The Los Angeles Times from Los Angeles, California • 93

Doubts Cast Report Have on Warren Substance At a public terviee. The Times presents an this pegs columnists whoss opinions rsfltet thoss of our diverse readership, not necessarily those of The Times itself. SUNDAY MORNING. OCTOBER 23, 1964 BY RAYMOND MOLEY Long's Campaign Funding Planand Some Caveats "They want to know how we're going to vote let's lie and humiliate the experts!" IATT WEINSTOCK Kooks in the Nighttime Make It the Frighttime perverse reply, "if a sofa is too comfortable people stay too long." BY DAVID The present system of financing political campaigns cannot help but corrupt. It compels the holder of public office to seek out and place a premium on private cash, much of which is passed in secret and never accounted for.

For those who want to peddle influence and to bribe, the system is virtually an engraved invitation. So three cheers for Sen. Russell Long (D-La.) for proposing a better way. His plan would broaden the base of Presidential campaign fi nancing by giving a citizen the option of designating $1 of his income tax payment to a government-admi- nistered fund in which both major parties would share equally. That's the best kind of cash for a candidate.

It's public and anony mous. A candidate would not be beholden for that phoney to corporation labor union oil magnate or lawyer who wants to be a judge. But wait a minute. What happens when the present odious system of Kraslow candidates solicit-Mng big money from the few is left undisturbed and the long plan of dollars from the many is simply added to it? No one, not even Long, is quite positive about the answer, but that is precisely what our legislators were asked to do in helter-skelter fashion last week during their minute rush to wind up the 89th Congress and go home for the election. Call it adjournment madness.

Impatient lawmakers become careless. And tha Long plan offers one of the most vivid examples in years of how not to legislate. This important measure and its Implications have not been carefully weighed by Congress and tha nation. It was tied into a bill on an unrelated subject without adequate blic hearings and debate. Except for the fact that Long has clout in Congress as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and assistant majority leader it most likely would not have been pushed in the adjournment rush.

One of the most pressing problems facing our democracy," Long says, "is that of insuring that a favored few do not exert undue in-fluence over the operations of Section 7 KRASLOW government at the expense of the the public at large." Amen. "While in some cases," Long adds, "(wealthy) contributors seek no improper reward for their generosity, nevertheless, the opportunity remains. In other cases, frankly, it is almost impossible to distinguish be-, tween a campaign contribution and a bribe. "The only way to remove this possible impediment to good governmentthe only way to make the David Kraslow is a member of The Times1 Washington Bureau. one-vote principle a reality is to broaden the base from which contributions are drawn." Amen again- But Long could be dead wrong when he argues that because the candidates and parties will have available to them under his plan a Presidential campaign kitty that might run $60 million or more, "they will not find it necessary to spend so much 'time and energy soliciting large contributions." Indeed, there Is nothing in the law to prevent them from continuing to raise funds in tha traditional manner and using the public money as well.

It would simply mean a windfall for a bigger campaign. If reform is needed and it surely is THEN DO IT. If the Long method of campaign finanching is more desirable, then eliminate or drastically curtail what we now have. And why stop ft Presidential campaigns? Why not Senate and House races as well? Are congressmen less subject to "undue influence" than Presidents? Some observers term the Long plan a congressional relief act, the. theory being that with a new and abundant source of money available for Presidential candidates more cash will flow to House and Senate candidates from traditional sources.

But that is theory, not yet fact. Long says his approach is at least a beginning. Congress at a later date may outlaw private contributions and make other changes, he says. Congress has artfully dodged the urgent need for reform for decades. Maybe Long is correct in suggesting that approval of his plan might jolt Congress into further action.

It's a big maybe. And in the" meantime, little, if anything, would be solved except, perhaps, to provide more dollars for more billboards and television commercials. GOLD WATER sion. This response, it is said, would give the situation a chance to calm down in hopes of being able quickly to get to the negotiating table. For such a response, troop com-mitmentsf of some size are needed.

