Commentary : PERSPECTIVE ON WATERGATE : A Wise Ford Pardoned Nixon : It probably cost him the presidency, but its real legacy lies in the stability, clarity it gave the nation.

Let us give President Gerald R. Ford his proper place in history.

Twenty-five years ago, Ford granted Richard M. Nixon a “full, free, and absolute pardon” for crimes Nixon had “committed or may have committed during his presidency.” The time was at hand, Ford said, to end this “American tragedy” and restore “tranquillity.” The nation, he concluded, could not afford to “prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed.” Now, after a quarter of a century, it is clear the pardon has given us historical closure. As more incriminating documentary material emerges, can there be any doubt today of Nixon’s guilt in the Watergate affair?

History should remember Ford kindly for his memorable and generous act. The pardon undoubtedly contributed to his defeat in 1976; the wars of Watergate had not subsided, as Ford had hoped, and the tranquillity he sought barely lasted beyond the first month of his presidency. Nixon’s long shadow cast a pall in one form or another on Ford’s brief tenure, largely as a result of the pardon and the inflationary pressures fueled by Nixon’s misdirected economic policies.

From the day he assumed office, the new president sought to distance himself from the Nixon scandals, declaring at the outset that “our long national nightmare of Watergate” was over. Watergate nevertheless lingered, primarily because of the possible fate of the departed president. Although Ford failed in his primary goal, inadvertently perhaps, the pardon provided a measure of stability and clarity for our history.

Ford’s statement to the nation on Sept. 8, 1974, mentioned the likelihood of long delays and endless litigation should the process continue. Most interestingly, he noted that Nixon might gain his freedom on due-process grounds, thus rendering the ultimate “verdict of history” as “even more inconclusive” as to his guilt or innocence. History breeds ambiguity; actors and historians always put their own gloss on it. But fortunately, Ford left Nixon’s misdeeds undisturbed. If Nixon had won an acquittal on any grounds, he would have clouded the historical understanding of Watergate. Ford spared us such ambiguity.

Time has mellowed the passions of those turbulent days. But contemporaries reviled Ford for the pardon. White House press secretary Jerald F. Terhorst resigned in anger. Congressmen registered protests, although usually on a one-time basis. Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward had congratulated Ford in the euphoric days of his takeover, but after the pardon, they offered “a scream of protest and a plea to exercise wisdom.” Author Larry L. King pithily summed up the situation: The manner and timing of the pardon made it appear as if Mr. Clean had suddenly dealt a dirty card from the bottom of the deck.

Convicted felon Charles Colson later complained that Ford had promised to pardon all administration defendants until the storm over the Nixon pardon produced a change of heart. In the aftermath of the pardon, Seymour Hersh weighed in with a hint of conspiracy, charging that Ford had promised Nixon a pardon before his resignation, perhaps even when Nixon named Ford vice president. But no documentary evidence has surfaced exposing any secret deal.

Some of Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski’s staff eagerly sought to indict the former president. James Neal, Jaworski’s most experienced prosecutor and a savvy political man, acknowledged that a prima facie case existed against Nixon, but added, “It would not be in the country’s best interest to prosecute him.”

Jaworski’s deputy, Henry Ruth, stated that the staff was investigating possible criminal violations by Nixon aside from the obstruction of justice in the Watergate affair. But Ruth told Jaworski that “none of these matters at the moment rises to the level of our ability to prove even a probable criminal violation.” Ruth added that if there were to be indictments, it would be “fair and proper” to notify the White House “sufficiently in advance so that pardon action could be taken before indictment.” If Ford were to pardon Nixon, Ruth thought “he ought to be early rather than late.” Ford later claimed that Ruth’s remarks and Jaworski’s apparent agreement clinched his decision.

Alexander M. Haig Jr., Nixon’s former chief of staff, who remained in the White House, informed Nixon and his new legal team of Ford’s intention to issue a pardon. That knowledge stiffened Nixon’s resolve not to offer any statement of contrition to Ford or the nation when he accepted the pardon. Instead, he merely expressed the “hope” that Ford’s “compassionate” gesture would lift “the burdens of Watergate.” He acknowledged that he had been “wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly”--but he admitted to no obstruction of justice or abuse of power. Others believed that his actions had been illegal and self-serving, but the defiant Nixon insisted that his actions only “appeared” to cast him a wrongdoer and that his “own mistakes and misjudgments . . . seemed to support” that belief. Admittedly, he dealt with Watergate in the “wrong way,” and that, he said, was the “burden I shall bear for every day of the life that is left to me.”

The pardon sealed Nixon’s historical fate and reputation, a reputation he fought so fiercely to burnish. He never mentioned the pardon in his endless flow of memoirs. The inestimable Jaworski tartly said it was no diploma for proud display. Ford’s charity and wise sense of history in granting the pardon proved to be Nixon’s ignominy and embarrassment. We are in Ford’s debt.