The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. In the news today, the U.S. Supreme Court opened its new session with a flurry of rulings. The State Department requested changes in a Central American peace treaty accepted by Nicaragua. China showed off its new military hardware at its 35th communist birthday. And the umpires are set to strike the baseball playoffs, but the games will on go anyhow. Robert MacNeil is away tonight; Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: On the NewsHour tonight we look at several of today's major stories, starting with the Supreme Court. We sort through the Court's docket and demeanor with a veteran court-watcher. Judy Woodruff's been out on the campaign trial with vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, and will have a report on the campaigner and her feisty campaign. With a Nicaraguan and a U.S. State Department official, we get separate views on the motives and impact of Nicaragua's decision to accept the Latin American peace plan. Elizabeth Brackett finds out just how sweet it is for Chicago Cubs fans to finally have something to celebrate after 39 years. And we have a book review about Foreign Affairs.First Monday in October

HUNTER-GAULT: As usual, the United States Supreme Court went back to work today, as always, the first Monday in October after their summer recess. But there's a lot that's unusual about the Court's return this year; it will hear cases confronting some of the nation's most politically sensitive issues, including the rights of criminals and the rights of homosexuals, and several church-state issues, including school prayer. The Court's activities are big news this fall also, because it follows a summer of criticism of the Court by members of the Court in semi-public forums. Liberal judges in particular complained about a conservative shift of the Court in recent years. Jim has more on all of that. Jim?

LEHRER: Yes, we go again to the journalistic wisdom of Lyle Denniston for a look at today's opening of another Supreme Court session, a special one that does reek of politics as well as legalities. Lyle Denniston covers the Court for the Baltimore Sun. Lyle, first of all, today's decision. Any that would qualify as a major decision?

LYLE DENNISTON: Well, today, Jim, the Court was simply setting more of its agenda. It didn't decide anything in a final way, but there was of course, again, more controversy and the Court seemed to be reaching for it again today, because among other things, after an absence of about 11 years, they've decided to go back at the question of obscenity. Now they're going to deal with the question of whether or not you can make it a crime to excite lust or sexual desire.

LEHRER: Well, what's the details of the case there?

Mr. DENNISTON: This is a case involving a new law passed in Washington state in 1982, where they said that, among other things, that you cannot do in magazines and in books and films, is to give portrayals of erotic sex that arouses lust. And the lower court said no, you cannot make it a crime for people to portray things that excite lust, and among other things, they relied on President Jimmy Carter's famous magazine interview in 1976 in which he said sometimes he feels lust in his heart. So that's an issue that the Court has mostly tried to stay away from for the past 11 years.

LEHRER: All right, now it decided to go in on homosexual rights. What's the case there?

Mr. DENNISTON: That's a case involving a law in Oklahoma which says that if a public school teacher publicly advocates homosexual conduct, they can be suspended or even dismissed. And that decision -- the case in that respect led to a decision by a lower court saying no, that's an unconstitutional law because it interferes with the free speech rights of teachers. So the Court has decided that it will now look into the question, and this is an issue again that the Court has studiously avoided. They have stayed as far as they can away from homosexual questions, and now they're moving back, at least in this question of public advocacy of homosexual behavior.

LEHRER: Now, on school prayer, they made a ruling on that today, as well.

Mr. DENNISTON: Well, school prayer is something that they're going to take up later on in the term, and this is the question not of vocal, of prayers out loud, but of silent prayer and meditation. This is the fall-back position, now, from those who wanted to, as they put it, bring God back to the classroom.And since the Supreme Court over the last several decades -- two decades -- has said you cannot have prayer out loud in the classroom, then the advocates of prayer have said, all right, then we will go for silent prayer and meditation. This involves an attempt by the state of Alabama and the city of Mobile to authorize one minute of prayer or meditation the first thing in the morning -- one minute's time set aside, with the teacher simply standing in the front of the classroom and the children told that they can do this.

LEHRER: So this has been challenged and this is now -- the Court has decided that it will resolve this.

Mr. DENNISTON: The Court has now decided it will resolve that, and the Reagan administration, with its view on the question of prayer in the public schools, is supporting the idea of allowing the states to have prayer and meditation when it's silent prayer. And the expectation, Jim, is that the Court in looking at this issue, is going to basically start all over on the question of religion and government -- religion in public life. And it may well be that they'll redefine the basic premises there.

LEHRER: That could amount to a major decision this year.

Mr. DENNISTON: It will be really a stupendous decision, if the Court reexamines the basic premises. I think it also will be a major decision if they simply say, yes, you can have silent prayer and silent meditation and --

LEHRER: And that'll end it, that'll end all of this that's been going on for --

Mr. DENNISTON: It would, it certainly would. Take it away from Congress.

LEHRER: Sure, sure. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority in Congress has already supported silent prayer like this, has it not?

Mr. DENNISTON: They have --

LEHRER: That's what I thought, yeah.

Mr. DENNISTON: They have gone on record for that.

LEHRER: Okay. Now in the criminal rights area, what's on tap this session?

Mr. DENNISTON: Well, among other things we're going to look at the death penalty, at least in terms of whether or not it's appropriate to use lethal drugs as the method of execution.

LEHRER: As they're doing in Texas and other places now.

Mr. DENNISTON: In Texas, and I think four other states are now using it, and apparently there's a strong move legislatively to move towards lethal drugs as a more humane way of carrying out executions.

LEHRER: And who's challenging that and why?

Mr. DENNISTON: That's being challenged by a group of inmates who themselves are facing it, and they argue that use of lethal drugs is not a humane method, that use of lethal drugs in fact causes pain, it causes suffering, and they want to -- basically, what they're trying to do is to bring another barrier to carrying out executions, but they are arguing that it's not a humane method of doing it.