For such a response, the more men you have "showing the flag," the better. This whole notion is utter nonsense. To tell the Soviets that we will make a "polite" conventional response to any aggression is a stand-ing invitation to trouble. It means the Soviets can launch an aggression, large or small, and be assured that it can move directly from violence to the conference table with only a minimal risk between. Our stance should be less rigid.

It should permit whatever immediate response is needed to halt and or punish an aggressive move, and it certainly should not offer the enemy a comfortable cushion of assurance of a less than adequate response. Most European defense officials feel the defense of Europe by conventional means is laughable, that only the poised power of nuclear retaliation can securely keep the peace and deter aggression. The point is blunt and clear. Conventional forces are not the key to Europe's defense, and the current debate about their size Is misleading and dishonest. We should be debating quality, not quantity.

to the vindication of the 1964 Republican campaign: that campaign went squarely on the line for thrashing this matter out. It said we could reduce our troops but it also called for a discussion of the European defense questions that really matter. It frankly told the American people that this well could mean giving Europe tha nuclear capability that it so clearly That is still tha Issue, And thla administration is still weaseUng on It, And in the hasty writing of the nal report there seemed to be an ef- fort to concentrate the guilt upon Oswald and to depict him as an individuala "loner" who, for reasons which have never been established, planned and carried out the crima with no accomplices and never a clear motive. That more than one weapon was used by more than one person was not effectively pursued, although the available evidence seems to point to that probability. In summing up, Epstein says in substance that while the commission was designed to accomplish two purposes find the facts and allay public suspicions the latter purpose got squarely in the way of the first.

Despite the efforts of the commission, the researches of Epstein and many others who have written ar- tides and books during the past months have clearly shaken the belief of many thoughtful people that the case was closed when Warren submitted his report to the President in 1964. My space here does not permit a review of the evidence. The reader may find that in Epstein's book. But after a careful reading of the Epstein thesis and a rereading of the conclusions in the Warren report, I must be counted among the doubters. Prior to tha tragedy of Nov.

22, 1963, three Presi Moley dents were assassinated. In two cases the assassins. Booth and Czologosz, were politically motivated. Guiteav, who killed President Garfield, clearly acted on his own. In the former two cases the prior associations were in the nature of a conspiracy.

In the case of Oswald there were suspicious earlier political associations. The failure of the Warren Commission to trace those associations constitutes, in my judgment, the most serious flaw in the report. In an eloquent brief submitted by Louis Nizer, a notable trial lawyer himself, as an introduction to tha Doubleday edition of the Warren report, the author quotes: "We see yonder the beginning of the day, but i I think we shall never see the end of it." That is true. Certainly not in this century. or the Deed? T.

ROWAN German question. Mende also saw it as indicating a rapprochement between American and French policies and as the beginning of a new initiative by the Western powers toward Soviet Union. But not all West Germany applauded. The mass circulation tabloid Bild-Zeitung screamed that "Johnson has launched a new detente offensive at German This tabloid charged that the U.S. President had for the first time pub licly abandoned the principle that At least one thing in common Ctrtoon by Bthrwttft Germany's reunification must be tha first step toward an East-West detente.

"This change of course at German expense is the bitter pill for (Chancellor) Ludwig Erhard's yielding attitude in his Washington negotiations," said Bild-Zeitung. What Mr. Johnson had said to tha editorial writers is that East-West detente must occur if German reunification is ever to be possible. And some Germans, like Berlin Mayor Willy Brandt, agree with him. The question is, does Mende, Brandt, Bild-Zeitung or any of them speak for the new generation that is gradually coming to power in Ger- many? It is significant that, in tha Com-! muniit bloe, only China has i denounced Mr.

Johnson's proposals without reservation. The Hungari ans have speculated that the President was trying "to disguise and divert attention from the aggression in Vietnam" and that his "peace offensive in Europe was promoted by the deep anxiety of the White House in the weakening U.S. hegemony in Europe." But Hungary and the other East European countries want more trade with the United States. So they welcome the speech and wait cautiously. Mr.

