The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, the president of South Africa said blacks must be given more political and property rights. New word from Moscow gives more credence to reports President Chernenko may be seriously ill. Lawyers for Edwin Meese are told to better justify their $700,000 fee, and a New York grand jury declined to indict Bernhard Goetz, the so-called subway vigilante, for attempted murder. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: Here's what you'll find on the NewsHour tonight. After the summary of the news of the day we have two focus sections. First, the controversy over feeding antibiotics to livestock: can it harm people? We have a debate. We examine the South African government's new gesture to blacks. We have a newsmaker interview with the first woman police chief of a large city. Essayist Roger Rosenblatt examines the behavior of New York's so-called subway vigilante, and we have a look back at the week's cartoons.News Summary

LEHRER: The President of South Africa said today that the rights of his country's 22 million blacks must be expanded. President P. W. Botha told the opening session of the new South African Parliament his government was giving urgent attention to the problem. Blacks are not permitted to vote or own property in South Africa, and the government is controlled by the five million minority whites. President Botha said the situation has prompted increasing violence and protests and must be changed. Botha is South Africa's first president to exercise full executive power. His speech opening Parliament was marked by both ceremony and significance because this Parliament is the first with two new chambers, one for Asians and one for people of mixed race. It convened after a season or riots that claimed at least 150 lives from the townships inhabited by the black majority, who were completely left out of the new political systems.

President P. W. BOTHA, South Africa: -- large numbers of leaders of the black population communities who find themselves outside the national states.

LEHRER: Bishop Desmond Tutu immediately rejected the Botha promise.Tutu is the black Episcopal priest who won the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize for his anti-apartheid efforts in South Africa. Said Tutu today, "We will not be satisfied with a promise of concessions the white man throws us. The country is ours." He said that at a news conference in the Netherlands, where he is visiting. The South African ambassador to the United States and a congressional critic of South African policy will be with us here for a focus section on today's developments later in the program. Robin?

MacNEIL: The White House said today there is reason to believe that Iran is considering an oil and arms deal with Nicaragua. White House spokesman Robert Sims said the visit to Managua this week by Iranian prime minister Mirhossein Mousavi is evidence of Teheran's political backing. A senior administration official, unnamed, told the Associated Press, "Adding the Iranian element of sophistication, its brand of terrorism and its enmity for the United States is troublesome for us."

In Moscow a senior Western diplomat spoke to reporters today about the health of Soviet President Konstantin Chernenko. He said different Soviet officials have told him recently that the 73-year-old leader suffers from everything from emphysema to a stroke. The diplomat said the Soviets seem more open about Chernenko's health problems and to be taking it more calmly than they did the lengthy illness of his predecessor, Yuri Andropov, who died last February.

LEHRER: Union Carbide answered new questions about the Bhopal tragedy today. Yesterday Congressman Henry Waxman said Union Carbide knew from its own employees that there was a danger of the kind of poisonous gas leak that killed more than 2,000 people. He said the information came from inspections at its sister plant in West Virginia. Union Carbide officials spoke today at a news conference in Danbury, Connecticut.

JACKSON BROWNING, Union Carbide: Union Carbide operational safety surveys are designed to determine whether it is possible to make any additional safety improvements in our petrochemical plants. At our Institute plant, the OSS team developed a hypothetical scenario that could lead to a runaway reaction in a unit storage tank. Two, while the potential for a reaction of that nature was in no way imminent, it received immediate attention. A simple change in operating procedures completely eliminated the concern for that reaction and eliminated the need for extensive changes in the equipment. The safety team agreed with the solution. Had it not done so, the matter would have been escalated to higher management for resolution. Three, there was no reason to share the report of our Institute -- the OSS report at the Institute plant with the Union Carbide India Ltd. Bhopal facility. The cooling system in the tank that was the subject of the Institute OSS report was different than the cooling system on the storage tanks at Bhopal.

LEHRER: Browning also said reports of an 840-pound spill of the dangerous chemical were not true. He said there was a spill, but it was only five pounds and none escaped into the atmosphere.

MacNEIL: The medical profession had new advice today for women facing childbirth after having a previous child by caesarean section. The American College of Physicians and Gynecologists said that between 50 to 80 percent of such women could try normal delivery because of its lower risks and costs. If they did it would help to stop the rise in the caesarean delivery rate.

In New York a grand jury refused to hand down a charge of attempted murder against Bernhard Goetz, the man who's admitted shooting four young men on the subway. Instead he was indicted on three charges of illegal possession of a weapon. Witnesses said the four young men accosted Goetz and asked him for $5. Three of them were carrying sharpened industrial screwdrivers and all four of them had police records. In New York state the maximum penalty for attempted murder is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the most serious of the weapons charges against Goetz is seven years. In reporting the indictments, the Manhattan district attorney said that the grand jury's decision meant it decided he was illegally carrying a pistol but was justified in protecting himself from a robbery.

LEHRER: There was a snag today in presidential counselor Edwin Meese's desire to have the government pick up his $700,000 lawyers' bill. A special three-judge federal panel told Meese's lawyers to furnish more details to justify the reimbursement claim. Meese, now awaiting confirmation as attorney general, was cleared of criminal wrong-doing in a series of financial transactions by an independent counsel. Under the Ethics in Government Act, government officials cleared by such investigations can, under some circumstances, have their legal fees paid by the government.