LEHRER: Any other specific things, Lyle, that I've missed or I haven't asked you about that they're likely to tackle?

Mr. DENNISTON: Well, I think they're going to do a lot more in criminal law; for example, the most important case is one that comes up for hearing tomorrow, and that's a case involving whether or not school officials can search the students' purses, lockers, for drugs and other contraband.

LEHRER: Oh, right. We've done stories on the program about it.

Mr. DENNISTON: Yeah, that's probably the most important criminal law case, other than another attempt -- it's supported again by the Reagan administration -- to relax the Miranda rules further. So that's --

LEHRER: The Miranda rule is search and seizure.

Mr. DENNISTON: Well, the Miranda's where the cops have got to tell you about your rights before they can question you.

LEHRER: That's right, the warning. I forgot, any good watcher of a detective movie knows that.

Mr. DENNISTON: You have to know what it's all about.

LEHRER: That's true. Okay, are these cases generally cases -- now that the Court has set its agenda and some of its rulings it made today and ones earlier before July -- are these cases that the Court is actually, you say, to use your term, reached for, are are these just cases that have come up naturally, or what? What's your reading about it, whether this is going to be an activist session or a passive one?

Mr. DENNISTON: Well, I think it's already an activist court on the conservative side. You see, the Court, Jim, has almost complete control over its own docket. Unlike a lot of lower courts, particularly lower appeals courts, the Court does not have to decide anything. It can mostly say we will or we won't take on a case. It's a matter of very wide discretion.

LEHRER: So it's essentially what they were doing today, right?

Mr. DENNISTON: Yes, and they could -- they are somewhat controlled by the flow of cases to them. They can't reach down into a lower court and bring up an issue they'd like to decide, but once an issue is presented to them, they have rather wide discretion to say no, we're going to pass this one up, as they've done for years on questions of homosexual rights; or they can do the opposite, which is, yeah, we're ready to take that on, as they did today again on a homosexual rights issue, as they did on the school prayer thing. Now, there's no reason why the Court had to get back to the school prayer, except that it was ready to do so. And I think the impetus for it is that you now have a rather predictable conservative majority that believes that it has the votes to do this, and so they're confident about reaching out for these new controversies, because they believe they can control the outcome.

LEHRER: And there's no question they can, is there?

Mr. DENNISTON: No question they can, because you have a solid four votes, and you've probably got a predictable fifth on almost any issue, now.

LEHRER: One quick dirty political question. I realize the Supreme Court has absolutely nothing to do with politics, but the issue has been raised by the Democrats at the presidential compaign level that the winner of the Mondale-Reagan race is going to appoint many new members to the Supreme Court. What is the likelihood in terms of age and what you know about the Supreme Court justices' state of health, et cetera, what are the odds on the next four years?

Mr. DENNISTON: Well, I would say that the next president, whoever's elected on November 6, will get a minimum of two appointments, and probably as many as five or even six. Because, you see, five of the members of the Court are 75 or older, and in fact when Harry Blackmun has his 76th birthday in November, five members will be 76 or older. And I would assume that just geriatrics and medical science and health being what it is, the reality is that you're going to have a couple of voluntary retirements, and you may have other vacancies that are involuntary. And I would think that -- I would expect that some time within the next couple of years, Justices Powell and Blackmun would probably voluntarily retire; the Chief Justice, I think, wants to hang on until after the bicentennial of the Contitution. But then, Justice Brennan is 78 and Justice Marshall is 76, so there's going to be a real possibility of two up to five appointments. And that could make the difference for another generation.

LEHRER: It sure could. All right. Lyle Denniston, thank you very much.

Mr. DENNISTON: Thanks.

LEHRER: Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: With just six days to go before their first debate, both President Reagan and Walter Mondale were out on the stump today. President Reagan plans three days of campaigning this week, including stops in Mississippi and Texas. He started today in Detroit at the city's prestigious Economic Club, where he blasted Mondale's economic proposals.

Pres. RONALD REAGAN: My opponent who opposed our tax program, said it would be murderously inflationary, before inflation went down; said there would be no recovery before recovery began; and then said recovery would be only anemic before the strongest economic expansion in 30 years; and now says there's no denying that the deficit must be reduced with tax increases. Well, forgive me, but judging from the record of those who are philosophically or constitutionally opposed to what we're doing, we might be better off if we consulted astrologers about what the deficit will be in 1989. Now, there are two things we do know that are not a matter of prediction: first, my opponent is committed to large spending increases, and a tax increase equivalent to $1800 per household; and second, those policies which he has supported all his political life, gave America an economic hangover that we must never ever suffer through again.

HUNTER-GAULT: For Mondale it was reportedly a deliberately light schedule in preparation for the debate, with only quick trips to New Jersey today and one to Arkansas tomorrow. But his attacks against President Reagan were still heavy, with Mondale charging the President's meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko was a failure, and accusing the President of trying to evade responsibility for the security lapses at the American Embassy annex thatwas bombed in Lebanon.

Vice Pres. WALTER MONDALE, Democratic presidential candidate: A president must take responsibility for his presidency. He must be accountable. If he won't, no one else in the government will. But what we have today is a president who gives us alibis. A president must be responsible for his own government. He must be accountable. Harry Truman had that sign on his desk that says, "The buck stops here." Mr. Reagan should put a sign on his desk that says, "The buck stops everywhere but here."

