He Sees Value in Nominee’s Good Relationship With a President : Close Ties No Liability to Atty. Gen. Choice, Smith Says

Atty. Gen. William French Smith, citing his own experience, rejects as “fallacious” the notion that a President should avoid appointing anyone to whom he is closely tied as the nation’s top law enforcement officer.

In an interview as he prepared to return to California a year later than he had planned, Smith--President Reagan’s personal attorney before accepting the Cabinet post--declared: “It’s much easier for a President to hear ‘no’ from someone who has been telling him that for 20 years” than from an appointee he has not known previously.

Following his standard practice, Smith declined to recount when he specifically told Reagan “no.” But associates, noting the especially close personal relationship Smith enjoys with the President, pointed out that the attorney general’s influence recently had turned back Budget Director David A. Stockman’s attempt to cut $100 million from the Justice Department’s fiscal 1986 budget.

Increase Tied to Reform

Faced with implementing a sweeping criminal law reform measure that was pushed through Congress last year, the Justice Department sought $3.8 billion--$34 million more than in this year’s budget. But Stockman, citing widespread concern over federal budget deficits, pushed instead for a $100-million cutback.

In a meeting last month with Smith and Stockman, Reagan ruled for the attorney general.

“Bill shook the money tree for us--one last time,” said one highly relieved department official whose operations would have been hard hit if Stockman had prevailed. “That’s four out of four,” he noted, referring to earlier appeals by Smith to protect the Justice Department budget.

Whether Reagan’s nominee to replace Smith, White House counselor Edwin Meese III, will wield the same type of influence is far from certain. But, although Meese does not move in the same social circles as Smith and the President, he and Reagan have enjoyed a lengthy working relationship, and he is considered one of Reagan’s closest advisers.

Idea Traced to Watergate

The belief that a President should avoid naming a close associate--to critics, a “crony”--as attorney general stems primarily from the mid-1970s, when President Richard M. Nixon’s law partner, Atty. Gen. John N. Mitchell, was prosecuted for his part in the Watergate conspiracy.

The Watergate special prosecutor recommended that a President should not name to any high Justice Department post someone who had served as his campaign manager or in a similar high-level campaign role.

But Smith, while not endorsing the appointment of a former campaign official to run the Justice Department, argued that there is significant value in having long and close ties with a President.

In the interview, conducted this week before a crackling fire in the hearth of his office, Smith seemed far more forthcoming about his victories and defeats as attorney general than he has previously.

He appeared relaxed on Friday as well, as he said farewell to Justice Department employees. Noting that he was to have returned to his home and private law practice more than a year ago--when Reagan named Meese to succeed him, only to have a vote on Meese delayed--Smith joked: “It is purely rumor that the movie ‘The Long Goodbye’ is a Department of Justice documentary.”

No Regrets on Delay

Smith voiced no regrets about the extra year in Washington, noting that several Justice Department initiatives came to fruition during that time: the criminal law package; reform of the bankruptcy court system; a string of Supreme Court decisions in favor of Administration positions and getting immigration reform down to “the one-yard line.”

Congress’ failure to enact the immigration bill--which combined the carrot of amnesty for illegal aliens already in the country with the stick of criminal penalties for employers who knowingly hire them--”has to rank as my principal disappointment,” Smith said. He also admitted to being frustrated by what he sees as the Administration’s inability to “communicate the fact we are enforcing the civil rights laws.”

But overall, he noted, “we made dramatic, 180-degree changes in policy . . . with a minimum of turmoil.”