Johnson may well have built soma new bridges to tha East that tha Conunsaisti are cot eagefUo' burn behind them. President Johnson's purpose in creating the Warren Commission was to prevent the growth of irresponsible rumor and speculation about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But now, nearly three years after the tragedy and more than two years since the Warren report was made public, rumor, speculation and wild surmise still prevail. What is more, public confidence in the commission's competence has been almost fatally destroyed.

The amazing thing about this revival of interest in the case is that the most penetrating criticism of the commission and its report has been contributed not by a distinguished lawyer, judge or statesman. It is embodied in a book written by a 30-' year-old graduate student who began his research as a routine academic assignment Edward Jay Epstein was a student at Cornell, and his professor suggested that as an exercise in political science he write his Master's thesis on the Warren Commission, for that body represented an interesting example of an extra-judicial and quasi-official method of investigating a murder of great national importance. The President was moved to create the commission because the customary investigative agencies the FBI, the Secret Service and the law-e nforcement machinery in Texas were in a sense parties of interest, for they all had borne some responsibility for the security of the President A congressional committee, despite the probity of its members, might have been harmful to the public interest. But Epstein, working for many months without any of the powerful authority given to the Warren Commission, has shown in his book, "Inquest," that the chief justice and his associates failed in their task in many vital respects. The members of the commission were most distinguished people who because of their many commitments gave inadequate time to their work.

The associate counsel were busy lawyers and bestowed upon their subordinates most of the essential tasks of the investigation. A great number of witnesses were heard, but there was very little cross-examination, which would have served to straighten out the discrepancies and contradictions in their testimony. Certain witnesses who might, have been most useful were not questioned at all. The Motive BY CARL Washington can be a mean town where the significance of an act is overshadowed by ugly suspicions as to the motive. Nobody should be more aware of this than President Johnson.

In recent weeks he has approved a new Vietnam peace offer at the United Nations, he has given the go-ahead on a commercial airline link between Moscow and New York; he has offered to reduce U.S. troops in Europe if the Soviets will reciprocate; he has lifted the ban on the sale of some 400 non-strategic items to Russia and the countries of Eastern Europe, and he has begun an un-precedented "peace search" in Southeast Asia. But what you hear discussed is not the fact of these acts or their importance but the Why? Why? Why? Mr. Johnson is half a world away but people here still want to regale or impress acquaintances with what they call the REAL personal and political motivations of the President's words and actions. You hear that "Johnson's ego is hurt by the claim that, while he's at ease dealing with domestic affairs, he's out of his depth in international affairs." So the assumption is that he is groping around in Asia or striving desperately for some agreement with the Russians so as improve his image and repair his ego.

This kind of constant speculation is dangerous, for it tends to entrance people with gossip and innuendo and blind them to the real importance of what has been done or said. The President's speech before the National Conference of Editorial Writers is a case in point. That speech shook up Europeans. And sooner or later it will produce some results that will make headlines. Beyond doubt, It is a major topic of discussion in Moscow, where Communist party leaders from Cuba, Mongolia and the Eastern European nations have gathered to discuss strategy and a common course.

Mr. Johnson's offer of trade and other accords with the Communist countries of Europe may well be getting more attention than the question of what to do about obstreperous Communist China. Certainly that speech is having its impact elsewhere. West Germany's Vice Chancellor Erich Mende called it 'gratifying, end fald it Is likely to oTereoma tha Impasse tntft resign tion which now characterize the What Is Europe's Defense? During a coffee break, several women employes of a large department store got to talking about the assorted menaces which threaten what used to be an orderly society and one of them herewith transmits their findings. The war in Vietnam came in for deep concern, for they agreed it could result in a worldwide conflagration.

But it was remote and had not directly touched any of them. The civil rights explosion was also cause for uneasiness and they wondered where it would end. The high cost of living was discussed and they said they didn't know how they would get along if conditions became any worse. But what they feared most wa3 mora personal. They are terrified at what they called the kooks running loose.