LEHRER: A front-page story in today's Washington Post made an interesting point about the other half of the national campaign, the one for vice president between George Bush and Geraldine Ferraro. In that race, Ferraro is beating Bush and drawing crowds hands down, but Bush is swamping Ferraro in the polls, all giving him a 15 to 20-point lead. Judy Woodruff spent some time with the Ferraro campaign last week. Judy? Ferraro on the Stump

JUDY WOODRUFF: Jim, what you might expect to see on the campaign trail with Geraldine Ferraro, is a third-term Congresswoman struggling to manage her first time out in a national campaign. As it turns out, Ms. Ferraro is a fast learner, apparently very much at ease under the bright lights and the constant scrutiny. And if that were all it took to win elections, victory might seem closer than it does, but as everyone knows, success in politics is a more complicated matter.

Sen. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) Massachusetts: She is the next vice president of these United States, Geraldine Ferraro! Gerry! Ger-ry! Ger-ry!

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: To look at Geraldine Ferraro these days, you might not guess she's the same candidate who went through such a rough experience with the disclosure of her family finances, or who faced unprecedented attacks recently from the Catholic hierarchy for her views on abortion.

Rep. GERALDINE FERRARO, Democratic vice presidential candidate: Thank you so much!

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: She is basking in the approval of friendly crowds, and showing off a feisty campaign style.

Rep. FERRARO: I say to Mr. Reagan, don't tell us you clean up the environment, because you don't. Don't tell us you've expanded opportunity, because you haven't. Don't tell us you supported John Kennedy, because you didn't. And don't tell us, Mr. President, that your policies are fair, because they aren't.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: It's the result of on-the-job training, her aides say.

FRANCIS O'BRIEN, Ferraro press secretary: There was some period there, right after San Francisco, where Mrs. Ferraro had, you know, we had to go through the financial questions and then we faced a lot of protesters and hecklers, but after that has passed, I think it mostly has now, and we started to get our message across, I think, we've become a very effective -- she has become a very effective campaigner.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: One of the heckling incidents took place on a college campus in Texas.

Rep. FERRARO: In fact, you -- [some of crowd chants "Reagan"; others chant "Gerry"] You're wonderful. You've figured out how to stop this New Yorker from talking too quickly.

Mr. O'BRIEN: As far as I can tell, any vice presidential candidate in history hasn't gone through what she's gone through so quickly. And she has met the test, I think, and she's shown a great deal of strength and courage through all of this.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: There are still moments, however, that don't go as smoothly as others.

Rep. FERRARO: You may have heard that Walter Mondale and I have our own set of critters -- critics and doubters. I was right the first time.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But reporters who've been traveling with Ferraro since she was first named Mr. Mondale's running mate say by and large she's grown in the job.

PAT O'BRIEN, Knight-Ridder Newspapers: I think she's become much more confident about herself up on the podium. She handles crowds better.At the very beginning, she didn't seem to have a great deal of self-confidence in front of a large crowd, and as it turned out that's where she does some of her very best campaigning, with that large rally. The sense of connection with people is very strong; even from the beginning she had the capacity to make that type of electric connection that the really truly successful politicians have to have. And that has gotten better.

WOMAN: I thought she was fantastic. I was going to -- I'm voting for them to begin with, and I'm just even more convinced now that I'm making the right choice.

WOODRUFF: Why?

WOMAN: Everything she said is just so timely, the issues she's attacking -- you know, abortion, the wars, everything.

MAN: Oh, I think she was great. I think she told it just exactly the way it needs to be told, that President Reagan isn't doing it.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: What is also drawing crowds is the notion that Ferraro is a part of history.

2nd MAN: I think it's a historic thing, that a woman would be running for vice president nominated by the Democratic Party. I thought it was a great thing to come down here and hear her speak for that reason.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Top campaign advisor Anne Wexler says the fact that Ferraro is a woman does make a difference.

ANNE WEXLER, campaign aide: There's no question about it, there's a curiosity factor. People come out because they're curious about the first woman, and I think that anything that is a first just engenders more curiosity and more interest and more excitement -- Sally Ride, Sandra Day O'Connor -- anybody who's a first.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Ferraro herself reminds audiences that there is something unique about her candidacy.

Rep. FERRARO: It was tough for me to go to law school at night and teach in the New York City public schools system, and then hear law professors tell me and the only other woman in our class, that we were taking a man's place.Okay! Little did they know that I'd be doing this now.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: She sprinkles references to feminist issues throughout her speeches.

Rep. FERRARO: When I take the oath of office for my second term as vice president, I want to swear to uphold a Constitution that includes the Equal Rights Amendment.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But the fact that Ferraro is a woman is just what one Democratic analyst who studies the public opinion polls says has hurt her. Bill Schneider says the perception that she was chosen despite her lack of experience coupled with her handling of her financial disclosure, deflated an early burst of enthusiasm by many voters. He says it took the bloom off the rose.

BILL SCHNEIDERQ polling analyst: By and large the public is satisfied that there's no illegality involved, that she came out of it all right, but it created among a minority of the population, that, you know, the sense that she wasn't entirely clean and there were problems about the way it was handled, you know, how much does she know or doesn't she know about her husband's finances, who's really in charge. A lot of less-well-educated and older voters always had doubtsabout a woman on the ticket, and the way the whole affair was handled, her relationship with her husband, raised those doubts very quickly.

Ms. WEXLER: Well, I don't think I agree with that. I think, if anything, the troubles and the problems that were apparent in August presented a tougher, more competent person to the American public at large. She weathered that storm with incredible skill, and I think it helped her.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But Schneider believes Ferraro has an even worse problem in the effect she has on Mr. Mondale.

Mr. SCHNEIDER: He has an image which he's suffering from right now, of being ineffectual, of not having leadership capabilities. Now in a way, Ferraro ought to help, because she's seen now as strong and tough, but it's also true that the contrast with Mondale doesn't do him any good. The more she looks strong and independent and tough and decisive, the more it contrasts with Mondale's image of weakness and ineffectuality, the fact that he seems like a weak character, not a leader. And also, it makes her less acceptable to the more traditionalist voters, the older blue-collar voters, who aren't used to seeing women in this kind of role, and aren't very comfortable with it. So I think it works against her in both ways.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Both the Mondale and Ferraro staffs deny that that is any concern to them. But the press covering Ferraro confirm there is nervousness about the number two candidate overshadowing number one.