MacNEIL: Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole said today that Defense Secretary Weinberger was trying to sit out difficult deficit-reducing budget cuts. Speaking to public relations officials in Washington, the Kansas Republican said, "They've been able to survive over there," meaning the Pentagon, "without much difficulty. I think the rest of the country needs to survive too." He added, "I'm willing to go after sensitive programs, but don't count on me if Weinberger continues to sit it out. We're in real trouble if we can't get together on defense numbers."

There were two reports today that capped a week of good economic news. Orders to factories for durable goods rose 14.9% last year. Sales of existing homes showed the best performance in four years.

LEHRER: Pope John Paul II sprung a surprise today. He called an extraordinary assembly of Roman Catholic bishops for November 25th of this year. The two-week session is designed, he said, to review the message and application of the Vatican II Council, a meeting of bishops which ended 20 years ago. Vatican II approved major changes in the Catholic liturgy, among other things. Antibiotic Feed

MacNEIL: We focus first tonight on the proposal to ban the use of antibiotics in livestock because of a possible threat to human health. The FDA today held an all-day hearing on the subject, which has been hotly debated for several years. It's now common practice to feed low doses of antibiotic drugs to livestock and poultry. Growers say the drugs make the animals grow bigger and faster and more economically. But critics say the routine use of antibiotics on the farm is dangerous because they say it makes the same drugs less and less effective for treating human diseases. Those who want to ban the drugs got some new ammunition last fall.It came in the from of a scientific report about a highly unusual outbreak of illness in the Midwest. Correspondent Kwame Holman picks up the story from there.

PATRICIA MOORE: Richard, can you turn that pan on the stove, please?

I have had two children, and labor pains were nothing compared to what these abdominal pains were. They were just -- I mean, you just double over and you -- I couldn't lay still. I just -- your whole body was just crouching because it hurt so bad.

KWAME HOLMAN [voice-over]: Almost two years ago Patricia Moore of Maple Grove, Minnesota, came down with a violent, mysterious illness. A few days after the was admitted to a suburban Minneapolis hospital, her husband Robert began suffering the same terrible symptoms.

ROBERT MOORE: That night I came home and we sent all the kids to their Dad's and I did get sick. And I was in the same shape she was, where I was throwing up and vomiting, high fever, and I couldn't control anything.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: After extensive tests the Moores' illness was diagnosed as a rare form of food poisoning caused by an otherwise common bacteria called salmonella. But the Moores' doctor was perplexed; salmonella food poisoning is normally a mild condition. The Moores were extremely ill. And worse, the standard antibiotic treatment had no effect on the Moores' disease.

[on camera] As it turned out, Robert and Patricia Moore were not alone.Within three weeks officials here at the Minnesota Department of Health identified nine other cases of food poisoning, all caused by the very same salmonella bacteria and all resistant to standard treatment with antibiotics.

[voice-over] Dr. Michael Osterhome handles epidemics for the Minnesota Department of Health.

Dr. MICHAEL OSTERHOME, Minnesota Department of Health: What was striking about these cases is that, given the number that we were aware of, many of them were seriously ill, and I think that the number of severe cases indicates that this was a very serious and somewhat unusual appearance of this type of bacteria.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Baffled in his efforts to find the source of the outbreak, Dr. Osterhome called on the federal Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. The case was assigned to Dr. Scott Holmberg.

Dr. SCOTT HOLMBERG, Centers for Disease Control: Most of the time salmonella is acquired from eating foods of animal origin -- meat, chicken, pork, eggs, raw milk, things of this nature. These people had eaten a very normal -- apparently a normal diet. The one thing they had all eaten in common was ground beef in the week before their illness.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: Armed with that information, the doctors launched an intensive national search for other reports of this salmonella. A month later, the medical team found what would become the major break in the case, four more victims of the same infection in South Dakota, including one death. These people all lived near a cattle ranch, and the doctors discovered that both the South Dakota and Minnesota victims had eaten beef produced by those cattle. They were convinced that the potent strain of salmonella had infected the cattle. And there was a final clue; the cattle had been fed antibiotics to speed their growth.

Dr. HOLMBERG: The sequence of events begins with the feeding of antibiotics to animals, which encourages the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in those animals which then make their way through the food chain, they're eaten by human beings at the consumer end and ultimately cause serious human disease.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The doctors now say they've proven that feeding antibiotics to livestock produces powerful mutant bacteria and that when those bacteria are eaten by humans in meat the resulting infection is untreatable with those same antibiotics. But critics charge that the study has a major flaw, that the salmonella was never found in the suspect beef itself. Dr. Leon Sabath is a professor at the University of Minnesota.

Dr. LEON SABATH, University of Minnesota: We are told there are over 40,000 pounds of beef from that one beef farm that got into this network. Forty thousand pounds. That's enough for 160,000 quarter-pounders. If in fact these were widely contaminated, we'd expect a lot more than 15 people to have come down with salmonella infection in my estimation.

Dr. HOLMBERG: I have yet to hear another explanation of how these people became ill over such a wide area over such a long period of time, if you explain away the distribution of that herd, which fit the timing and geography of the human illnesses so perfectly.

HOLMAN [voice-over]: The Holmberg-Osterholm study has become extremely controversial because some see it as the first definitive link between medicated animal feed and severe human illness. But farmers contend that feeding low doses of antibiotics to their herds not only promotes growth but helps keep animals healthy. Dr. Holmberg says a compromise must be reached.

Dr. HOLMBERG: Almost half the antibiotics produced in this country every year are fed to our farm animals, and they include penicillin and tetracycline, two of our most valuable antibiotics in human medicine. If we find more and more strains of bacteria resistant to penicillin and tetracycline, we're going to compromise our ability to treat human disease in an effective way. And this is the concern -- the human health aspect is the concern.

