NYTimes
Letters to the E
Scandals of the Past: Tge bifitrence
To the Editor:
mies,"
The recent claim by Richard Nixon illeg the invasion of privacy through
al wiretaps and the subversion of
that the scandals afflicting his Admincivil rights are all far more dangerou
istration are substantively no different to
s
a
from thobe of other eras is one that of democratic society than the crime
larce
ny,
even
on the grand scale of
most historians would find difficult
to
accept. Watergate is different, not only Teapot Dome.
In the third place, of all. American
in scope but in kind, from the Cred
ical scandals, only Watergate has
Mobilier of the Grant regime or Teap it polit
ot touched off a constitutional confronDame during the Harding era.
tation unseen sinc
In the earlier scandals, the American War. Even Fran e before the Civil
public found its national resources be- faced by an klin Roosevelt, when
intransigent Supreme
ing sold by highly placed Government Court, attem
pted to deal with the probofficials to the highest bidders, with lem through
legal machinery and,
the money going not to the Treasury
, when faced by a huge public outcry,
but into private pockets.. In the lesse
immediately retreated. Grant made
no
thefts of the two eras, businessmenr effort to bloc
bribed Federal officials in order to se- while Harding k investigations, and
died before the scandals
cure a variety of otherwise unattain
erupted, Calvin Coolidge supporte
d
able benefits. Watergate is different the special
.
investigators and subseFirst, neither Grant nor Harding quent criminal action i aga
inst the
took any part in the scandals that culprits.
rocked their, Administrations; rath
Nixon, however, has defied the Coner
they were the dupes of friends they gress and
the courts, fired an investiappointed to high Government offic
gator he appointed himself, has done
The only charge that could be lodges. all he coul
ed
d to thwart the work of the
against them is that, of cronyism. Rich
second special investigator, all the
ard Nixon, on the other hand, seem - time arro
to have played an active role in man s dency fargating powers to the Presiof the incidents under investigation. y Foundin from the concepts of the
g Fathers. Even as the House
If
he did not instigate the original Waterprepares to deal with impeachmen
t,
gate burglary, he appears to have been the
virulent attacks by the White
heavily involved in the coffer-up op. Hou
se are designed to undermine the
erations.
one constitutional safeguard provided
Second, while the conduct of officials against abuse of the nati
on's highest
in the Grant and Harding Administra- office.
tions was certainly deplorable, it did
Ther
little more than manifest an extreme gate e is a difference between Waterposition that a party system so heavily ferenand earlier scandals, and that difce is that Watergate involves not
intertwined with private benefactors a, mer
often reaches. They were crooks, pure frien e effort at lining the pockets of
and simple, and all they wanted was to dly businessmen but is an effort
undermine the very processes of a
money. Certainly the corruption of the free
and democratic society.
electoral process, the use
of the
I.
MELVIN I. IIROFSKY
and the I.R.S. to get at "politicalF.B.
eneDelmar, N. Y., July 24, 1974