that I'm not very confident of my own virtue that I possibly would not be subdued seduced by 2045 sense but that I would succumb for two dollars and fifty ones are. Currently. It is absurd. It saves me a lot of time. And on the whole it keeps me out of more trouble than I would get into if I accepted your presence and doesn't offend as many people as I would offend if I said No sir I will not even take a cigar. My only conclusion is that. The reception of valuable presence by public officials is an improper act

because it may put a man under obligation and may cloud his judgment. Now this is in sharp contrast to the practice which prevails in private business. They're very expensive gifts made to people in private business particularly if they're purchasing agents. The purchasing agent the buyer could live off they live high on the hog so to speak and he gets lots of presents from people a lot of selling things. Also watch the steward's of clubs the presents which they give the common practice making presents to people who can benefit you in private business life. And it is charged up as a legitimate business expense. And can I believe be deducted from one's income tax. This is very widespread. Nevertheless

whatever the standards be for private business and I think in many cases they are corrupt. I believe it is an improper act for public officials to receive money. Is it possible that Christ and big government go hand in hand. The Boston secretary Mrs. Nina Masters was concerned about this question when she talked back. We recorded Mrs. Masters at the office where she works. Senator Douglas Don't you think that we're faced with a dilemma. On the one hand we have the inevitable and very natural growth of government. The result of the new position of our country in world affairs and the internal growth and the many new functions of neither the state nor the local government can fulfill adequately. On the other hand this tremendous growth means that we have individuals and committees in the federal government that have tremendous powers and equally tremendous responsibilities.

Isn't it inevitable that some graft will result from so much power and so much responsibility being placed in a relatively few individuals and committees and do you have any suggestions on how to cope with this very complex situation. Senator Douglas in his book and in his god can lecture spelled out a number of things that could be done. He believes for instance that some of the favoritism and corruption which exists in government could be removed by a greater reliance on competition in our economic life during periods of prosperity when the government makes decisions as to what the prices ought to be how much is to produce be produced and what firms are to be allowed to enter an industry. The door is opened wide for the actual exercise of influence favoritism and corruption. But these are matters of life or death to the businessman or industrialist. A hostile government may put him out of business a friendly administration may give him great profits.

Where about government control of the business it becomes necessary for the business to try to control government. If a corporation manager is scrupulous and refuses to use unethical tactics and his firm suffers in consequences there will tend to be a change of management and less scrupulous men who can get results though tend to be installed in his place. This was observed long ago by Lincoln Steffens And I think the greatest book on American politics ever written his autobiography and also of course prior to that the shame of the cities was observed by him as he saw how the streetcar lines and gas companies corrupted the governments of most of our large cities. With the coming of the regulation of electricity and gas and telephone rates to the states of transfer from the localities to the states. These private utilities reached out more and more to control the state governments and to regulate their supposed regulators. The influence of these utilities has been one of the most powerful corrupting forces in state politics during the last 30 years. The railroads corrupted the state governments up to

900 private utilities since 1920. When the federal government engages in similar activities it must expect to be exposed to similar dangers. When it fixes prices for an industry the lobbyists will be hired and will flock to the national capital. When it determines which firms are to receive steel aluminum or copper expedite isn't fixes will spring up. The dragon's teeth in Greek mythology when it decides which firms sort of enter an industry is it now necessarily does in the case of radio television and the airlines. It can be certain that pressure and influence will be applied by the groups which wish to get the favored positions. When it makes loans there will be concerns which will engage men with influence to obtain them. When it pay subsidies the ranks of the government agency will be permeated by the secret agents of those who are subsidized. In short our economic decisions are made by people in parties who administer government. The decisions will not be on the lofty and abstract grounds. Somewhat naively assume by economists who

favor pervasive and foregoing economic controls all legislation. Students of public administration who believe that their class and those trained by them should run society will find instead that these decisions will be made in an atmosphere of pressure influence and favoritism improper deals and corruption. In short the capitals of our democracy are likely to become even more sodden with current corruption than what's fair cyan the Louis the Fourteenth in England under Chiles the first. It is precisely this which many of us have felt in Washington during these last six years. One did not have to be psychic in one's perceptions and intuitions to sniff the air of evil which is pervaded the hotel lobbies of our capitol. It was hard enough to keep the government pure when only a few industries were regulated. The heroic men who struggle to prevent the private utilities from controlling cities and states lead lonely lives and fought against great odds. But there are always some

Independent Business and Professional manned labor unions and ordinary citizens that would stand by them. But when virtually all economic life is drawn into the governmental net who then will be left to defend the interests of the general public. Nearly everyone will be involved directly or indirectly and there will be few or none who will dare to take a stand in behalf of the unorganized consumers the unorganized taxpayers as by so doing they endanger their own sources of income. Men only slowly learn the lesson that it is automatically impossible for the vast majority to receive special privilege that arithmetical fact dogs later. Moreover on any concrete issue the stake of each member of the general public will be small. While that of the members of the special interest group will be large the concentrated private interest will ordinarily triumph over the diffuse general interest. Senator Douglas believes that the large series of government subsidies to private

groups are the real breeding grounds for corruption. He would review all subsidies with an eye toward eliminating some reducing of us among those he would review would be indirect subsidies like cheap postal rates to magazines and newspapers and direct subsidies like those to cane sugar shipbuilding and silver. Thus there is no real economic reason for the 30 million dollar subsidy which we pay annually for the purchase of silver. There is no economic reason but there are 16 good political reasons. Namely the 16 senators probably eight sober States. It's only paid because of the political power of a few large mining companies and their employees in the mountain states. The senator also argues that the need for regulation of many kinds could be reduced by a greatly intensified enforcement of the anti-trust

