The unraveling of the complex business affairs of Bobby Baker will provide a busy winter for the Rules Committee and a few weeks of entertainment for newspaper readers. If the Congress is willing, the disclosure of the peculiar financial dealings of the dextrous Mr. Baker may also lead to the reappraisal of the entire question of legislative ethics.

One bill not before Congress would be paricularly helpful in preventing re-enactment of the Baker case. The measure, introduced by Sen. Clifford Case (R-N.J.), and Sen. Maurine Neuberger Such a bill, if in force this year, would have disclosed Mr. Baker's unusual dealings much earlier, and would probably have prevented many of his more blatant abuses. If the allegations of his accusers are true, the former Secretary to the Senate Democatic Majority owned, manipulated, or assisted simultaneously two vending-machine corporations, a Milwaukee insurance company, a luxury hotel in Maryland, a Haitian meat-packing firm, and an exclusive Washington club. Yet the far-flung nature of Mr. Baker's interests was not brought to light until the owner of one of the vending machine firms sued him for, apparently, backing out on a promise to persuade a government contrator to purchase certain vending machines.

The furor surrounding Baker's business affairs has also brought to light some unusual business arrangements involving members of Congress. Rep.. John W. Byrnes (R-Wisc.), ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee and a firm upholder of the "Puritan ethic," was found to have made a considerable profit on some stock he bough in an insurance company after intervening with the Internal Revenue Service to secure a favorable tax ruling for the firm.

One cannot count on a Bobby Baker scandal each year to disclose the unethical dealings of Federal legislators and Congressional employees. The passage of the Case-Neuberger bill, while by no means the only step Congress could take towards preventing legislators and Congressional employees from taking advantage of their offices to improve their own financial positions, would be a valuable first move. But when Sen. Case suggested to Sen. B. Everett Jordan (D-N.C.), the chairman of the Rules Committee, that he combine his investigation of Baker with hearings on the Case-Neuberger Bill, the chairman refused.

One can hardly blame Sen. Jordan for his reluctance to hold hearings on the bill. An official of several textile concerns in North Carolina, he has fought for textile interests ever since coming to Congress, and is probably not inclined to approve legislation controlling Congressmen's financial affairs.

The press will no doubt lend a great deal of attention to the investigation of Bobby Baker's business connections. Hopefully, newspapers will extend the same publicity to the Rules Committee's drafting, or refusing to draft, legislation to prevent a repetition of the incident. The Rules Committee has already demonstrated its reluctance to pass legislation controlling the business affairs of members of Congress. Only if the public makes evident a wish that such measures as the Case-Neuberger bill pass will Congress conceivably enact them.