The opinion-page article ``When Lawyers Marry Lawyers,'' April 12, claims that there is no precedent for charging Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Clinton with conflict of interest. The author sets up a small platoon of straw men whom he knocks down to show that ethical principles would have denied Mrs. Clinton real opportunities to practice law in Arkansas because of her unique situation.
This is nonsense. Certainly neither Mrs. Clinton nor her law firm should practice before state administrative agencies because those agencies perform a quasi-judicial function, and the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. But to say that she could not do legal work for an estate is stretching the point past recognition; probate courts are virtually nothing but administrative bodies, and almost never involve the state as a party.
But the most egregious statement is that judges hear cases involving clients represented by their sons, or by firms employing their sons, ``all the time.'' Perhaps the author is unaware that when Ramsey Clark was appointed attorney general of the United States, his father, Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark, resigned from the Court to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. And in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio there is a standing order that if a certain judge should be selected (by a blind random-choice process) for a case where either party is represented by his former law firm, the next judge in line receives that case. These are examples of the proper operation of ethical principles. Robert B. Henn, Ambler, Pa.
I have greatly enjoyed the Monitor's articles on solutions for young children while mothers work - an excellent topic for highlighting the International Year of the Family.
Regarding the article ``Sanvita Program Promotes Breast-Feeding By Mothers,'' March 1: Certainly a program which makes it easier for babies to receive human milk is appreciated, and pumping during working hours helps keep the non-working-hour breast-feeding relationship intact. But it is sad that our culture is so baby unfriendly that so often a pump and bottle (or worse, formula and bottle) have to substitute for a fully breast-feeding relationship and the numerous advantages for mother and child this relationship offers.
A second article ``When Offices Double As Nurseries,'' April 7, points out that it is possible even for working mothers to actually breast-feed their babies. As our society becomes more baby friendly, we can find creative ways to keep mother and child together to a much greater extent while the mother works or otherwise goes about her daily activities. This togetherness benefits mothers who do not choose to breast-feed as well.
True liberation of women does not require them to deny their motherhood to be full participants in our society. Elizabeth A. Graser, Honolulu
Nuclear weapons in S. Asia
The subhead of the opinion-page article ``A Fool's Errand in South Asia,'' March 30, reads: ``Clinton's effort to excuse Pakistan's nuclear program is dangerous.'' The author does not advance the cause of nonproliferation by savaging and belittling the administration's nuclear policy in South Asia.
Pakistan has no nuclear weapons compared with India, which exploded a nuclear device in 1974 - the source of the present problem in South Asia. Syed Rifaat Hussain, Washington Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan
I am sorry to have to take a position against the editorial ``The Greeks Are Coming,'' April 15. For the second time the Monitor has taken an adverse stand on the question of an artificially created Macedonia (which can only breed war with Greece).
There is only one Macedonia, and that happens to be in Greece.
By creating a province next to it in Yugoslavia and naming it Macedonia, who can stop Yugoslavia from one day claiming the other half of the province? There are just too many killings and wars in the world and I feel we should try to eliminate the creation of more. Agnes T. Manuelian, Phoenix, Ariz.