laws. What I'm trying to urge is that to the degree to which it is possible that we return to the free market but that the government return to the free market only if we can get a competitive situation and that therefore it becomes one of the functions of government to try to restore competition. And that it's much better to try to restore competition and get a self regulating economic system and to permit monopoly and then try to regulate and operate because in the long run the monopolist will regulate you. No question from the audience picked up with a roving microphone in new lecture hall. Harvard suggested the means of getting rid of some of the problems in government by going back to competition stimulating competition. Now I was wondering if in view of the historic such a way whether you think that we can legislate for our competition. We have a great deal of people including senators who

say we love competition. Yet the actions of private businessmen and the people who should be competing are not so much. Well not everyone who say of the Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven. Had a lot of the protestations in favor of competition are insincere. Nevertheless the fact remains that the United States with with the Sherman Antitrust Act imperfectly as it has been forced has more competition than any other country in the world much more than Great Britain which developed the theoretical basis for competition but had no practical legislation. Infinitely more than Germany which neither believed in competition now had I think legislation to further it. We have at least done better than the other countries and we can do still better. And to say that this is the wave of the monopoly is the wave of the future about which we can do nothing. This to me is fatalistic to saying that Nazi ism is the wave of the future now that communism is the wave of the future.

Neither of these movements are waves of waves of the future. If we resist them and I want to just finish this I'll say this that if you do not check monopoly if you have enough of it then either the state will take over the monopolies and only you will have socialism. And if you have widespread socialism which virtually everyone is employed by the government it's going to be hard to maintain liberties because people will not have independent bases of support that either have widespread socialism which may merge into a totalitarian state or you will have a type of fascism in which government reaches out and controls business and you have absolute as the maintenance of freedom is dependent upon the diffusion of power out. Competition is one of the means of diffusing power. What. Are adult. Senator Douglas had some additional suggestions to offer which bear on the question posed by Mrs.

Needham masters the Boston secretary. You'll recall that she commented on the growth of the federal government and how this has meant that individuals and groups in the government have been charged with tremendous powers and responsibilities. Isn't it inevitable that some graft will result from so much power and so much responsibility being placed in a relatively few individuals and committees and do you have any suggestions on how to cope with this very complex situation. Senator Douglass believes that definite rules and criteria should be set up for the regulation of loans and subsidies and that this would reduce the possibility for illicit influence by holding the administrators within the confines of legislative standards. He also prescribed a code of ethics for administrators. This code as we heard earlier would rule out the acceptance of expensive gifts and entertainment.

It would also rule out a series of other unethical practices which he now describes public positions are frequently used to further private businesses in the St. Louis tax collector case it's obvious that one of the difficulties is betting that the collector of taxes is also in the insurance business. People got the idea if they took out insurance with the tax collected their troubles might somehow be mended. My judgment this also is an impropriety use a public job to foster private good and let's not take the question a prior one. This is particularly important now that thousands of business men have come into government and expect to go back to the same firms from which they came and in some cases I was still receiving their salaries from their former employers should they deal with any case in which their private former employer is involved. So it seemed to me that there should be a decent period

of decontamination before they did that for a period of at least two years they should disqualify themselves from passing on a case involving their former employer. What about the practice which frequently happens when a government attorney during the course of a proceeding is talked to by attorneys or representatives of the company which he is opposing and is told that there's a great future for bright young men. Company in question. This is an attempt to seduce the government employee. It also is an impropriety. What about subsequent employment. Oh. In my judgment no one should resign from public office and then represent a private in the same case in which one man the past is a public profession because then you are then utilising. Knowledge and information which you obtained as a private official to defend the other side. You've changed during the course of the

battle at least you should not change sides after the battle it's possible that you might with honor but not during a battle. Now I want to draw a further conclusion that in the case of the TOC follows in the case of the members of regulatory commissions and chief counsels. They ought to be very careful what they do after they leave public employment. There is one governmental commission where I think every single commissioner upon resignation with one exception. Part of resignation is gone out and then represents private concerns before the same body of which he was formerly a member. I think that has also been true of every chief council. Those men and there is another body where that is true with the exception of two men. When these men come back as attorneys before the body of which they were formally a part do they come back as ordinary lawyers or do they come back with men who have influence and favoritism and can exercise favoritism.

They're pleading before men have been their colleagues and presumably their friends pleading in some cases before examiners whom they have appointed when they are retain they are retained not merely for their. Knowledge and their ability they're retained also for their influence. To my mind this is grossly improper. I think it is a scandal that this practice has been allowed to continue in two of the most important regulatory bodies. I suggest two year period for the top man a delousing period for two years after they leave they should not at least appear in any action before the body. Not the ordinary lives of the talking or the body which they were funny enough that they can practice in quiet. They can prepare briefs provided the names are not on the briefs but they should not use their influence. Now these are certain things which I believe administrative officials should be aware of if they are violated they cannot be brought under the criminal law.

The connection cannot be proved between the favor of prior employment or subsequent employment. The decision the conversation what one you cannot convict these men under the criminal law. They are not illegal even if you made them illegal you couldnt get a conviction. But I submit that they are improper. What I would like to suggest and what our committee on ethics in government did suggest is that we get an intermediate zone for these offenses. We should give up any attempt put them under the criminal law that they should be made grounds for dismissal from public office and that the men who are guilty of these men should be automatically dismissed and it should be known in advance what they would be dismissed for and that would make people watch their step very carefully. We've had these standards I'm sure Mr. Caudle most all of them many others but not of gone wrong.

I think they'd be a great help and I would suggest that this be an amendment to the code of administrative procedures.