MacNEIL: Today's hearing in Washington on this subject was prompted by a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group that wants the FDA to restrict the use of antibiotics in livestock. The group's senior scientist is A. Karim Ahmed, a biochemist who is heading the drive against the drugs. We hear the other side from Fred Gutzmann, technical director for animal nutrition and health for the American Cyanamid Corporation, one of the largest manufacturers of antibiotics.

First of all, Dr. Ahmed, you told the hearing today there is "overwhelming scientific evidence that continuing use of antibiotics in animal feeds poses a major health risk to American people." Are you basing that overwhelming scientific evidence on the case we've just heard reported?

A. KARIM AHMED: That is one of the evidence that we have used in our petition, but the important thing to remember in this context, when you talk about the scientific evidence, is that the scientific evidence has been mounting for the last 15 years in this whole area. And in fact about two years ago, right before the CDC report that you just mentioned was published, we obtained signatures of 300 leading scientists and biologists and department deans at medical shools who indicated their support for a ban based upon studies that had been already published in the literature, studies that had been published at the Harvard Medical School at that time, plus the body of information that had been developed over the last 15 years. So when we talk about overwhelming scientific evidence, we talk about the whole body of evidence.

MacNEIL: Mr. Gutzmann, how overwhelming do you think the evidence is?

FRED GUTZMANN: Well, frankly, we have not seen any evidence to date that would say that sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock feeds has had any impact --

MacNEIL: Excuse me. What does sub-therapeutic mean?

Mr. GUTZMANN: That means levels of antibiotics which are used for disease prevention, growth promotion or feed efficiency, but not to treat disease.And we have absolutely seen no evidence which would indicate that these lower-level antibiotic uses in any way impact on human health.

MacNEIL: I see. Dr. Ahmed?

Mr. AHMED: Well, I think that this particular issue is one that the industry has taken a very hard line on. When they say they have seen absolutely no evidence, I think that they're misleading the public into a state of complacency. Basically what the evidence shows is that when animals or human beings, for that matter, are fed low levels or therapeutic amounts of antibiotics, the resistant strains of bacteria appear, just by natural selection. That's the biological plan. We're talking about half the antibiotics in this country that are produced annually are used in the livestock industry, the majority of which is for sub-therapeutic purposes -- as growth promotion or disease preventive measures. Now, when you have so much antibiotics in use in the livestock industry, you're going to have resistant bacteria that appear, and that is what Dr. Holmberg was talking about; entering in the food chain, ends up in the human consumer.

MacNEIL: Do you in the industry dispute that, Mr. Gutzmann?

Mr. GUTZMANN: We certainly dispute portions of it. What Dr. Ahmed has said basically that antibiotics select for resistant bacteria. That's absolutely correct. However, what effect does that really have on human health? The natural barriers in the human system when you ingest animal bacteria, are there to prevent any kind of resistant transfer or these bacteria. In the instance of salmonella, this is a particular organism which is shared by both animals and man and certainly can go from animals and man. The work of Dr. Charles Cherubin in New York has pointed out quite clearly that the use of therapeutic antibiotics in human medicine results in the majority of the resistance in salmonella.

MacNEIL: Well, if there is no evidence, I wonder -- I don't know whether you've seen this report, it came in late this afternoon, that the largest cattle feeder in the world -- it's called Cactus Feeders, Inc., of Amarillo, Texas -- announced today that they've stopped feeding antibiotics to their herds out of concern for the purity of their food, and they said that they were basing it on that New England Journal of Medicine report that we've just shown in an abbreviated documentary form. I don't know whether you knew they were doing that, but if there is no evidence, I wonder why such a big cattle dealer would do this.

Mr. GUTZMANN: Well, I think if you look clearly at what the gentleman stated, is he said he has a concern and until the scientific evidence has been thoroughly evaluated by FDA, he has chosen voluntarily to stop this practice. I would have an equal concern. The concern I would have is that these products prevent disease in cattle. They help for our food supply to be safe and nutritious. I have a concern that there may be an increase in disease, which they will have to use therapeutic antibiotics to treat. This may result in animals which are chronically ill possibly going to slaughter. It's a real concern and it possibly could increase the human health risk by not using these products.

MacNEIL: Well, just take those two parts of that. First of all, is it your position that it probably is a wise precaution for big cattle feeders or all cattle feeders, while there is some doubt about this, to stop using antibiotics sub-therapeutically?

Mr. GUTZMANN: No, I don't think there's any grounds for that at all.

MacNEIL: You don't. Dr. Ahmed, what about the point that he just made, that if you stop using it to prevent disease, diseases may occur which have to be treated -- well, you heard the rest of his argument -- which are going to allow diseased animals to go on the market?

Dr. AHMED: That's right. Well, our petition calls for the banning of penicillin and tetracyclin sub-therapeutically. We are not asking that the government ban all antibiotics. There are already in the industry many alternates of antibiotics that are used specifically for animal health available. In Europe, for example, where they've banned the use of penicillin and tetracyclin since the mid-'70s, they have been using these drugs. So the fact remains that alternatives do exist which, if combined with good management practices and sanitation measures, industry can do a lot to get away from the particular drug of concern that we have right now.

MacNEIL: Now, why do you want to ban just those two?

