There is some tendency on the part of public officials, however, to minimize their own role and their responsibility for leadership by example. American standards generally are high enough so that political leaders can insist on and get high standards of conduct in the Government if they choose to do so, and go about it with vigor. Ideas and institutions

No thorough study of ethics can be limited to the study of ideas alone. Basic ideas and beliefs make social institutions operate, but it is also the function of institutions to encourage and reward behavior which is up to standard and to discourage and punish behavior which is below standard. Hence, it will be necessary for the future Commis sion on Ethics in Government not only to look into the basic beliefs, the habits, the attitudes, the customs, and the traditions of American life which condition governance, but also to examine the institutional arrangements which have the function of making it easier for men in public life to do right and more difficult for them to do wrong. Both the inner moral check and the outer influences are important in determining the standards by which men live, public officials as well as private citizens.

Something can be done

The body of material with which the Commission must deal is large, and the problem is an old one, but it is not static. Conditions change, institutions change, and ideas change, but at differing rates. Although the total rate of change is slow, the process is irresistible. Because of the ramifications of the problem, neither this present subcommittee nor the recommended future Commission can be expected to discover measures which will suddenly or dramatically resolve all of our moral dilemmas or remove all of the conflicting pressures which make life difficult for conscientious public servants. Not a single approach, but a comprehensive attack, upon the problem is required.

be

Although no single remedy is sovereign, many measures may expected to have some effect. Many forces and circumstances are at work to produce social change. Although deliberate public polier is only one force at work molding the morals of society, it is a force. By taking thought, and by acting intelligently, it is possible powerful for the Nation through its Government to influence very powerfully the course of development of moral standards and official behavior in the Government and in American society generally. This is not something about which we can do nothing. Almost anything that is done will have some effect; and if nothing should be done, that too could have an effect-a depressing effect.

Double standards of morality

The task of analyzing the problem fully must be left to the recom mended Commission. Some aspects of American ethics which have been brought out in the testimony, however, should be noted. One of them is the simultaneous existence of conflicting codes of conduct. Double standards are more prevalent than most men realize and are, perhaps, at the root of the problem of ethics in government. The free American society with its system of democratic and represen tative government is based upon some of the highest ideals of JewishChristian-Greek thought, and it could not have developed as it has without those basic ideals as a moving force in the life of successive

H

generations. The man who sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not is essential in both the business and political worlds. In maintaining the effectiveness of an organization, the character of men in key positions is recognized to be as important as their intelligence. Americans venerate Washington for his integrity, and Lincoln for his unswerving dedication to the Union. These judgments reflect the enduring values of basic American ideals.

The accepted ideals are challenged daily, however, by contrary values. The clever man who makes a "fast buck" gets a certain amount of acclaim, provided he makes enough of them. The political trickster frequently can claim his rewards-if he wins. There is a tolerance in American life for unscrupulous methods which bring immediate rewards, even though those methods, if they should become universal, would destroy the very society in which they are tolerated. Veneration for the principle of government according to law has its inverse side an erroneous assumption that what is lawful is right. Although this is an untruth which authoritarian governments of all varieties have demonstrated vividly and recently, representative governments also must be on guard lest they make the same mistake. Where discretion exists in making law, the law itself is not a sufficient guide. Legality is not enough.

Examples of double standards can be found in all walks of life today. The credit system of the country is based upon faithfulness in meeting obligations, and banks are long-established fiduciary institutions, yet some bankers have felt no compunctions about using RFC refinancing to rid themselves of bad risks. The businessman's code is to be independent and stand on his own feet, but some organized industries, as well as other economic groups, do not hesitate to use all possible political force to secure highly favorable decisions from legislators and administrators at the public expense. A fair system of representation is a sacred element in the American political system, yet some politicians lightheartedly steal representation from the citizens of their own States by creating grossly disproportionate congressional districts, and from rival parties by gerrymandering boundaries. The same situation is often found in State legislative districts. The claim of Congress to moral authority is based upon its representative character, yet have not the two Houses sometimes challenged the representative principle in their internal distribution of offices?