Ms. O'BRIEN: I think they're antsy about that. I think they try to be very careful to not let that appearance take place. She clearly grows -- draws enormous crowds, and handles them very well. Any time she is asked to comment on that, she backpedals away from it very rapidly. She does not want to be seen in the position of overshadowing her running mate.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: But at this point, Ferraro is drawing both larger and more enthusiastic crowds than Mr. Mondale. [interviewing] Have you decided who you're going to vote for in November?

2nd WOMAN: Oh, yes, definitely.

WOODRUFF: Who?

2nd WOMAN: Ferraro.

WOODRUFF: Why?

2nd WOMAN: Well, I'm simply Democratic, and she is a woman and it's a great honor for her.

WOODRUFF: What about Mondale?

2nd WOMAN: Oh, I like him, too.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: The reality is that for all the unique and historic nature of the Ferraro candidacy, she has yet to demonstrate that she can pull in the large blocs of young voters, Catholic voters or any other major group Mondale was counting on her attracting. In any event, Bill Schneider says --

Mr. SCHNEIDER: The fact is, in the end, people vote for the president, nor for the vice president, and I think that pattern will continue this year, despite the fact that there's a woman on the ticket.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: So, for all the throngs who turn out to see Ferraro, polls show she and Mr. Mondale are still running well behind President Reagan.Many people who come to see her evidently feel the way this woman in Baltimore did.

3rd WOMAN: I was interested in seeing Ferraro because of the historic choice, but I still want Reagan and Bush.

WOODRUFF: Why, what did you think of her after hearing her?

3rd WOMAN: I think she's good, I do.I don't like Mondale at all.

WOODRUFF: Why not?

3rd WOMAN: Well, I think Reagan has done a good job.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: For now, though, Ferraro stays upbeat.

Rep. FERRARO: Are we going to win in November? [crowd: yes!]

Ms. WEXLER: She improves every single day, looks better, does well, and the people respond to that. We also feel very strongly that the polls do not reflect intensity, and what we see out there is a growing intensity every day. You certainly get an impression from being on the trail, and the impression that we get is that Democrats are beginning to listen, as other people are, to the issues. I think we're beginning to get people's attention, and I think that'll narrow the gap substantially.

WOODRUFF: Even political analysts critical of Ferraro's handling of the campaign so far agree with that. In particular, they say she has a chance in the debate with Vice President Bush to show that she is his equal. If she can just hold her own, they say, she'll be able to dispel much of the notion that she isn't qualified as he is. The question that follows that, however, is even if she does do that, how much of a bearing would it have on Democratic chances overall? And that's a question for another day.Jim?

LEHRER: For the record, the federal government is not closing down for lack of money tonight, the beginning of the new fiscal year. This morning the House passed an emergency bill to keep money flowing until Wednesday; the Senate passed a similar one Saturday that expires tomorrow. It's complicated, but the problem is caused by a Senate deadlock over an unrelated civil rights bill, which Senate leaders believe will be resolved tomorrow. If not, we'll probably have another story tomorrow night about the Congress voting again to avoid a midnight shutdown. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Another bill before Congress was threatened with a presidential veto today, when Commerce Secretary Malcolm Balridge said a catch-all measure on foreign trade could start a trade war. The bill, which is now before a House and Senate conference committee, would restrict the number of imports by changing the rules against dumping and subsidies and by making it easier to impose new tariffs. Balridge said some of the provisions would violate international trade laws, and predicted President Reagan might veto the bill if Congress passes it.

In the principal economic report of the day, the Commerce Department said spending on new construction rose by 0.2% in August, following two months of declines. Jim?

LEHRER: Still to come tonight on the NewsHour, a U.S. offical and a Nicaraguan official give their official differing views of developments in the Contadora-Central American peace process. We hear about another kind of Foreign Affairs, the new novel by the author of The War Between the Tates, and finally, Elizabeth Brackett talks to Chicagoans about their Cubbies.

[Video postcard -- Queen Creek Canyon, Arizona]

LEHRER: We move now to news from and about the overseas. First in Washington, the Agriculture Department announced another big sale of grain to the Soviet Union, 200,000 metric tons, or 7.5 million bushels, of hard red winter wheat.It is for delivery next year; no prices were announced, but it was estimated to be worth some $25 million. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: In the Middle East, angry words were exchanged between Jordan and Israel over peace. In Jordan, King Hussein rejected an Israeli offer for peace talks as "an exercise in subterfuge and deception." In return, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres criticized Hussein and warned that "anyone who rejected peace will have to pay the price." The exchange was prompted by Israel's offer two weeks ago to King Hussein to come to the negotiating table in order to reach a true peace. Jim?

LEHRER: Way, way over in another part of the world, in China, today's story was of a parade and a 12-minute speech. The parade was one of military might and patriotism, done to honor the 35th anniversary of China's communist government. The speech was by its top leader, Deng Xiaoping, the first public speech he has made since 1978. Brian Hanrahan of the BBC reports.