Dr. AHMED: Penicillin and tetracyclin constitute half of all the antibiotics used in the livestock industry. They are also two of the most important human drugs used in modern medicine. And we feel for both those reasons there's another priority, that these two drugs constitute the greatest hazard in terms of its use in the livestock industry.

MacNEIL: Mr. Gutzman, why couldn't the livestock industry do that -- use alternative antibiotics to the two that have just been mentioned?

Mr. GUTZMANN: First, I'd like to correct a misstatement by Dr. Ahmed. In Britain they did not ban the use of these products. What they simply did was restrict their use for sub-therapy and for therapeutic uses to the order of a veterinarian. That's a far different thing from banning these products. As far as the alternative products go, in cattle production, Dr. Ahmed would have to tell me what those alternative products are.They either suffer the same theoretical risk that the tetracyclines are under or else those alternative products are not approved for disease prevention in these animals. And respiratory disease in feedlot cattle is a very important and major disease.

MacNEIL: Well, what are the alternatives, Dr. Ahmed?

Dr. AHMED: Well, there are a number of alternatives that have become available. They're being used now both in the poultry industry and the cattle industry, and there are also alternatives available in the hog industry. They include things like bacitracin virginiamycin locins, and bandomyacin and a whole host of these antibiotics have been produced in these few years. They are being used in Europe. It is true though that in England, the only European country that's provided certain loopholes in the way they went about banning it, but in England you cannot obtain penicillin and tetracycline for sub-therapeutic uses.

MacNEIL: Mr. Gutzman, your interest in this is a financial one. If the FDA banned this kind of use for cattle, half of your product line in this would not have a market, is that right?

Mr. GUTZMANN: Well, if we use the British experience --

MacNEIL: No, but if the ban that Dr. Ahmed is looking for, half of Cyanamid's product line in these two antibiotics would have no market. Am I right about that?

Mr. GUTZMANN: Well, basically no, you're not exactly right at all. Basically what we saw with the British experience was that product sales decreased for two to three years. After that they returned to a normal level, it's being prescribed by a veterinarian at therapeutic levels, and I would correct Dr. Ahmed again. They are still used sub-therapeutically.

MacNEIL: What would it do to the economics of the beef and other meat industries, in your view, if the ban that Dr. Ahmed is seeking were ordered by the FDA?

Mr. GUTZMANN: The ban that Dr. Ahmed is seeking would certainly impact greatly on the livestock producers -- somewhere in the range of a half a billion dollars a year.

MacNEIL: And what would that do to meat prices?

Mr. GUTZMANN: And as far as what it would do to meat prices, it would increase them for the consumer, conservative estimates are anywhere from 3 1/2 billion to five billion dollars a year.

MacNEIL: Out of how much?

Mr. GUTZMANN: I'm sorry?

MacNEIL: Out of what total? I mean, that's 3 1/2 to five billion out of how much? How much does the consumer spend on meat in a year?

Mr. GUTZMANN: I couldn't give you that figure; I'm not sure.

MacNEIL: Dr. Ahmed, is the risk to human health worth that increase in cost to the meat industry and ultimately to the consumer?

Dr. AHMED: We did a risk estimate as to the risk to the consumer and in our estimation between 100 to 300 deaths a year can be attributed to the use of these two drugs in the livestock industry, and over 270,000 individuals in this country are in the highest risk for salmonellosis, the food poisoning case that we're talking about in the Minnesota case. And we think that these constitute an imminent hazard to the American public.

MacNEIL: What do you think of those figures of the deaths and illnesses he attributes, Mr. Gutzmann?

Mr. GUTZMANN: Well, I think they're totally false, and I think they're based on speculation and assumption. And in the first place, the average mortality rate for salmonellosis in the United States for the past 10 years has been something in the neighborhood of around 70 deaths, yet he is projecting, just based on sub-therapeutic uses in livestock, that the resistant bacterial deaths from salmonella will be somewhere in the range of 100 to 300, yet, as I said, total deaths for all types of salmonella, resistant and sensitive, has never exceeded a figure of about 70 deaths a year.

Dr. AHMED: That's completely incorrect. The CDC figures on death from salmonella is in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 a year.

MacNEIL: Just finally, we have less than a minute. Dr. Ahmed, do you expect the FDA to issue this dan?

Dr. AHMED: Well, that's a very important question. The FDA is required under law to act on our petition very quickly. Whether they will actually use this particular power they have under present law is not known.But they certainly will be moving on to restrict the use of it in a very short order.

MacNEIL: Do you agree with that, Mr. Gutzmann?

Mr. GUTZMANN: No, I don't. There were over 15 medical experts there today testifying that there is no imminent hazard, and frankly the NRDC's petition is totally based on speculation.

MacNEIL: Well, I'd like to thank you both, Mr. Gutzmann, Dr. Ahmed, for joining us. Jim?

LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a newsmaker interview with the new woman police chief of Portland, Oregon; an essay by Roger Rosenblatt of the New York subway vigilante episode, and a major focus segment on South African President Botha's promise today of new rights for blacks. The Lady is a Chief

MacNEIL: For our next section tonight, Charlayne Hunter-Gault has a newsmaker interview with the first woman to become the police chief of a large city. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Robin, the new chief is Penny Eileen Harrington, a 42-year-old veteran police officer with 21 years on the force. A graduate of Michigan State University, Chief Harrington advanced through the ranks from beat officer to detective and on to sergeant, lieutenant and most recently, precinct captain. Named to head the 900-person force yesterday, Chief Harrington was immediately sworn in, thereby becoming the first appointment of Portland's new mayor, Bud Clark, who is considered a political maverick. Ms. Harrington was one of four finalists for the post. She joins us tonight from the studios of public station KOAP in Portland.

