Nation: HAYNSWORTH: WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION’S DEFEAT MEANS

WELL before the 1 p.m. voting hour, the galleries of the capacious old marble-and-leather chamber were bulging as the Senate gathered last week to vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Clement Haynsworth. Vice President Spiro Agnew arrived a full ten minutes early; the vote was expected to be close, and he could break a tie. As the clock on the Senate wall reached 1 p.m., the chamber hushed, and the roll call began. The outcome hung on the votes of seven uncommitted Senators, and everyone who had any business being there knew who they were. Nevada’s Alan Bible, a Democrat, was the first of the seven to be called. He said “No,” and the audience gasped. Other nays followed, and then Quentin Burdick, Democrat of North Dakota, cast the 51st negative vote. “That’s it!” someone yelled. Agnew slumped in his big leather chair. Haynsworth had been beaten, and by a surprisingly decisive 55-to-45 margin. It was a bitter defeat for Richard Nixon, who had chosen to lay the prestige of his presidency on the line for Haynsworth. His nominee was the first to be rejected by the Senate since 1930.

Low-keyed. Thirty-eight Democrats voted against Haynsworth, but the margin of defeat was provided by the President’s own party. Seventeen G.O.P. Senators—including the top three leaders—defected. To do so, they had subjected themselves to some of the toughest manhandling to come from the White House in years. Nixon confined himself to low-keyed sales pitches, but Attorney General John Mitchell and White House Aides Bryce Harlow, Harry Dent and Clark Mollenhoff adopted hard-knuckle tactics. For weeks, the struggle was a bizarre mixture of moral controversy, party loyalty, political animosity and crude pressure, all played out in an atmosphere of recrimination and threatened retaliation (see box, page 16).

Local party leaders and contributors were enlisted to threaten to cut off Senators’ support. Cabinet members warned of possible lost patronage. Bearing down on Republican William Saxbe of Ohio, a White House operative ordered Ohio loyalists to “look into his personal finances.” The order was canceled, but not before Saxbe got wind of it. He was enraged. “I do not know who has stirred up the people of Ohio to threaten me to vote for Haynsworth or face retaliation,” he said. Declaring his independence from all outside pressures, Saxbe added: “I will not jump through a hoop for industrial fat cats or labor leaders,” and in the end he voted no. So did Oregon’s Mark Hatfield, who angrily complained that conservatives had threatened to oppose him in the next primary.

Mitchell “leaked” the information that Minority Leader Hugh Scott promised to vote for Haynsworth if his vote made the difference; the “leak” was false, designed to force Scott into making it come true. Scott voted nay. Democrat Thomas Dodd was reportedly threatened with indictment over his alleged misuse of campaign funds; rumor had it that he was shown the indictment. But he too voted no. “During my more than seven years in the Senate,” said conservative Idaho Republican Len Jordan, “few issues have generated more pressure on my office. Support of the President is urged as if it were a personal matter rather than an issue of grave constitutional importance.” Another no.

Early in the showdown week, not all the pressure was having such counterproductive results. Republicans James Pearson of Kansas, Caleb Boggs of Delaware and Ralph Smith of Illinois decided to switch rather than continue fighting the White House, and thus declared for Haynsworth. Then, on Wednesday, the balance whipped the other way. Delaware’s John Williams, a partisan Republican and friend of Mollenhoff’s, had been counted in Nixon’s camp. But Williams, who because of his long concern with Government ethics violations is called “the conscience of the Senate,” came down hard against Haynsworth—on ethical grounds. The White House desperately corralled George Aiken of Vermont, also a man of unquestioned probity but one who believes a President should get the man he nominates. Aiken came out for Haynsworth, partly offsetting the impact of Williams’ vote on wavering Senators. Then, on the eve of the roll call with the announced votes at 44 apiece, the respected Kentucky Republican, John Sherman Cooper, marched into the Senate to announce his decision: against —on ethical grounds. Cooper’s prestigious opinion helped to hold other Republicans for the opposition, and provided the coup de grace to Haynsworth.