BRIAN HANRAHAN (BBC): The parade was to be a demonstration as much to China as to the outside world that the chaos of the past and the resulting poverty was over. Although due homage was paid to Mao Tse-Tung, it was his successor, Deng Xiaoping, who held center stage on the Gate of Heavenly Peace. It's Deng's politics that have produced the wealth making today's festivities possible, China's first National Day celebration in 25 years. The People's Liberation Army led the march past; they have new, smarter uniforms, but still no badges of rank. Reinstating rank has been delayed because proper army records were lost in the cultural revolution, and leftwing officers, who retain considerable influence, may be happier in the anonymous fatigues in which they watch the new uniforms being worn by both men and women. The army also put on display the pride of their weaponry: China's intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of dropping a five-megaton warhead on Moscow, were shown in public for the first time, pride in Chinese achievement taking priority over normal caution about security. All the weapons were said to be of Chinese manufacture. When the civilians joined the parade, the scale became obvious. A half-million people took part in one way or another, stretching across Tien An Men Square and the wide avenue that runs through it. They filled the streets with color and gaiety, although only a carefully selected audience were allowed anywhere near. Social control remains strong in China, although these days it is more liberal, allowing both Chinese traditions to be enjoyed and Western influences. Peace Initiative or Diplomatic One-Upmanship?

HUNTER-GAULT: The debate over the Contadora peace treaty continued today. U.S. State Department spokesman Alan Romberg called for a revision of the draft treaty. This follows last month's surprise announcement by Nicaragua that it would accept the treaty as it has been drafted by the representatives of Panama, Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela, otherwise known as the Contadora Group after the small Panamanian island where they first assembled. The Nicaraguan government also said it wants the United States to sign the Contadora treaty as well as the provision promising to end U.S. support of the contras fighting in Nicaragua. Today spokesman Romberg said the U.S. thinks the drafting process for the treaty is not over, adding that the U.S. wants additions to it, including on-site inspections to verify that no country is interfering in the internal affairs of any other Central American nation. For more on Nicaragua's acceptance of the Contadora peace proposal, we turn to Ambassador Alejandro Bendana, Secretary-General of the Nicaraguan foreign ministry. Ambassador Bendana, will Nicaragua accept the changes the United States wants?

ALEJANDRO BENDANA: Well, it's not so matter of Nicaragua accepting them, it's a matter of whether the Contadora countries want them. Contadora has spoken out very clearly in its document, and it says that this is practically the definitive version of it, they only want fine-tuning. And now the United States is calling for a revision of the whole process. Even the European foreign ministers that met in SanJose said that this was the act that should be accepted.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, let me ask you. Do you and Nicaragua, your country, have any objection to including something in there that's to the effect that there will be verification that there's no external interference?

Amb. BENDANA: But then there's an entire component, Charlayne, of a document that already provides for verification on-site and otherwise, and this was included by the Contadora countries itself, it's the product of a long process of negotiations that's totally acceptable to Nicaragua, which is why we're ready to say we'll sign it tomorrow. I don't think the issue is verification; the issue is whether you're going to negotiate, whether the United States wants a negotiated settlement in Central America, whether it wants peace or not.

HUNTER-GAULT: If the United States insists on including that, even though you say there are provisions for it elsewhere, what would Nicaragua's position be?

Amb. BENDANA: Well, our position is that the document is fine as it stands. Of course we are not absolutists, and we will go to the meeting in the political will to continue this process.

HUNTER-GAULT: Which meeting?

Amb. BENDANA: To the upcoming foreign -- conference of the foreign ministers of the Contadora countries, after October 15. But the point is that Contadora wants this peace act signed, and this is the culmination of a two-year process, and now it's being questioned.

HUNTER-GAULT: But Romberg says that the drafting process is not over. This is really the second draft of the treaty. You have a very different view, that it is over.

Amb. BENDANA: No, we are making reference to the document that was sent by the countries of Contadora to each of the heads of states in Central America on September 7, which said in effect the negotiating process is over, let's just have fine tuning to the document, and let's all get together and sign it as quickly as possible. Nicaragua said it would do it, we conciliated it with our own national interests, and now they want to open up this entire thing, the United States, basically, and with the urging of Honduras, and with the backing of -- and prompting those types of comments on the part of Honduras and El Salvador.

HUNTER-GAULT: Are you saying that the United States doesn't want a treaty?

Amb. BENDANA: That seems to be the effect. They've been singing the Contadora tune for two years now, and all of a sudden they change that tune. It's because what the treaty contains will make them, will force them to stop their dirty war of aggression against Nicaragua. Maybe there's not a will to stop that war.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what the State Department said today was that Nicaragua was trying to pre-empt the drafting process, in order to take away any look at the fairness question involving the elections, whether the elections are going forward. Is this a pre-emptive move on Nicaragua's part?

Amb. BENDANA: Absolutely not. We've responded to a request by Contadora to accept the document. We said yes, unconditionally, let's get on with it. So it's not us; the United States is questioning Contadora, the principal forum for peace in the world, that has wide universal backing, and now the United States is trying to stop that effort. So it is challenging the negotiation process, which means that it's interested in military means to settle its conflicts.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, one of the other things that the State Department said today was the very fact that you are shutting out the opposition in the upcoming November fourth election is proof positive that some further verification needs to be built into the treaty.

Amb. BENDANA: No, I wouldn't agree with that. Certain elements of the opposition are not in the political process, because they have decided not to become part of it. The inscription process and the registering process was even opened again, and they had a chance to inscribe themselves. So you really have to ask whether their stated will to participate in elections is real or not. They have chosen not to.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, are you going ahead with the November fourth election as planned, or are you planning some kind of compromise with the opposition forces, Arturo Cruz being principal in that opposition?

Amb. BENDANA: The election date is firmly set for November fourth. The door was still open for them to incribe themselves as candidates, and we can't force their hands. Maybe if they got a little nudge from Washington they would participate, but actually the shove is in the other direction.

HUNTER-GAULT: But aren't you having secret ongoing negotiations with the opposition?I mean, what's the point of that if some compromise is not something that you desire?