Well, Chief Harrington, first of all, congratulations.

PENNY HARRINGTON: Thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: Were you at all surprised that you were selected over three male candidates?

Chief HARRINGTON: I was just surprised that I was selected. It was a long, strenuous selection process and I was very delighted.

HUNTER-GAULT: Portland's affirmative action officer said today that you spearheaded a battle against practices in the police department that favored white males. What can you tell us about that?

Chief HARRINGTON: There were several things that prevented women from joining the department or from advancing through promotion, and so when we ran up against those we just decided that we needed to get them changed. We were all career officers, so we went in and filed civil rights complaints and got the policies changed.

HUNTER-GAULT: Can you cite anything specifically?

Chief HARRINGTON: Yes, you couldn't come on the force and be a police officer unless you were 5'10" and then women had to have a college degree and men didn't, and women couldn't take promotions -- things of that nature.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, you do have a college degree. How tall are you?

Chief HARRINGTON: I'm not 5'10". I'm about 5'6".

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, do you think that your appointment today in a way was the result of your efforts?

Chief HARRINGTON: Well, when Mayor Clark promoted meto chief, he told me that there were a couple of reasons why he did, and one was the widespread support from the community. They had called him and he, during his campaign, had run into many people who told him that they wanted me to be chief. He said that was one, and he said something about my long years in the trenches. And he said that he admired me for taking on those types of issues.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, I don't want to have you be in the position of sounding immodest, but when you talked about the reasons that the community wanted you to be chief, what were some of those reasons?

Chief HARRINGTON: Well, I think the basic reason is that I spent so much time in the community as a precinct commander. I attended neighborhood meetings and business meetings and tried to resolve complaints right at the very beginning. And people really appreciated that approach.

HUNTER-GAULT: You are the first, but there are no others anywhere in the country, as Robin said earlier. Why do you think it's taken so long?

Chief HARRINGTON: Well, there are a few women chiefs of departments of maybe three or four people.There are no women of major departments. And the reason it's taken so long is because women weren't in police work until just recently, at least they weren't in where they could be promoted. Most police departments didn't hire women until the mid-'70s and so it just takes awhile to work your way up the ladder.

HUNTER-GAULT: To fight your way through the trenches?

Chief HARRINGTON: Right.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think that being the first, as you are, of a major department is in any way going to put unusual pressure on you? You will be in a fishbowl.

Chief HARRINGTON: I certainly will be in a fishbowl, but I knew that before I applied for the job. I thought about that, and I thought, "Well, I'm confident in my abilities and in the support that I have in the city and the bureau," and so I was willing to go in that fishbowl in order to get the job done.

HUNTER-GAULT: Your predecessor had been in the job about three years. How much of a change do you want to make from what was going on before your appointment?

Chief HARRINGTON: Basically it's just a change of style. My predecessor did some very good things in trying to get additional monies for things that we needed, and he took care of a lot of problems that way, so now I'm going to concentrate on building up community support.

HUNTER-GAULT: What are going to be your priorities? Are you going -- what are going to be your priorities?

Chief HARRINGTON: The first priority, of course, I keep repeating myself, but it is to put more officers on the street through reallocating the ones we have, taking them out of specialty units and putting them on the street. And once we get that established and start building up contacts with the community, then we want to start looking at specifics, like burglary, to see what we can do about it.

HUNTER-GAULT: Is burglary one of the major problems that you have in the city of Portland?

Chief HARRINGTON: Yes, it is, and it's one that the neighborhoods and most concerned with, so that's the one we'll start on.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you expect much resistance from the men in your -- now, the force is 900. How many of those are men?

Chief HARRINGTON: All but, well, actually there's about 790 officers and about all but 80-some of those are men. But I don't expect any resistance. I've been in charge of 175 officers, most of whom are men, for the past two years, and they are really happy. They know my style of policing and my style of management and they like it. And I think we're going to get along just great.

HUNTER-GAULT: I understand that some of the deputy chiefs quit their jobs. Does that have anything to do with the fact that you are a woman, or is this routine to do when a new regime comes in?

Chief HARRINGTON: They all retired before the new chief was selected, and so they've all had 29 to 30 years on the force and had reached retirement age and they were just ready to go.

HUNTER-GAULT: In terms of the approach, do you also plan to appoint more women to positions or advance more women in the ranks?

Chief HARRINGTON: Well, our bureau is under a civil service system, and so the women compete along with the men and there is really not a whole lot that you can do to push women up the ladder. They have to be competent and they have to compete. We will do minority recruiting, though, and recruiting of women to get more on the bureau.

HUNTER-GAULT: So you do believe in affirmative action?

Chief HARRINGTON: Oh, definitely I do.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right, well, we'll be following you with great interest. Thank you very much, Chief Harrington, and good luck to you.

Chief HARRINGTON: Thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: Jim?

LEHRER: We move now to an essay on the episode of and around Bernhard Goetz, the so-called subway vigilante. He was indicted in New York today for carrying a gun but not for using it against four teenagers. Roger Rosenblatt has some thoughts on what Bernhard Goetz has wrought. When Heroes Go Crazy

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Of the many observations made about Bernhard Goetz, the most interesting may be that of President Reagan, who, at a news conference, spoke of Goetz as having been pushed beyond emotional limits when he shot four apparent muggers on a New York subway.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: So while we may feel understanding or sympathy for someone who was tested beyond his control and his ability to control himself, at the same time we have to -- we have to abide by the law and stand for law and order.

