Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

/ I»K<t rcit IV* <V^«*V» tV** i ■' ♦«>' > «< t'» 41. ff«. V*«/.»»t. .tJ*. .>» f*.'’»•*.* t • »• •» ’ »• • m mi » * .m i ‘ « 1 . • 81 . »« •) *i . t •*> •» ■** * » »• •« .i m «lt. »*.». M *.i.» f- *.*. .M A. . 2-B—THE CHRONICLE, Clinton, S. C., May 15, 1969 IGNORE NAME-CALLING U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) often leads a tough life in the halls of Congress. He is rarely treated kindly by the national news media. Sen. Thurmond is a dedicated, out spoken man who will stand up for his convictions. He is a popular target for the liberals. Therefore, it is gratifying to see him exonerated for his determined fight against the appointment of Abe Fortas as chief justice of the Supreme Court. While Thurmond was fighting Lyndon Johnson’s efforts to make Fortas chief justice, the South Caro lina senator was the target of some vicious name-calling. His opponents said he was an anti-Semite and said that was the reason he opposed the appointment. They tried to inject racism into the fight and, naturally, tried to peg Thurmond as the racist in their efforts to force the appointment. Name-calling didn’t bother Thur mond. He sticks to his principles. It is now indicated that Fortas, in deed, was not a good candidate to be chief justice of the Supreme Court. Lee Bandy, Washington corre spondent for The State newspaper, writes, “Senators who criticized Thur mond for his successful attacks on Fortas last year are swallowing their words. “Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D- Mass.), a past supporter of the justice (Fortas), is calling for an investiga tion of the ^20,000 fee. And so is Sen. Phillip Hart (D-Mich.) who led the floor fight in behalf of Fortas last year. “Also red-faced is Senate Minority Leader Everett M. Dirksen (R-IU.) who normally takes both sides of ev ery issue.” “ ‘Strom was right’, is the com ment heard frequently by those who were critical of the senator last year !» > • • This should be a good lesson to all who follow the activities in the halls of congress. Ignore the name-calling and labels and study the facts. THE DIVIDEND “We witnessed for ourselves that ‘capitalism’ is a fair and rewarding economic philosophy which benefits the employer and employee, investor and consumer.” That is a quotation from Chris Adair’s letter to the stockholders in his annual company report. Chris, a senior at Clinton High School, was president of one of the two Junior Achievement companies in Clinton. That one sentence undoubtedly was most gratifying to those who organ- zied the Junior Achievement program in Clinton. It sums up what Junior Achievement is all about. The high school students who participated in the program organized their own companies, manufactured and sold their products and both com panies showed a net profit during this first year of the program. Both paid dividends to their shareholders. But the most important dividends are summed up in that one sentence in Chris Adair’s letter. BELEAGUERED CAMPUSES There has been much in the press these last few weeks about the riots and confrontations which have turned so many university campuses into bat tlegrounds. Historically, springtime has been a time for much gentler riots, largely kindled by collegians with an excess of adrenalin coursing through their veins. This was mischief only, a let ting-off of steam. Certainly, there was no real malice underlying them. How sad that what was once a sophmoric rite has turned into sinis ter and malevolent actions in a dozen different places. In trying to spot the main differ ences between the present upheavals and earlier protests, one comes inevi tably to the presence, in the case of Cornell University, of armed demon strators. Though the group protest ed that they were armed against an ticipated attack, no acceptable evi dence has yet been furnished to docu ment the claim. It is difficult, at this distance, to understand why the Cornell adminis tration gave way to the main demands of the rioters, not to mention its tacit acceptance of guns and ammunition as persuasive instruments. It is clear now that such permis siveness has been widely interpreted to mean that if a minority group wants to get its way, it has only to take up its weapons and scare its way into acceptance. Militants at one South Carolina college have already proceeded on that premise. Any student of history knows that the door to anarchy and revolution has very often been lirst pried open by students. Many of the Cor nell faculty members who spoke out against the university’s handling of the dissidents were, not surprisingly, professors oi history and government. They know best the hard lessons of the past, and see violence for the dark threat it can become if it goes un checked and unpunished. Dr. Allan Bloom, a teacher of gov ernment, said that “those who make the revolution do not cease their de mands with the accession to power,” and warned that Cornell is in for dif ficult days. “The resemblance on all levels to the first stages of a totalitarian take over are almost unbelievable,” Dr. Bloom observed. The last few days have seen grow ing unrest and turmoil at high school level. It is not unlikely that much of the thrust of such disorders sprang from study of the permissiveness so widely visible on college campuses. President Nixon has expressed himself with clarity on the issue. He, along with the majority of Ameri cans, feels that disorders, violently conceived, should be firmly and quick ly dealt with. There can be no other answer. En Garde! A Communist is a guy who wants to use your pot to cook your goose in it.— Louis Graves, The Nashville (Ark.) News. Meanwhile, Back At The Estate A /// ill 6QC£MSeoCO EVUiN MCU* Waste Disposal Problem BY BABSON’S REPORTS INC. WELLESLEY HILLS, MASS.