While we primarily deal in this report with the ethical problems of the National Government, we should recognize that conditions in Washington and in Government agencies are but the reflection of what also occurs on State and local levels, only in an aggravated form. If citizens who decry failures on the national level would take more interest in their local elections and in party organization, many of the sources of infection would be cleared up. Citizens cannot absolve themselves of responsibility because of their inaction and indeed their frequent connivance with low standards of ethics in all walks of life and all levels of government.

There is in American life a double standard, one highly responsible in its warm feeling for the welfare of our fellows, and the other coldly irresponsible in its single-minded devotion to direct personal advantage. The ruthless standard is epitomized by the traditional comment that "business is business" or "politics is politics." When the two realms of economics and politics are combined, however, there is a

clear danger to society from aggressive and self-centered policies. It economic capacity and political power are combined and used indiscriminately for the personal gain of individuals, groups and classes, is there any assurance that America as we know it can survive? The greatest and most subtle danger is not a challenge to the Constitution or the law of the land, but it is a combining of forces to make public policies which may be completely constitutional and entirely legal but which are not in the interest of all the people.

In the past we have assumed that the aggressive forces in American life neutralized each other. That was the theory of Madison as expressed in the Federalist. That now seems doubtful at best. Sometimes, they reinforce each other. Even from the most egoistic point of view, there is no advantage in exploiting a system by means which will destroy it, yet older nations have not learned this lesson until too late, and it may be that the dangers of such exploitation tend always to be overlooked by the participants.

We should also realize that morality is violated not merely by politicians and by the weak, but also frequently by the strong and powerful, who sometimes are able to have their antisocial acts ap proved by legislation or court action. The medieval English quatrain about the way in which the common lands were enclosed and taken over by the nobility of England has also real meaning for our times: The law locks up both man and woman Who steals the goose from off the common, But lets the greater felon loose

Who steals the common from the goose.

Characteristics of American life

Witnesses called attention to other characteristics of American life which have a bearing upon ethical standards in public affairs and these views may be presented in the form of questions:

(1) Is there a secular trend in America which creates a new moral problem? Have the churches declined as a training ground for moral conduct? If such a trend exists and should continue, what will be the consequences?

(2) Do people have an overweening desire for wide social approval which makes them less independent in their judgments, less loyal to ancient values, and more inclined to go along with the sentiment or the practice of the moment?

(3) Are Americans as citizens and voters prone to be undiscriminating in their thinking? Do they lack the skepticism to reserve judg ment until evidence is presented? Do they tend to lump together whole categories of people or situations without discriminating as to significant differences? If these traits of a politically immature people should be found to exist, would they indicate some degree of gulli bility as to reckless charges, smear tactics, and emotionalism generally? Would they not raise some question as to the Americen capacity to deal realistically with complex issues and to avoid beguiling panaceas or wishful thinking?

(4) Is there a dominantly emotional outlook on public affairs and politics that leads to inconsistent attitudes and violent changes in opinion? Witnesses called attention to the extent of nonvoting and to a general apathy in regard to politics interrupted at times by intense interest and feverish reform. In the abstract, the public services stereotyped in popular opinion as both lazily bureaucratic and unduly

zealous, although these general stereotypes are contradicted by quite favorable reactions to many public servants when considered as individuals, namely, school teachers, postmen, county agents, etc. Moods

of optimism and pessimism come in rapid succession. Fears of scarcity are not quieted before fears of surplus appear. A sanguine mood in regard to international affairs gives way quickly to the fear of total war. Fluctuations in popular feeling seem to be much greater than can be explained by changes in the facts.

(5) Is there a general ignorance of the basic ethical and political ideas upon which American institutions were founded? Are Americans unaware of the ideas and principles which really control them today? If such ignorance exists, how does it affect capacity to deal with present-day problems of public affairs?

The subcommittee comes to no conclusion on these points, but the seriousness with which they are raised by wise and experienced men does indicate that they are questions of significance for which answers should be sought by a thorough inquiry.