ROSENBLATT: The President disapproved of Goetz's reaction, which is the right and sensible response. But he also recognized that it is possible for someone who saw himself in a menacing situation to go a little crazy. Whether Goetz is more than a little crazy is yet to be determined, yet the kind of craziness he displayed in the subway is perfectly understandable in a sane world. Indeed, that kind of craziness affirms the same world's values. From one point of view, Goetz drew his gun for self-protection, self-respect and the triumph of the innocent.

In many quarters, then, Goetz has been hailed a hero of the times. T-shirts have been manufactured for him, collections have been taken up for him, all because or in spite of the fact that he went out of control on a subway. Oddly, his is exactly the same kind of out-of-control heroism that used to be cheered in the 1960s. Only then the heros of the times were Goetz's opposites; hippies and druggies spinning in their own orbits in places like Woodstock, shaking their beards defiantly at the conventional rat race. Yossarian of Joseph Heller's Catch 22, McMurphy of Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, -- both nuts, both heroes. We could go back farther to Don Quixote tilting his grand madness against the petty madness of the world. Quixote and Goetz. -- three things in common; they stood up for the rights of the individual, they defied a system that was unresponsive, they went off the deep end to make their case.

Historically the image of the system never seems to change, no matter who is fighting it or why. The system is a massive, amorphous, imponderable hulk. It closes people out. It has no heart. In the 1960s the cry was "Off the pigs." The cry, albeit muted, in the 1980s is, "Where is a cop when you need one?" Yet the system remains the enemy, whether it is bucked by McMurphy in his loony bin or Goetz with his blazing pistol.

Here is the basic argument. If the system makes it impossible for a decent, gentle citizen to go about his bisiness, then the decent, gentle citizen may have to go crazy to preserve his sanity. Maybe he has to go crazy to preserve the sanity of society itself. The question then occurs, do we require displays of craziness to show where the system fails? Is an explosion like Goetz's a good thing for you and me? The answer, as we've come to expect, is yes and no. The yes is evoked by the fact that any system, no matter how well-intentioned, may eventually grow so adamantly sane it develops some madness of its own.

Kafka described the law as a gate through which people seek entrance their whole lives. Dying, they are told that the gate was made only for them. When heroes go crazy, they pound at the gate, they knock their heads against it. They scale it dressed in gorilla suits, like the hero of the movie, Morgan. They talk to six-foot rabbits, like the hero of Harvey. In the movie they might be giants. George C. Scott played a hero who thought he was Sherlock Holmes. Malefactors wanted to put him in the nuthatch, but our hero wound up persuading his own psychiatrist that he reallywas Sherlock Holmes, because as Holmes he stood for good against evil, sanity against insanity.

So, yes, a lunatic can show society its own lunacy. Bernhard Goetz did that, in a way. But fiction is a good deal prettier than fact and much less complicated. The system may be crazy, but who is to bring it to its senses? Gunslingers riding subways waiting for a chance to pop off? In the short run, acts of madness can look colorful, justifiable, admirable, desirable. In the long run they are merely sad and dangerous. And madness is always very private, however it seems to address or even please the normal life around it. From the fomantic point of view Goetz drew his gun for self-protection, self-respect and the triumph of the innocent. But in reality he drew it for himself and he fired from a point in his own chaotic world and not in ours. Land Rights for Blacks

LEHRER: Our final focus segment is on South Africa and a speech made there today by its president, P.W. Botha. Botha told his country's new Parliament that more rights must be given to the country's 22 million blacks who make up 73% of the population but have neither voting nor property rights. Botha spoke to the opening session of the first South African Parliament since separate chambers for Asian and mixed-race politicians were added. Reaction was mixed today to both the statements about new rights for blacks, some heralding it as a major new policy, others saying it was only crumbs. We hear first tonight from the South African government via its ambassador to the United States, Brand Fourie.

Mr. Ambassador, Bishop Tutu, as we reported earlier, said President Botha was offering only crumbs of concession. Is he wrong?

BRAND FOURIE: What in essence that statement means is that the South African government has committed itself to cooperative co-existence. It's an ideal which in the opinion of the South African government can be achieved only if no particular population group can dominate another. And if each population group retains the right of self-determination as far as its own affairs are concerned, but at the same time if there is joint responsibility for and cooperation on matters of common concern. This is the basic thing, and if you look at the other aspects, for example, as far as the urban black South Africans are concerned, there is a recognition by the South African government that a very substantial -- a large number, there are millions of them, cannot satisfy their political aspirations beyond the local level through the machinery that exists, their national states, and that they should be regarded as entities who in their own rights qualify to have a participation also at the higher political level and for whom such provision should be made. This is indeed a major development. If you would like me to expand further, there are about five or six developments which, if those are crumbs, I don't know what bread might be.

LEHRER: All right, well, let's take the one you just mentioned. This means that what the president said today is that he wants to move toward voting rights for blacks in South Africa, correct?

Amb. FOURIE: What he said was that there should be a development, that each one should, to begin with, have a full determination of its own rights and then they should be for all of them together this participation at the higher level, and for that a new dispensation should be developed, should be negotiated with respect to everyone's rights and to see that no inferior provision is made for those rights.

LEHRER: All right, now, you said there are several others. What about on property? How would he change that?

