In New York: Wagner

Both Robert Wagner and Jacob Javits have commendable records as able administrators and liberal voters. But Jacob Javits is not the man to fill the Senate seat of retiring Herbert Lehman.

As a member of the Republican party, Javits has been under constant pressure from party leaders to shift his views to the right. This pressure was neutralized during his six years of Congress by the demands of his liberally-oriented district in Manhattan. But in the race for the Senate, Javits must cater to the conservative voters in up-state New York. To win the election, Javits will probably need an up-state margin of 600,000. And so he has embraced Nixon, supported Dulles, and stood firmly behing Benson and Wilson.

Wagner, on the other hand, is concentrating on building an even greater Democratic-Liberal majority in New York City. The upstate vote he is seeking is that of labor and the liberal forces in the manufacturing cities.

Thus Wagner has reinforced his record as a liberal, while Javits has cast doubts upon his own ability to uphold liberalism against pressure from Republican voters and party officials.

But even if Javits unfurls more liberal colors after the election than he is flying now, his victory would probably shift the entire balance of the Senate from the Democratic side to a more conservative Republican viewpoint.

The Democrats hold a Senate majority of one vote. If Javits is elected, the committees and the basic decisions will probably be controlled by the Republicans. No matter how attractive Javits' record is, the prospect of a Republican Senate is not pleasing, especially if Stevenson wins the election.

Javits' most effective campaign plank, aside from the weak timber of peace and prosperity, has been the charge that Wagner lacks the experience required of a national officer. But being mayor of the City of New York is by no means a limited experience. That Wagner cut crime by 21 percent in New York City is not a recommendation for the Armed Services Committee, but Wagner proved himself equally adept in modernizing the city government, improving education and hospital facilities, and directing slum clearance. He has shown a Roosevelt-like ability to pick excellent advisers and to use advice effectively.

He has taken firm stands on improving labor laws and has made sharp and well founded criticism of the "team" as well as its leadership, or lack of same. Javits, on the other hand, has taken the stump in upstate New York defending Dulles, although in New York City he urged a more helpful policy toward Israel.

Javits does have the experience in foreign affairs that Wagner lacks. But Javits has used this knowledge to support Dulles rather than attack him. Moreover his beliefs in civil liberties have been somewhat undermined by his refusal to take office, if elected, until the Republican Legislature in New York has appointed his successor, rather than let the Governor appoint one. As a result, he will not be present in the Senate when the important debate to curtail filibusters (and thus aid civil rights) will be taken.

If Wagner is elected, his successor as Mayor would be Abe Stark, President of the City Council--a man more liked than respected. Although Stark is better known as a supporter of worthy causes than as an administrator, he is pledged to Wagner's policy and budget. The advisers, the City Council, and the City Administrator would be the same.

There is no reason to believe that Stark would do any harm to the city in his short stay, while Wagner would greatly aid the nation if he became a Senator from New York.