Amb. BENDANA: Well, actually we do want them to participate, and there have been talks going on, because we want this to be a process that is as wide-ranging as possible. And we have bent over backwards, but we're not going to concede on question of principles. There are the rules that have been laid down, there's an electoral law that's very clear compared to any one in Latin America or Western Europe, and still it's not good enough.So the question is whether they are interested in elections. The United States has been talking about elections; now that we agreed to hold them, all of a sudden they want to postpone them.The United States has been talking about support for the Contadora process, now that we agreed to sign, now they are not so interested in the Contadora process. I think the issue is much deeper; it's whether the United States is willing to recognize that the Nicaraguan revolution is irreversible and they must coexist with us, and we will go halfway in order to meet them.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for being with us.

Amb. BENDANA: Thank you, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Jim?

LEHRER: Next, the different perspective of the U.S. government. It comes from L. Craig Johnstone, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. Mr. Johnstone is the former director of the State Department's Office of Central American Affairs. You heard what the Ambassador said; as he drew the issue in his last statement, is he right?

L. CRAIG JOHNSTONE: I think in fact what he said was revealing, if you analyze it closely. He said that the United States and the other countries of the world have to accept the irreversibility of the Sandinista revolution. I think he would go a step further and argue that it can't even be reversed by elections. And that does go on to a very serious question of the kind of elections that Nicaragua intends to have. So far Nicaragua intends to have the kind of elections that have characterized the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union, not the kind of elections that have characterized democratic countries of the West.

LEHRER: Spell that out, what do you mean?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Well, for example, they have made it impossible for the opposition to participate in the elections. They have organized mob violence against the opposition. Just this last 10-day period, there have been several instances in which the government of Nicaragua has organized mob violence against the opposition candidate Arturo Cruz. They have refused to allow his participation in the election, which would require a postponement in the date of their election.As it stands now, we are not going to see a fair and free electoral process on November the fourth, and that does get to our basic point on the question of this draft of the treaty.

LEHRER: All right, let's get to that.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: The draft of the treaty as it stands right now contains all of the right categories of issues, but quite frankly it does not have adequate verification mechanisms to ensure Nicaraguan compliance.

LEHRER: Now, what is the U.S. trying to get at there? The Cubans and the Soviets?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: No, it's several different components. Let's take this question of democracy, for example. The Nicaraguans don't intend to change their democratic structure, the structure they're putting forward on November the fourth, because of their stated willingness to sign this treaty. And they intend to define the treaty as representing the kind of democracy that they intend to implement on the fourth of November, which is no democracy at all. The fact of the matter is, is that the drafters of the treaty intended that that treaty bring about democratic structures within the countries of Central America. There needs to be an adequate verification mechanism.

LEHRER: What kind? What would be an adequate verification mechanism for the United States?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Well, we have put forward to each of the countries our views on verification mechanisms, and they're very lengthy.

LEHRER: Give me the shortest possible version.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Certainly. I think we would favor a verification mechanism, for example, in which it was decided in advance under the terms of the current draft treaty, it says that subsequent to the signing of the treaty, the verification mechanisms would be worked out. If those were to be worked out in advance --

LEHRER: Yeah, but I mean give me an example of a verification mechanism.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Well, there is within the context of the treaty right now established a verification commission. That commission could be made operative by providing it with a budget, by providing it with a staff, and by also working out the provisions of who is going to be on this verification commission prior to the signing of the act. That's the kind of -- I mean, a way in which you could make it --

LEHRER: It'd be people, people that would go there, they would represent some kind of third body, is that right, or a mutually agreed-to group of people and that sort of thing. I see.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Yes. A group with the capacity for on-site inspection wherever they wanted to go, at any time, to discuss any issue.

LEHRER: What about the Ambassador's basic point, that, hey, the United States has been saying for two years let's do the Contadora process. Nicaragua says okay, we'll do it, and the United States says, hey, wait a minute, that wasn't what we had in mind.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Well, I think that's a little specious, quite frankly. The fact is is that we have very strongly supported the Contadora process and we do very strongly support it. It wouldn't have gotten as far as it has without our very active behind-the scenes support. It produced one draft that was a very good first effort; it has produced a second draft that has cleared up a lot of the problems associated with the first draft. There still are remaining areas that need to be worked out. The Nicaraguans are trying the pre-empt the debate on the issues, saying it has to be this draft or we're not going to be play in the game anymore, and that's what we object to. We think in fact there is a prospect for a good peace agreement in Central America, one that will actually bring peace to the region. The current draft has some remaining deficiencies. The Nicaraguans have to be challenged to negotiate in good faith with the other Central American countries on improving this current draft.

LEHRER: He says that what the United States really is upset about is it doesn't want to end the -- he called it the dirty war of aggression, others might say the U.S. support for the anti-Sandinista guerrillas. What's your answer to that?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: We have made it absolutely clear that it Nicaragua is able to work out an agreement with its neighbors, that we would abide by the terms of that agreement. We are prepared to do whatever is necessary to restore peace to Central America along the lines of our basic conditions, and that is that there be democratic structures within the countries of the region, that there be balanced military forces, and that they have the removal of foreign advisors. If those conditions are met, then we would gladly support a peace treaty.

LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, finally in a word, is this a major snag we're talking about here tonight, or do you see this thing actually going on from here after the words settle?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Oh, I think it will go on from here. I think the major snag will come if Nicaragua decides to go ahead with these elections that they're planning for November the fourth, without any clear opposition participating in the elections. That I think would be a very serious setback to the prospects for achieving a peaceful settlement in Central America.

LEHRER: All right.Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Thank you.

