Problem With a Name

When any organization loses its top people, the professionals whom everyone respects, there are bound to be questions about whether there are deeper problems. That’s what happened Tuesday at the U.S. Justice Department, and we can say with certainty that yes, indeed, the resignations of Deputy Atty. Gen. Arnold I. Burns, the department’s No. 2 official, and Assistant Atty. Gen. William F. Weld, the head of the criminal division, and four of their aides indicate that there is a very serious problem at Justice; his name is Edwin Meese III.

Neither Burns nor Weld mentioned Meese or an independent counsel’s 11-month investigation of the attorney general in his letter of resignation. But both have told intimates that they worried that Meese’s widening legal problems not only had disrupted Justice Department operations but also were permanently tarnishing the reputation of the department and of those who worked there, including themselves. Their resignations--coming soon after the elevation of Associate Atty. Gen. Stephen S. Trott, the department’s No. 3 man, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit--will leave a leadership vacuum at Justice.

Self-preservation probably influenced their decisions: Weld, a Republican who served with distinction as the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts from 1981 to 1986, is said to have political ambitions; Burns, who founded his own New York law firm 25 years ago, told friends that he wanted to return to private practice with his integrity intact. But both were also said to be thoroughly frustrated with Meese’s inattention to his responsibilities,his sloppy work habits and his insensitivity to the rules of professional ethics.

Only a week ago Meese, on national television, professed his loyalty to his long-time California crony and former lawyer, E. Robert Wallach, who has been indicted himself for defrauding Wedtech Corp. and has drawn the attorney general into several schemes that are shady if not conclusively illegal. Should an attorney general continue a close friendship with someone charged by his own government with conspiracy, racketeering and mail and wire fraud? If the ethics textbooks don’t provide an answer, that’s because most previous attorneys general didn’t have to ask the question.

Keeping track of the multifaceted investigation of Meese and his appearances before grand juries isn’t easy. James McKay, the independent counsel, initially focused his investigation on Meese’s in volvement with scandal-plagued Wedtech and the suggestion that he repeatedly used his government connections to help Wedtech and Wallach’s other clients. The probe has since expanded to include Meese’s possible role in a payoff scheme to win Israeli support for a proposed $1-billion Iraqi pipe line, also involving Wallach, and his efforts to ease court-imposed restrictions on telephone companies in which he owned stock. In addition, Meese has been c lled frequently to testify before the grand jury investigating the Iran-Contra scandal.

So far, Meese has not been charged with any wrongdoing. As Times staff writer Ronald J. Ostrow reported last week, McKay still lacks evidence that the many favors that Meese performed for Wallach benefited the attorney general--a key link in putting together any criminal case. But, even if Meese is never indicted, his consistently bad judgment, his willingness to do favors for friends and his underdeveloped sense of ethics make him unfit to serve as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Until now, Meese and the rest of the Reagan Administration have blamed his problems on Democrats and a supposedly partisan prosecutor. Now two of Meese’s own lieutenants both Republicans, both his hand-picked choices --have turned against him. Does anyone need any more proof that Meese should resign?