Mud at the Finish

In the final week, a barrage of personal charges further marred the undistinguished presidential campaign. First came the revival of some old charges that turned into a new attack on the integrity of Spiro Agnew. Then Hubert Humphrey was hit by a niggling accusation that raised questions about his probity. Both Agnew and Humphrey had well-founded rebuttals--though it was a little late in the campaign for rebuttals fully to catch up.

Question of Conflict. The charges against Agnew appeared in a New York Times editorial that denounced him for "clear and repeated conflicts of interest." The blast was based on a news story published earlier in the Times, but the editorial went far beyond Reporter Ben A. Franklin's conclusion that lengthy digging by many investigators had "turned up little that is new." Said the editorial: "It now develops that as a zoning board member, as chief executive of Baltimore County and as Governor, Mr. Agnew has been the political ally and financial partner of a group of wealthy land speculators. These businessmen have made sizable fortunes out of developing land in suburban Baltimore over the past 15 years, and Mr. Agnew's financial worth has also risen sharply."

Specifically, the Times contended that in 1965 Agnew and the businessmen had bought some land on the probable approach route of a projected parallel span of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. Later, said the Times, "as Governor, he approved this route." Further, and with some justice, the Times questioned the propriety of Governor Agnew's continuing to serve as a director of the Chesapeake National Bank. The editorial added that from 1964 to 1966, Agnew, as county executive, had voted to deposit county funds in the bank, and noted that "the state has public funds on deposit with this bank."

Detailed Denial. Agnew's quick denial was far more detailed than the charges made against him. Indeed, he had bought a one-ninth share in the Chesapeake Bay Bridge land in 1965, but publicly disclosed that fact when he ran for Governor in 1966. Before the election, he deeded the land to a trust, with instructions to sell it and turn over the profits, if any, to charity. The land was sold at auction in 1967 for $34,200--exactly what Agnew had paid for it. He also observed that the bridge route had been recommended and approved by the state roads commission under the previous Democratic administration and that he, as Governor, had no authority to approve or veto any route the road might take.

Agnew added that the decision to deposit county funds in the Chesapeake National Bank had been made not by himself but by the county director of finance, a Democratic appointee. The state does keep a relatively small amount of funds in Chesapeake National--and in perhaps 100 other banks--but the account was put there before he became Governor. Worst part of the Times's performance, from Agnew's viewpoint, was its questioning of how he had acquired some shares in the bank. According to the paper, Agnew claimed he had inherited the shares from his father, though his father had died a year before the bank opened. Agnew responded that he had claimed no such thing; he had inherited a debenture note in another company, sold the note for $10,000 and bought shares in the bank. That response seemed convincing; in a later editorial, the Times did not further discuss the inheritance.

Act Like a Man. If the Times over reacted, so did Richard Nixon. He seemed to make a calculated decision to turn the hassle into a national issue.

In a passionate and imprecise discourse on CBS's Face the Nation, he damned the editorial as "the lowest kind of gutter politics." Lawyer Nixon demanded a retraction and threatened a libel suit.

The Times continued to editorialize against "Mr. Agnew's Unfitness," and even reprinted the original editorial when commenting on Agnew's rebuttal. Later the editorial page appeared to retreat a bit. "Mr. Agnew makes some debating points," the paper remarked, and eased its wording to "potential" conflict of interest. Said the Times: "No where did we accuse him of violating any law. What we did--and do--suggest is that he failed to act with sufficient propriety."

Agnew got swift support from other sources. Maryland's Treasurer John Luetkemeyer, a Democrat, called the editorial "inaccurate, misleading and wrong in its facts." The Baltimore Sun, the Washington Star and the pro-Humphrey Washington Post, which are expert in Maryland politics, also came to Agnew's defense.

Enter the Tribune. Just when the Agnew furor had some Democrats smacking their lips, the ardently Republican Chicago Tribune jumped on Humphrey. Its Washington Bureau Chief, Walter Trohan, reported that Humphrey and his wife Muriel had received the land for their lakeside home in Waverly, Minn., as a gift from a "wealthy patron of the Democratic Party." Inescapable in the newspaper's story was the innuendo that Humphrey had been given the land in return for services rendered to a man in trouble with the Government.

In fact, Humphrey bought the land in 1955 for $200 from a longtime friend, Ray Ewald, a dairy owner who happens to be a Republican. What that land was really worth remains debatable. Ewald's brother contends it could scarcely have commanded $100; the county assessor put the value appreciably higher. Three years before the deal, Ewald's dairy had been involved in an antitrust case along with several other dairies and a union. Their plea was nolo contenders and they were each fined $3,000, more than half of the $5,000 maximum in a case of this kind. No where was there the slightest evidence that Humphrey had taken any special interest in the Ewald case. He answered the Trib story in a word: "Bunk."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.