LEHRER: Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: A scientific watchdog group went to court today to try to stop a government experiment that uses genetic engineering to make bigger and better livestock. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been conducting the experiment, in which scientists duplicate a human gene, called human growth hormone, and inject it into pigs and sheep. So far the scientists say they have not succeeded in making the livestock grow faster or bigger, but a group called the Foundation for Economic Trends, along with the Humane Society, charged today that the experiment violates moral and ethical principles by mingling human genes with another species. They asked the federal court in Washington to block the experiment on grounds of cruelty to animals.The Department of Agriculture issued a statement defending the project, saying it has already been cleared by a government ethics panel. A similar experiment two years ago succeeded in breeding giant-sized mice and the government says it merely hopes to duplicate the results with livestock.

[Video postcard -- Dallas, Texas] Book Review: Foreign Affairs

HUNTER-GAULT: Now for our book review. The book Foreign Affairs was written by Alison Lurie, a professor of English at Cornell University. Her best-known novel was The War Between the Tates, which you may recall was also made into a television movie. Her new novel is about two love affairs which take place in England. One is between Vinnie Miner, a plain-looking 54-year-old divorcee who teaches English at the same university as Lurie, and a 57-year-old sanitary engineer from Tulsa. The otheraffair is between a 29-year-old colleague of Vinnie's and an English actress who is several years his senior. Robin MacNeil talked to our reviewer Richard Locke about Foreign Affairs.

ROBERT MacNEIL: Richard, tell us more about these two couples, and how Ms. Lurie fits them together into Foreign Affairs.

RICHARD LOCKE: It's the pattern that's so exciting, for what we have here are two kinds of Americans engaging two very different kinds of English people. The fascinating thing about the first couple, of Vinnie Miner, the donnish 54-year-old divorcee who teaches English, is that she's presented very much as a person out of her own speciality, she's like a character in a children's book, she's like a snobbish little girl, or she's -- some of her friends call her Mrs. Wiggywinkle. And she sort of bustles around and feels quite proper and prim about her own cultural superiority to many of her fellow Americans.

So you can imagine that the novelist Alison Lurie is very excited about being able to throw her up against somebody who is her exact cultural and social opposite, the 57-year-old sanitary engineer from Tulsa, Oklahoma, who instead of wearing nice little modest English clothes or imagining himself a proper gentleman, thinks of himself of course as a wild Western fellow, a kind of a tragic rube. He wears leather fringes on his clothes, cowboy boots, he's strung around with cameras, he's the absolute raw American tourist on the loose, a kind of inspired, rustic sort of lummox. And this is the person that the novelist, to our delight of course, throws up against the pretensions and the kind of insular little snobberies of our other academic hero, or heroine. So this odd couple manage to balance off against each other. It somewhat strains credibility, but it's delightful to see how he, who represents the body and the country at large, and very much the heart, is played off against her as in a kind of opera, where she represents of course manners and the mind and refinement. And they of course begin to exchange positions.

The other couple that is then contrasted to them is far more traditional -- it's not quite as broad. Here what we have is a kind of Henry James hero, a young man of 29, this English professor, also at the same New York university. And here this is a very handsome and debonair man kho's broken up with his sort of crude counter-cultural photographer American wife. He flies into the arms of all of traditional England, a woman who's something like the leading lady, the lady of the house on a Masterpiece Theatre spectacular, all charm and grace and worldliness. And he falls totally under her spell, and is gradually educated by her, obviously in a more his and elaborately snobbish direction.

Well, as you can see from these sort of chess counters of people that she's dealing with, a lot can be done to advance a comparison of England and America, old people-young people, and most of all, the basic idea is manners and morals.

MacNEIL: In what style does Ms. Lurie treat all this?

Mr. LOCKE: She very often will imitate the slightly scademic style, the sort of higher literary style of some of her characters, particularly of the two American teachers. Well, that's very clever, because she can generalize in a kind of essayistic way, and yet be quite witty about it; and change the accents of course, as she changes to the Western rube or the fine lady, who is after all merely an actress.

MacNEIL: And, but it's a comedy.

Mr. LOCKE: It's totally a comedy.

MacNEIL: And it's funny.

Mr. LOCKE: Very, yes, because you're laughing all the time at not only the misunderstandings of manners, but you get such a vivid sense of the contrasts of everything from not only obviously English and American speech, but of sexual styles and preferences, social and psychological maneuvers. There's a lovely set piece comparing the English and American style of charades, and everything sort of advances you like a tourist, which we are in reading the novel, through a whole landscape of England, gawking at everything from lower-class kids playing street games in Camden Town, all the way up to the glories of the English country house, which is brought out with full technicolor and a great deal of rather Jamesian corruption. So it's very cleverly done. You're drawn into it very pleasantly.

MacNEIL: It sounds a very assured book. It's her sixth or seventh novel?

Mr. LOCKE: I think it's her seventh. The thing -- it's very assured, at the same time, element of coldness and manipulation that can sometimes go with a too accomplished performance. It's here turned towards wit, I mean you laugh a lot and you admire these people, even at the same time as you're aware that the writer is manipulating them all in a slightly artificial way. That's not to say that they're not realistic, they're very realistically done, but you're always aware that they're part of a little pattern, and that the tale of manners and morals, of how important is good taste, how important are the way people speak, what indication is that of what kinds of people are they, are they good or are they bad. It all comes out quite nicely.

MacNEIL: You just -- from your demeanor, you obviously liked it, because you're enthusiastic about it. How would you sum it up?

Mr. LOCKE: It's a delightful comedy of a kind that you rarely get now, because it's so pleased with its own intelligence that you participate in it. And you have a sense it's not merely that the writer is giving you a kind of superior amusement, but she's really inviting you to participate in that. So it has something of the self-referential quality of going to a fairly fancy dinner party and enjoying it enormously.

MacNEIL: Richard Locke, thank you.