Leaders Aroused. The wounds left on the G.O.P. by the Haynsworth donnybrook are not likely to heal swiftly. Conservatives in the Senate talk about retaliating against Minority Leader Hugh Scott. Scott’s future effectiveness with Nixon has been thrown into doubt. In many states, grass-roots leaders have been roused up against their Senators; this seriously dims any chance the Republicans had of capturing a Senate majority next year. Senators, on the other hand, are furious with the Attorney General, who selected Haynsworth and advised Nixon to fight the nomination through. They blame Mitchell for forcing them to choose between party loyalty and their convictions or—in industrial states—their constituents.

Nixon’s prestige has also received a setback, though it is difficult to gauge how severe or long-lasting it may be. If nothing else, the Haynsworth fiasco has raised some embarrassing questions about his leadership capacities. An Administration which prides itself on cool efficiency was trapped in an ugly battle over ethics when it failed to check well the background of its nominee. And a President who is known as a consummate politician miscalculated the strength of the moderate and liberal G.O.P. Senators as he singlemindedly pursued his “Southern strategy.” Even so, in the South Nixon’s image has probably gained new luster: despite the loss, Nixon will get credit for trying.

The Haynsworth defeat will not end Nixon’s efforts to remake the Supreme Court along less activist lines. The President said that he would name a new nominee when Congress reconvenes in January, and promised another strict constructionist like Haynsworth. “The Supreme Court needs men of his legal philosophy to restore the proper balance,” said Nixon. Scott, trying to heal the sectional split over Haynsworth, said he hoped that Nixon’s next nominee would also be a Southerner. He would probably have a better chance; White House aides believe far fewer Republicans would be willing to buck the President twice. “The President could nominate Lucky Luciano next time and it would go through,” said one.

Controversial. The bitter Haynsworth fight has also further politicized a court that in recent years has become increasingly controversial. Although the original furor over Haynsworth arose on ethical grounds, there were many Senators whose objections were based more on ideological grounds; indeed, the Senate vote split primarily along liberal-conservative lines.

There was little reason to expect opposition when the 57-year-old judge was nominated for the high court in August. Haynsworth had served on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for twelve years, and had done little to arouse adamant opposition. During confirmation hearings, however, liberal Senators raised conflict-of-interest charges. They showed that Haynsworth had failed to disqualify himself in two cases where he had financial interest: a 1963 case between a union and a firm that did business with a vending machine company partly owned by Haynsworth, and a 1967 case involving the Brunswick Corp., whose stock Haynsworth bought before releasing a favorable decision. The decision did not affect the stock’s price, and the judge’s purchase was inadvertent, but it left an appearance of impropriety. Haynsworth also contradicted his own testimony on the vending machine company affair. Haynsworth was opposed by labor and civil rights groups, who contended that his decisions had been contrary to their interests, but it was the ethical charges that caused the Senate to rebel. “That was the crank that got the ideological car started.” said a chagrined Justice Department official.

Camellias. The courtly scion of four generations of South Carolina lawyers, who grows camellias for a hobby, Haynsworth had little stomach for the fight. He received the news of his rejection in his characteristically quiet manner, and with some relief: “The ordeal of the past two months has ended,” he said afterward. Haynsworth said he was going to consider if he should resign his present judgeship.

Haynsworth, to some extent, was a victim of history. Had he been nominated a decade ago, there is little doubt that he would have been confirmed swiftly. But the court has become increasingly involved in all aspects of national life. This, and the revelations that led to the resignation of Abe Fortas from the Supreme Court, dictate closer scrutiny and higher standards for Justices than in the past. There were feelings in the Senate, never articulated openly, that Haynsworth was just not distinguished enough for the job. Said Illinois Republican Senator Charles Percy, who voted no: “I do not question Judge Haynsworth’s ability or his honesty. But they are not enough. The times demand something more.”