As the Democratic Party caucuses today in Congress, Adam Clayton Powell goes on trial for his political life. But unfortunately, in the absence of an established code of Congressional conduct, there is nothing that the Democratic Party or the House can do to Powell that will be effective and appropriate to his offenses.

Those offenses are, of course, flagrant and inexcusable. Powell has cavalierly misused the privileges accorded him as Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Even more serious, Powell has demonstrated in his dealings with the court an unrepentant contempt for judicial process and for the laws which bind the rest of the citizens of this country. Ten different judges have in fact condemned Powell for "monstrous defiance of the law" and "promoting a tragic disrespect for the judiciary."

And yet, glaring as Powell's misconduct has been, punishing him is no easy matter. The House has the right to expel him from its ranks, and certainly expulsion is not too severe a measure in light of his treatment of the courts. Still, banishing Powell from the Capitol would probably create more problems than it solved. No Congressman has ever been expelled for contempt of court before, and such a move would doubtless be construed by Powell's Harlem district as a vicious effort to deprive Negroes of their most effective and powerful congressional spokesman. Powell would return home a martyr, and in the new election which followed the vacating of his seat, he would probably be over-whelmingly returned to office.

To avoid the dangers in expelling Powell, Representative Van Deerlin (D.-Cal.) has recommended that the House exclude him instead. This action would deprive the New York Congressman of his vote but would allow him to keep his seat. Such a measure is attractive but it is also unjust. It would punish Powell's district for the offenses of its congressman, leaving Harlem without a voice in the House for an indefinite period of time.

This leaves Powell's colleagues with only one method of disciplining the Harlem Democrat: depriving him of his chairmanship of the House Education and Labor Committee. But this alternative also has serious disadvantages. In effect, it would punish Powell for his abuse of his powers as chairman of a committee, not for his defiance of the courts which is clearly his most serious offense. What is more, Powell's practices as a committee chairman have been no different in principle from those of many of the other major committee heads in the House. Singling out Powell for punishment would, therefore, leave the Democrats wide open to the charge of racial bias.

In fact, Congress has no choice but to grit its teeth and bear Powell for another two years. Where the Congress should act, and act quickly, is in taking measures to make sure that the present dilemma does not repeat itself in the future.

Only an ethics bill can give Congress a consistent standard for disciplining its members. In establishing definite codes of conduct for Congressmen, an ethics bill would allow Congress to punish its members quickly and decisively. And it would eliminite the dangers that Congress' motives would be misinterpreted by racial minorities and other pressure groups.

Actually, in Powell's case, there is a good chance that the courts will do the job of imposing punishment. New York District Attorney Frank Hogen is presently investigating Powell's case and may take action that would lead to Powell's extradition and arrest.

In the meantime, Congress will have to let Powell have his cake and eat it too. As Supreme Court Justice Mathew Levy commented while citing the Harlem Democrat for criminal contempt of court, "It is not an easy task to punish a minister, a Congressman, a leader of men and a man of many natural gifts." As Congress must concede, without an ethics bill it is impossible to punish him at all.