The "Little American"

"I'm a conservative Republican who hasn't approved of any conservative Republican in years because most conservative Republicans aren't conservative enough for me." So says John J. Wilson, 72, who knows his own mind and does not hesitate to speak it. The habit can get him into trouble, as it did last week when he intemperately referred to Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye as "that little Jap." When incredulous reporters double-checked the remark,* Wilson refused to retract it. "That's just the way I speak," he said. Then, as though Inouye's citizenship were somehow different from his own, he added: "I wouldn't mind being called a little American." Wilson's remarks were not all that surprising: in the past he has openly opposed both blacks and women joining the D.C. Bar Association. But his newest outburst prompted a deluge of protests, including a complaint to the D.C. bar disciplinary board.

The Inouye incident, however unseemly, threatened to overshadow a far more serious controversy that one Washington lawyer summed up in the question: "How the hell can Wilson represent two guys whose interests aren't the same?" Whether because of his conservative reputation, or his reputation as one of Washington's top trial lawyers, or both, Wilson got a telephone call one day last April from John Ehrlichman, whom he had never met before. That same day Wilson was also retained by H.R. Haldeman. Thus he appeared before the Ervin committee as counsel for both men--or, as he once let slip, for "John Haldeman."

The situation is not unprecedented, but Wilson "is in a dangerous area, and he appreciates that," says Fred Grabowsky, counsel to the D.C. bar's disciplinary board. No lawyer, Grabowsky adds, can give both clients full measure if it becomes necessary "to be an accuser against one to defend the other."

Mindful of the fact that Wilson has had at least two private meetings with President Nixon, some wonder if the attorney might not have, perhaps unofficially, a secret third client. One legal observer argues that "the only way Nixon can be sure his former aides will not implicate him is to have one lawyer coordinating their testimony, not two lawyers each battling for the interests of his client." Attorney Joseph L. Rauh, a former national chairman of Americans for Democratic Action, more bluntly charges Wilson with being "the go-between to keep their stories straight." Says Wilson himself: "I'm not coordinating anything." As for the ethical implications of having two clients, Wilson asserted that the two men's stories were almost exactly the same and that there was thus no potential conflict. "I say that," he added, "without qualification on the basis of more years of practice of law than anyone on that committee, including the chairman."

In fact, during his labors before the Ervin committee, he had a dual celebration: the 50th anniversary of his admission to the bar and his 72nd birthday. A law graduate of George Washington University, Wilson spent his 30s as a U.S. prosecutor and won such a reputation as a litigator that in 1941, soon after returning to private practice, he was retained by the Swiss firm Interhandel to look after its interest in its U.S. subsidiary, General Aniline & Film. In 1942 GAF was confiscated by the U.S. Government because Interhandel was believed to be a front for the German cartel I.G. Farben. It was while the "little American" worked on this affair (in which he finally won a $150 million settlement) that Second Lieut. Inouye lost his right arm in Army combat in Europe. Among Wilson's other famous cases: a 1970 victory in the Supreme Court upholding Barry Goldwater's libel judgment of $75,000 against Eros and Fact Publisher Ralph Ginzburg; and the initial defeat of President Truman's 1952 seizure of steel companies. In the steel case, curiously, Wilson argued for a limited constitutional interpretation of presidential power, a position he now attacks on behalf of Haldeman and Ehrlichman.

Annoying Fault. Childless and hobbyless, Wilson has loved the law only slightly longer than his wife; their golden anniversary comes in September. His age has hardly slowed him down. Since a heart attack two years ago, he has had a chauffeured Cadillac (license JJW 2), and because of a 1967 cataract operation he initially wore dark glasses under the hearing's TV lights. "He looked like the Godfather," joked one of his partners; though his eyes hurt without the glasses, he junked them "because I don't want to appear like I'm hiding behind anything."

Hide he did not. No other private lawyer has been so combative in the hearings. "He speaks up," said an admiring Washington attorney. "He's had Ervin off on a lot of tangents and byways." A lawyer who is "thorough to an annoying fault," according to one of his partners, Wilson confidently barged into the fray--to sidetrack a questioner, to give his client a chance to gather his resources, and usually in the real hope of making a point or barring the question. Sample exchange after Ervin asked himself a rhetorical question:

Wilson: May I answer that?

Ervin: No, you're not a witness.

Wilson: I can make a pertinent comment. May I make it?

Ervin: Well, you're not entitled to, but if you can make it, then go ahead.

For the most part Wilson showed the professional's ability to press fervently without being caught up in personal emotions. But Inouye apparently enraged him by muttering "What a liar" into a not-yet-dead microphone after some testimony by Ehrlichman. Inouye annoyed the crusty old lawyer still further by asking about Haldeman's involvement in California campaign irregularities in 1962. Then came Wilson's "Jap" remark, which may well have undone whatever his assertive advocacy had achieved. Two days later, he sent a letter of apology to Inouye, but in the court of public opinion, that was too little too late.

*The degree of insult apparently depends on the speaker, year and tone of voice. Inouye himself tells of the time he decided to introduce himself to House Speaker Sam Rayburn. Said Rayburn: "I know who you are. How many one-armed Japs do you think we have in the House?"

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