Outside Counsel for Wright

The House ethics committee took the first step in the right direction when, after six months of foot-dragging, it voted to launch an investigation of House Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.). But now the committee should appoint an outside counsel to direct the inquiry of Wright’s possible misconduct, someone with the stature to stave off any Democratic attempts to protect the Speaker and to ensure the credibility of the enterprise.

When it last met, the committee ducked the issue of an outside counsel, reportedly because the members were deadlocked 6 to 6 along party lines. Wright had privately made it clear that he opposed the idea on principle and also feared that hiring an outside lawyer would prolong the investigation;he had hoped that the whole business could be wrapped up by next month’s Democratic National Convention, which Wright, as the Democrats’ top officeholder, is scheduled to chair.

On Thursday, after President Reagan joined the chorus of Republicans demanding a truly independent investigation, Wright changed his tune. “If the committee feels its work can be expedited by the hiring of an outside counsel, then by all means,” he said. Perhaps that statement, however grudging, will spur the committee to take the other step that it should have taken weeks ago. And, while it is casting about for the right candidate to run the inquiry, we would suggest that it ask the House for enough money to hire investigators and support personnel to mount a full-fledged operation; its tiny staff is inadequate for the task ahead.

However much Wright and Democratic presidential contender Michael S. Dukakis might long for his exoneration before the spotlight falls on the Speaker at the convention, the investigation should not be rushed. The committee not only must examine the six subjects that it already has agreed to but follow up on other leads, too. Brand-new reports that lobbyists and long-time friends of the Speaker bought large numbers of his 1984 book, “Reflections of a Public Man,” to skirt the $1,000 federal limit on campaign contributions should be plumbed in depth, along with the other allegations of impropriety that the committee already has agreed to consider--including whether the book all along was a subterfuge to divert campaign funds to Wright’s personal use.