As the Herald views the picture, there should be periodic reviews of salaries of top federal officials, including fringe benefits and allowances. But we believe there should be full airing of any proposed increase in an open manner, and that any adjustments for members of Congress and other top officials should be approved only by specific congressional vote rather than by committee or other sidedoor approach. As noted in these columns Thursday, U.S. News and World Report recently disclosed that unless some change is made in present law, Congress may be in line to collect three raises in roughly a year’s time which could boost the salary of lawmakers to possibly ”$60,000 or higher.” Such boosts would come about through findings of an advisory committee, recommendations of a presidential commission, and an automatic costofliving increase for federal employees. The pay of top govemment officials has soared sharply in the past dozen years, U.S. Civil Service Commission figures quoted by U.S. News and World Report show salaries of a number of top officials, not counting allowances, as follows, with the present figure listed first, followed by the 1964 amount: President, $200,000 now, $100,000 in 1964; vice president, $65,600, $43,000; speaker of the House, $65,600, $35,000; major and minority leaders, $52,000, $22,500; members of Congress, $44,600, $22,500; chief justice, $65,600, $40,000; associate justices, $63,000, $39,500; judges of federal district courts, $42,000, $30,000; cabinet ‘ secretaries, $63,000, $35,000; agency heads, $44,600, $30,000. We do not have access to allowances for such officials. Member of Congress, of course, are entitled to such fringe benefits as gen-erous pensions, special mailing privileges, tax breaks, paid trips home for official business, and various personal conveniences besides sizable allocations for staff salaries, Many of the high-paid people in govemment make no bones about wanting more, For instance, a group of federal judges who now make $42,000 to $44,600, is suing for damages to make up for erosion in buying power that they suffered from 1969 to 1976 when they received no raises. Where will the trends lead? Are present and projected salary levels justified? What changes would the layman suggest? One congressional critic of present pattems has said changes can be made only if the lawmakers feel a great deal of pressure from constituents or if opponents make salaries of federal officials an election issue. The Herald would like to see live public interest on the question. Further, we will be pleased to provide space in this newspaper for all Utah candidates for U.S. senator and U.S. representative (incumbents as well as challengers) to express themselves on the subject.