The Secret Service recently refused to say how many agents it had assigned to accompany to Acpulco a former government employee who was resting between jobs. But the thoughtfulness of not letting a public servant go alone and unprotected out into the uncertain world of television executiveship and million-dollar authorship is hard to critize.

Some may question the need for supplying around-the-clock service, secret or otherwise, to Henry Kissinger, his wife and dog. But how are these citizens going to feel, after all those years of listening to the late news, if they suddenly realize that it's 10 o'clock and they don't know where Henry is?

What is needed, to answer the problem of unequal treatment in a democracy, is to increase such benefits, not eliminate them.Secret Service protection, which now extends to a large number of top officials and their families, is a wonderful thing that outht to be more widely enjoyed.

It is not, after all, people who live in White Houses who are in the most immediate danger of having stones thrown at them. A resident of a lower rent district is more likely to be attacked in the streets, and we might consider supplying the service with public housing. Money has never been an object when the comfort of the people is concerned.

If it is to be confined to government employees, let's give first consideration to those whose jobs put them in immediate danger. Presidents and Vice President only find themselves at the mercy of crowds at their own choice. But what about policement? They're public servants, aren't they? And they're nearly always out there where it's dangerous. How about supplying them with Secret Service protection?

This would, of course, result in a widely expanded service. But the streets seem to be full of people who are adept at handling guns and have a taste for danger. Put them all in the government payroll, and you not only can provideprotection, but eliminate the need for it all at once.