HUNTER-GAULT: Once again, the book we've been discussing is Alison Lurie's Foreign Affairs, published by Random House. Jim? Rallying 'Round the Cubs

LEHRER: Finally tonight, a story about a baseball team called the Chicago Cubs. For reasons most of their fans still can barely comprehend, the Cubs won their National League division this year, and tomorrow go against the San Diego Padres in the playoffs for the right to play in the World Series. Last time the Chicago Cubs won anything of consequence was 39 years ago. Elizabeth Brackett reports.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT [voice-over]: AFter a 39-year wait for a winner, four more hours on a cold fall night was easy for Chicago Cubs fans.

JIM FREY, Chicago Cubs manager: We all know that the Cubs fans are the greatest in the world. We thank you very much.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: While every manager on every winning team lauds the fans, there is something special, or at least different, about the Chicago Cubs fans. Three generations of the Voss family know what it means to be a Cubs rooter. Glenn Voss, here on his way to the Cubs game only a few blocks from his son and grandson's home, has his own childhood memories of the Cubs.

GLENN VOSS, Cubs fan: I can recall when I was a little boy, living on the farm, no electricity, no running water. And we had an old battery-powered radio, a Stewart-Warner, and I can remember rushing home from school in the spring to be sure I would get hom in time to listen to them on the radio.

BRACKETT: And they were winners then.

Mr. VOSS: Yes. Yes.

JAY VOSS, Cubs fan: You see, his generation had winners. This is all new to me. It's new to everybody who's our age.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Like all good Cubs fans, the Vosses have cried through more Cubs losses than cheered through Cubs victories, but they've never deserted their team. The most agonizing season: 1969. The Cubs were out in front in August by 8 1/2 games, then the September collapse.

Mr. VOSS: I can remember how heartbroken I was when they lost all of those games in September to the Mets.

BRACKETT: Did that sour you for a little while on the Cubs?

Mr. VOSS: No, no. No, I still loved them just as much as I ever had.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: It is that devotion that has carried the fans through the dark days, and now, now with a division title to celebrate. Chicagoans are ecstatic. Over 30,000 fans gave the team a 15-minute ovation, as they took the field for the first home game after clinching the division. Part of the fans' love for the team comes from their love for 70-year-old Wrigley Field, the only major league ballpark without lights. Ardent fan, former owner of the city's other team, the Chicago White Sox, certified bleacher bum, Bill Veeck.

BILL VEECK, Cubs fan: Ballparks should smell like freshly cut grass, not like asphalt and macadam or artificial turf. And it shouldn't really be played at night, because it's meant to be a lovely daytime game.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Not only do the Cubs have the grass, the sam and the ivy-covered walls of Wrigley Field, they also have the six sisters of the House of the Good Shepherd on their side. Honored on Fan Appreciation Day this weekend, the sisters say they have been pulling for the Cubs for years.

[interviewing] Have the sisters ever prayed for the Cubs?

Sister ELIZABETH ANN, Cubs fan: Well, of course we have.All through the years we've prayed for the Cubs. Our prayers weren't very effective for a few years, there, but we certainly have prayed.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: Though the sisters deny any credit for the Cubs' victories this year, they are as thrilled as the rest of Chicago with the Cubs' success. But the fans' wonder and joy is a bit hard for some of the Cubs players to understand. Over half of the Cubs are new to the team this year. Former player Randy Hundley, catcher on the heartbreaking 1969 team, says it is hard for these players to know what being a Cubs fan means.

RANDY HUNDLEY, former Cubs player: I think the entire season -- and I hope that the players don't mind me saying this -- should be dedicated to the fans, because they are the ones that have suffered all this time, and winning the Eastern Division title means more to them than it will ever mean to the players.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: For Jay Voss, like for many fans, winning the division title is enough. Afraid to hope for more, Jay Voss says he is satisfied.

Mr. VOSS: I can honestly say that I don't care if they win the playoffs, I don't care if they win the World Series.

RICK SUTCLIFFE, Chicago Cubs pitcher: A lot of the fans are probably happy with what we've done now, but we're not. We're not going to be happy if we don't keep going and play somebody in the World Series.

BRACKETT [voice-over]: But for those who have waited and hoped and prayed for 39 years, playoff and World Series victories would be icing on the cake. Just a division championship has made them believe again, both in the team and in themselves.

Mr. VEECK: A culmination of every man's dream. David gets off the mat and belts Goliath away. The Cubs, nonwinners for lo, these many years, finally win something when they actually had no right to do so, and that makes it a wonderful, you know, victory for every man.

SPORTSCASTER: Tom Glenn, Tom Glenn, holy cow! Listen to the crowd!

LEHRER: If you're a San Diego Padre fan, please, no equal time complaints. If your team goes 39 years before it wins again like the Cubs did, Elizabeth Brackett will be out then and do a story on you all. And it looks like there will be an umpires' strike tomorrow as those playoffs begin, but baseball officials say the games will go on with substitutes of some as yet undisclosed kind. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Unidentified sources in the Reagan administration were quoted by the Associated Press late today as saying Secretary of Labor Raymond Denovan has been indited by a grand jury in New York. The sources said six officials of the Schiavone Construction Company where Donovan served as executive vice president were also named in an indictment carrying 137 counts. A grand jury in the Bronx has been investigating charges that the company falsified records in a subway project that was financed with federal funds. Donovan was investigated by a special prosecutor in 1982, following allegations that he was connected to figures in organized crime. The special prosecutor concluded there was not sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment.

Now, once again the other principal stories of the day. The Supreme Court opened a new session with a flurry of rulings.

The State Department asked for changes in a Central American peace treaty that Nicaragua has accepted in its present form.

Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. And we'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.