They mean the violent men who Impulsively and senselessly commit vandalism or attack or even kill people they never saw before. Unless they must, these women don't go out at night alone. This age-of-specialization story was told to Ted Gordon by his son-in-law, William I. Thompson, an instructor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. A student with a loaded grocery cart came to the check stand designated "Ten Items or Under in a Boston supermarket.

The clerk glanced at the over-the-limit contents of the cart and remarked, "I don't know whether you're from MIT and can't read or from Harvard and can't count." Allen A. Arthur, Bay area PR man, swears it happened at a small upstate college. A student wanted to register for only half a program eight units. He was told this was impossible because the computer was programmed only for a full 1G units. Only way out of the dilemma, it was decided after deep contemplation, was for the student to register for 16 units, then drop the eight he didn't want.

A lady named Trudy, who is moving to San Diego and has to dispose of her furniture, offered a sofa for sale on a radio call-in program. She received a phone call from a woman who asked If the sofa was comfortable. Trudy said it was very comfortable. "Then I don't want it," was the il i i ft Li. "Don't worry Sarge win THOUGHT.

WHILE PAYING BILLS When I buy something it's 'postage free. But to pay the bill the 'stamp's on me. LES WORDEW Verifying a recent item here about the Balkan people swiping our songs Dorothy Kay of San Marino relates an odd experience last summer when she and her husband drove into Czechoslovakia. The border guards werp courteous but formal as the Kays showed their passports, declared their money and changed it into krona and the strain was relieved when they heard a Louis Armstrong record blasting from one of the customs offices. "You like Louis Armstrong here too," her husband remarked to the 1 i h-speaking girl processing their credentials.

"That's not Louis Armstrong," she replied, "that's one of our singers." Later, near the lish border, they attended an outdoor concert and were" delighted to hear a full, swinging orchestra play "Old Mac-Donald Had a Farm" with a man singing the words in Czech. A firm recently had some dunning notices printed in a beach city shop, the owner of which claims he doesn't make mistakes, only an occasional "typographical misadventure." Too late, the firm's credit department discovered the last line on the notices had come out, "Call our Dre-dit Dep't. immediately." As of now, a lot of people do. Overheard: "We're getting the weather now we didn't get last summer." Meaning the heat and low humidity. People forget but it happens this way almost every year.

Answers to News Quiz (Questions on Page 5) 1 He was executed. 2 $39,500. 3 Hanoi, North Vietnam. 4. That the justices be above suspicion.

5 Nelly Sachs and. Samuel Joseph Agnon. 6 Yes. 7 Investigations into alleged payoffs in a rezoning case and in assessment cases. 8 The Rev.

Brendan Nagle. 9 Hawaii. 10 Prime minister of New Zealand. 4 YtfiV- probably jast a rumor Cartoon ttf Ollphtnf BY BARRY current high level discussion of the extent to which we may safely reduce the number of our troops stationed in Europe has, for me, two particularly interesting facets: It entirely misses the point. It entirely vindicates another portion of the 1964 Republican Presidential campaign.

Those two points together clearly indicate a third: This administration, in one more major matter, is proving dangerously incompetent and cynically misleading when It comes to foreign policy and the defense policy needed to back it up. Let's take the points in order. When the possibility of reducing our troop commitments in Europe is discussed these days, the discussion usually revolves around economy and symbolism. The economic point is made if we withdrew troops it would cut way down on the foreign exchange drain on our currency. There is no doubt that it would.

This point usually is followed by the assertion that European troop commitments could and should be increased to take care of the manpower situation. The symbolism point is that our troops are in Europe really just "to show the flag" and that, therefore, darn near any number from a few platoons to a few armies would achieve the same effect. Both of those arguments, the only ones now being offered by the administration, miss the point by a mile. The question of our military commitment is not nearly so much what we have or who we have in Europe as it is a question of what we intend to do with either in case of an At present our commitment In Europe ealli for a conventional re-J tponsa to any Communist aggres- re.