Amb. FOURIE: Now, on property some very potent arguments have been put forward that those people, persons who had qualified for the 99-year leasehold should acquire full property rights. The government has concluded that this is right, and the government is prepared to negotiate with the communities concerned ways and means of giving property rights not only in the urban areas but also in the national states. And when I say the "national states" you must bear in mind that in those areas there is still communal possession of land, and it's sometimes to the detriment of individual development, agriculture, etc., so the government wants to move right ahead, and it's prepared to do so and therefore to resolve this question.

LEHRER: Well, you see this as a major, major breakthrough, a major change for the South African government.

Amb. FOURIE: You know indicative of this, Bishop Tutu said these are crumbs. Some -- I was in a program earlier tonight where it was described a shifting of deck chairs on the ship. Now, on the other hand, look at the right, you know that the leader of the conservative party in South Africa, they've already taken position and said that they are going to fight this development tooth and nail, step by step, and they regard this as capitulation by the government, capitulation to the blacks. This is simply indicative of when you deal with a complex society that you've got varying views and you've got to move within the realms of possibilities.

LEHRER: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Robin?

MacNEIL: A different look at today's events in South Africa from U.S. Congressman William Gray, Democrat of Pennsylvania. Congressman Gray, the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, is a former member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a strong critic of South Africa's apartheid or racial separation policy. Congressman Gray has sponsored legislation to ban new U.S. investment in South Africa.

Congressman, in general, what do you think of the reforms outlined today?

Rep. WILLIAM GRAY: Well, I think that really you're not talking about major reforms. I think the one thing that you do find in this presentation by Mr. Botha is the recognition that there is increasing violence. That's what I find very new. He said that he wanted to do something about limited property rights, one; number two, he wanted to do something about consultation with blacks on issues on an informal, non-statutory, ad hoc and by-invitation-only basis and, thirdly, that he hoped that theresettlement issue would be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Those were the three things. The White House, which has had this policy --

MacNEIL: Just to make it clear, the resettlement issue is the resettlement of blacks from the urban areas to their tribal homelands.

Rep. GRAY: Exactly. The resettlement issue means taking black villages, black people who are not useful for urban jobs and moving them to the homelands, the Bantustans where all of the black population is relegated to 13% of the land mass of South Africa. Now, I think the key phrases were already used by the ambassador when he talked about co-existence. That's the key. The is co-existence and that's what apartheid is. Black separate co-existence, white separate co-existence.

MacNEIL: But the ambassador said on the political question of enhanced voting rights. or the right to participate at a higher level through political action was indeed a major development.

Rep. GRAY: I read Mr. Botha's speech. That was not in the speech at all, and I understood the ambassador's comments to mean that blacks in Soweto, blacks in the Bantustans would have the right to elect leadership within the co-existence of apartheid, which they currently have to some degree. But as far as being able to vote as individuals who are South African citizens for national leadership and for the policies, the economic distribution of goods and services, I don't believe that's what the ambassador is talking about.

MacNEIL: If you were in Bishop Tutu's position, would you participate and go as far as you could with what's being offered, or would you regard it as crumbs, as he does, and disdain the offer and refuse to participate?

Rep. GRAY: I can't speak for Bishop tutu or any of the South Africans. I can only tell you that as an American legislator and a lawmaker that I see no major change in the statement. Apartheid is still in place; blacks, who make up 80% of the population, are excluded from the political process. Co-existence means they can do their politics within the confines of the townships and the Bantustans and "qualify for leasehold" was the word that was used, and the leasehold means that blacks can lease land in South Africa but can't hold ownership. What is being suggested is those who qualify for leasehold may now be subject to the potential and the possibility of buying that land, but where?In the Bantustans and in the townships. That does not represent change of apartheid. It represents putting in some carpet, perhaps, in the slave shacks.

MacNEIL: Do you think that this gesture or concession or offer is in any way prompted by protests outside South Africa, including by the Reagan administration and the action that's been taking place on the streets of Washington?

Rep. GRAY: I don't know if that's the major cause, but I do know this, that across this nation and across the world there is a growing concern that apartheid is becoming more intransigent internally and externally and that our policies should be changed, that we ought to stop financing apartheid and hopefully the apartheid government will be able to resolve its problems. However, we should not be about the business of strengthening it. I think the Nobel Peace Prize, I think the demonstrations, I think in 1983 when the Congress passed, on the House side, my legislation prohibiting all new investments by such an overwhelming margin it was voice-voted, that we have been saying for some time it's time to move toward a new policy.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, is the congressman right, that the outside events have caused this?

Amb. FOURIE: I'd like to comment on a few points made by the congressman.

LEHRER: All right.

Amb. FOURIE: He first said that informal consultations are now being offered to the blacks.That is in addition to the formal cabinet subcommittee. That's additional to provide a forum where there can be free and wide exchange of views to create better lines of communication. He talked about resettlement. The provision, the statement the president made was that this issue should be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned. In other words, no compulsion --

LEHRER: He's not pre-judging what the solution is?

Amb. FOURIE: No, certainly not. And what is more, everything is subject to agreement and consultation with the people concerned. And as far --

LEHRER: Well, excuse me. Let's ask the congressman, what's wrong with that, congressman?

Rep. GRAY: Number one, if you read the statement, as I have read the statement, all it simply says is that by invitation only we will consult with black South Africa. Well, that's going on now. That's not new. Secondly, if you read the statement, the other thing that it said is that we hope that the resettlement issue will be resolved while at the same time there are forced efforts to take black South Africans from places where they have lived for two and three generations and put them on what we would call reservations.