The dangerous area

In the Federal Government, the forces that would drive public servants from the straight and narrow path of virtue center chiefly upon a limited area, the area in which Government is heavily "actionladen." This is the area in which there are big economic stakes, where the decisions of legislators and administrators directly affect the business, or the property, or the income of particular groups or individuals. The abuses of discretion or the exploitation of power are most serious chiefly where the Government is dispensing valuable rights and privileges, constructing extensive public works, spending vast sums for military supplies and equipment, making loans, granting direct or indirect subsidies, levying taxes, and regulating the activities of privileged monopolies or economic practices in which there is a public interest.

In making policies to govern these functions, legislators have almost complete discretion, and for successful administration of these policies, administrators must also be given a large degree of discretion. Where such discretionary power exists, it can be abused or exploited. Institutional arrangements can narrow the risk, but not eliminate it. Neither can the functions be abandoned entirely. Although the area where integrity is most seriously threatened is a limited area, it is a crucial one, where reasonable and wise use of discretion in the public interest is imperative.

The basic integrity of Government is relatively high

The overwhelming weight of testimony taken by the subcommittee is that the basic integrity of the Federal Government, in most branches, is relatively high. Most public servants, it was agreed, are honest and faithful. Witnesses with the longest experience in public affairs stated that standards of official conduct and public morals generally are rising, although the existence of dips in this long-term trend was conceded. The general trend, also, does not preclude significant deviations in particular fields or at particular levels of activity.

We also believe that the ethical standards of public officials are probably higher than those prevailing in business and other walks of life. On this point, also, there was persuasive testimony from men of experience in both Government and business and from observers of

both. Publie officials apparently are more conscious of the problem of moral standards. The resentment which public officials sometimes show when subjected to public criticism may be explained in part by their awareness of the fact that some of their critics would be even more vulnerable to criticism if the same standards were applied Present conclusions, however, must be tentative and this is doubtless a situation which the Commission on Ethics in Government will wish to investigate further.

Higher standaris required to meet greater needs

There is nothing in the testimony, however, when considered as s whole, to make either the public or public servants complacent. No group in society is in a position to point the finger of scorn at others Infrence peddlers can exist only as long as businessmen or others are willing to patronize them. Favoritism can be a problem only wher individual men and women seek favors of the Government. Gifts improper pressure, and bribes come from outside the Government. from individuals, from organizations, and from groups which are par of what we call the "public." When educational institutions which we have long regarded as responsible for moral leadership are troubled with problems of professionalism, commercialism, and dishonesty in amateur athletics, it is evident that we are all living in the same glass house.

Standards of conduct seem high and rising when viewed against the background of 50 years ago. But we are living in the 1950's, not the 1890's, and the need for high standards of integrity, as well as competence, has grown even faster than the standards have risen. Conceivably, the country is falling behind in its ability to deal with the political and ethical problems of the day.

The subcommittee attempted to supplement, not to duplicate, the investigations of other Senate and House committees, and at this point. in taking stock of the situation, it is proper to take notice of the investigations by other committees.

Influence peddling is a phenomenon that cannot be ignored. It is perhaps exaggerated, and the gullible have been defrauded by men whose only influence was fictitious. But the disclosures of the subcommittee under Senator Hoey's chairmanship showed that there was fre behind the smoke. It is clear that influence peddling is so widely believed to exist that even the most professional practice of bona fide law firms in Washington tends to be tinged with the influence ides. It may be imaginary, but it helps to encourage the clients: and waiting for business has become obsolete for loval and influential members of the administration who leave the Government to hang up their shingles in Washington.

The growth of influence peddling-both the fiction and the reality (whatever the dimensions of the latter)-is the result of a number of causes: the enormous increase of governmental activity in the "danger ous area" (described above); the substitution of negotiations for competitive procedures in placing defense contracts: the exodus of higher civil servants and officials from the Government while the political party under which they have worked for many years continues in charge of the administration; and the universal practice of Members of the Congress who feel it necessary to intervene with administrative agencies in behalf of their constituents. Members of Congress and