LEHRER: Well, now that's going to stop? Will that stop, Mr. Ambassador?

Amb. FOURIE: You know, a) this -- I must correct this statement. There is formal consultation and what is offered here is in addition. Now, if you offer more, how can that be a retrograde statement as far as removal is concerned, during '80, '81, '83 there have been hardly any removals at all in this sense. What had taken place was after consultation and in agreement with people. And what the president says here in essence is we are going to get to a situation where we act in unison, where we act in agreement, and if that is not progress, if that is not dialogue, if that is not the way to proceed, then I don't know what the way will be.

LEHRER: What about the congressman's point about voting? Let's clear up what you were saying there. He says you're saying one thing --

Amb. FOURIE: What I was saying -- what I was saying, and the congressman is correct at the moment that the urban black can vote for local government. It has local government and it's with growing importance. It's approaching the Washington, D.C. But what the government has recognized here is that's not sufficient. And what's more, it also recognized that the urban blacks cannot be satisfied through the existing machinery of the national states. They should be regarded as entities with their own rights. They have a right to participate --

LEHRER: But not --

Amb. FOURIE: But what the important thing is, it says in their own affairs and when it comes to common affairs there should be joint responsibility and cooperation.

LEHRER: Congressman?

Rep. GRAY: I think that what you've heard is a very eloquent verbal justification for apartheid. It's co-existence. The blacks can vote in Soweto. They can vote in the Bantustans. That is like saying in this country if you live in North Philadelphia or Harlem you can vote for elected officials only from there, but they have no impact on determining the policies, the services. What they are talking about is not a change of apartheid and, secondly, I would point out, what the ambassador fails to remember is simply this, is that all that has happened today -- and maybe someone would like to call that positive; I'm not necessarily saying it's not positive or negative -- is that for the first time the president, P.W. Botha, has acknowledged that there is a problem with blacks, he has acknowledged that there is increasing violence. However, if you take the three items that have been mentioned, they do not represent a substantially new direction or even a new direction in the policies of apartheid. As the ambassador has pointd out, no black in Soweto can vote for services and goods in Johannesburg. No black in the Cheska Bantustan will be able to vote for Mr. Botha.

Amb. FOURIE: Well, the point -- the point that the congressman forgets, that is the existing situation. Apart from the local government provisions, there is now created a super body where the black council-people will be represented in the same body as the others where they will jointly sit in the same body. That's as far as local government is concerned.As far as the higher level is concerned, I repeat the words of the president -- it's not my words -- that in matters of common concern there will be joint responsibility for and cooperation on these matters. Now, if that is not significant, now what must one do to really impress upon --

Rep. GRAY: Mr. Botha, as well as his foreign minister and his other ministers, have been talking to blacks for years. Talking to blacks is not the issue at all. The issue is whether blacks will have the same civil rights and human rights as the 20% minority, or will they continue to be banned, imprisoned? Will, as we saw last September, October, 200 of them be killed simply for protesting their conditions? Will the South African government continue to spend $1,000 per capita for white students but only $200 for black students? Will the South African government say we want equal opportunity?

Amb. FOURIE: I must reply to those. Firstly, 200 blacks weren't killed by the South African authorities. A number of blacks were killed by other blacks because they were moderate and they were cooperating with the government. Secondly, as far as education is concerned, the government realizes this is essential. There must be equal education facilities. They're moving in that direction, moving fast, and it won't be many years when that goal will be achieved.

LEHRER: Gentlemen, I'm sorry but we have to leave it there. Congressman, Mr. Ambassador, thank you both. Robin?

MacNEIL: Once again the main stories of the day. As we've just heard, the president of South Africa proposed giving some propety and political rights to blacks.

President Chernenko of the Soviet Union was reported to be seriously ill and getting worse.

Lawyers for Edwin Meese were told to justify their $700,000 fee.

And a grand jury in New York refused to charge Bernhard Goetz, the so-called subway vigilante, with attempted murder. He was accused instead of illegally possessing a weapon.

Now we take our weekly look at what the nation's political cartoonists are doing. Poking Fun

SPECTATOR [Dana Summers cartoon, The Orlando Sentinel, Washington Post Writers Group]: We could have gotten great inauguration seats, but no, you had to mention that we were from Minnesota.

Pres. REAGAN as Mrs. Reagan starts taking oath [Gamble cartoon, Florida Times Union, Register & Tribune Syndicate]: Hey, wait a minute.

Chief Justice WARREN, at inaugural [Basset cartoon, Atlanta Journal, United Features]: Will the candidates for '88 restrain themselves until after the ceremony?

Pres. REAGAN [Wasserman cartoon, Los Angeles Times Syndicate]: We need a balanced budget amendment to make the deficit disappear, an arms race in space to eliminate nuclear weapons on earth and more cust in government spending in order to put an end to poverty. I was not re-elected to return to the fuzzy thinking of the past.

Pres. REAGAN, speaking to TV viewer [Mike Lane cartoon, The Evening Sun, Copley News Service]: Can you say "bad old Democrats?"

VIEWER: Bad ol' . . .

Pres. REAGAN: Good. Now, can you say, "mean old Russians?"

VIEWER: Mean, ol' . . .

Pres. REAGAN: Very good. Now, can you say, "you ain't seen nothin' yet?"

VIEWER: You . . .

Pres. REAGAN: Swell. Well, until tomorrow then, this is Mr. Reagan's Neighborhood, the new White House news service. [viewer sits with pacifier in his mouth]

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Robin. See you on Monday night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.