- As a consequence of our nation’s enormous industrial output and high level of affluence, we are faced each day with the formid able task of disposing of more than one million tons of solid waste. In the past, what we have done with our waste and garbage was to dump it on some unused piece of land or into a nearby body of water. For reasons of health and aesthetics alone this was never a good means of dis posal, and it becomes even more unacceptable as the population grows and our natural resources dwindle. Adding to the disposal prob lem are the increased durability and the decreased salvage value of a great many goods and pack aging materials. With the ma jority of our cities already running out of nearby land fill sites, it is obvious that new dis posal technologies are vitally UNITED STATES SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS REPORTS TO SOUTH CAROLINA ABM One learns quickly in Wash ington that there are experts galore who know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Along this line, there is yet to arrive in the Cap ital City the scientist who doesn’t know. Some know the ABM will work; more are positive it won’t; but none will say we don't know. The fact is we don’t. We know that we have a missile that will knock down an incoming missile. It's been tested and proved. We know we can knock out all the Chinese missiles if they were launched at us. But we don’t know whether or not we can stop the multiple warhead. No one has tested this successfully. We know that any two-bit nation can become a nuclear power for $5 million by buying a bomb, and it wouldn’t be long before they could devise the delivery capability. So, like it or not, we need a de fensive ABM—and we need it now! President Eisenhower started the research for an ABM 13 years ago It w-as continued by President Ken nedy and President Johnson at a total cost of $5 billion. If we don’t launch the devel opment of a limited system such as Safeguard now, we will have blown $5 billion—and never know What do we know? We know the Russians have an ABM they say will “hit a fly in the sky.” We think the Russian one is effective be cause we continue to beef up our offensive missiles in order to penetrate the Soviet ABM. And we know the Russians think theirs is good. They de ployed it seven years ago and are spending now vast sums to revise and further deploy. We know that the Soviet will have a complete monop oly on development techniques unless we begih to build an ABM. Development is most important. For example, when nuclear fission was first dis covered, we felt it would be too expensive to generate electricity by nuclear power. After years of numerous de- velopment breakthroughs (not research discoveries) by private industry, we now can produce economically electric ity with nuclear power. If the Government doesn’t give the go-ahead now, the private sector will never venture into this field; breakthroughs in knowledge and development will never be ours. On the contrary, ours will be a policy of intentional and permanent ignorance. Now for the President’s options. Suppose today he should receive a warning that hostile missiles with multiple warheads are headed toward the US the President has 20 minutes at best to react. He can pray and do nothing. If the report is true, 70 million Americans are killed. The United States is lost. The other option is for the Presi dent to dispatch our missiles against the enemy. In this event, 70 million of theirs are killed, and 70 million of ours. We both are lost. Without a defensive ABM we must defend with offensive missiles. Our defense is merely to kill mil lions of the enemy. But if we give the President an ABM, we give him a third and most important option. In that event, when he receives the warning, mistaken or true, the President has the option to fire into the atmosphere to destroy missiles. If there is any doubt, this option allows him to kill missiles '•ather than people. At present, all the President can do is noth ing, or kill people. In both cases, we lose. Last year we were told that if we voted for an ABM, the So viet would not talk disarma ment. This disregarded the statement of Premier Kosygin who stated in London Febru ary 9, 1967, that an ABM sys tem was ‘not the cause of the arms race” and was not offensive because “it is de signed not to kill people but to preserve human lives.” We voted for an ABM system on Monday, June 24, 1968, and on Thursday of that same week the Soviet called for talks on disarmament. We say that the U.S. is not imperialis tic; that we only maintain a defense posture; and at the same time those who worry most about imperialism insist that we rely solely on offen sive missiles. To do so would only give substance to the charge of imperialism. The "military-industrial” complex comment by President Eisen hower that is constantly quoted disregards a warning in the same speech against “public policy . . . becoming the captive of a scientific- technological e 1 i t e." The scientist can tell me his opinion of whether or not the missile will work, but the de fense of the U.S. is a political decision that I must make as senator. Since there is emi nent authority on bpth sides of whether or not an ABM will work, my decision for defense in a sense is a gamble. When one looks at the stakes in the gamble—200 million Americans versus 6 billion dollars—there can be no hesi tation. I support President Nixon’s Safeguard ABM. SENATOR STROM THURMOND REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE ACADEMIC FREEDOM necessary in order to cope with the gigantic and still mounting waste disposal problem. MEETING THE CHALLENGE One of the more novel ap proaches for disposing of waste is that of compressing garbage into building blocks. These blocks are coated with steel, concrete, or asphalt for use in building, road, or airstrip foundations, and retaining walls. It is claimed that the compression destroys all mi croorganisms, resulting in a sterile, odorless building block. Another method of adding value to waste is being tried by the U.S. Public Health Service. In this ex periment, sewage sludge is added to compost to make it more val uable as a fertilizer and soil conditioner. It has also been sug gested that railroads use unit trains to haul trash for burial in remote areas, perhaps to fill m worked-out quarries or mines. Several railroads have shown in terest in developing this new traf fic source. THR ROLE OF PACKAGING The packaging industry, in re sponse to the litter and waste dis posal problem, is turning its ef forts to making packages that are more disposable or degradable, and even self-destructing. Dow Chemical, among others, is working on a bottle that will disintegrate after it has been emptied. Other companies have similar projects underway. It is thought that such a self- destructing container may be in use in 1970. Anferican Maize-Products is heading on another track, by mak ing the packaging part of the food. This long-established manufact urer of corn products has de veloped an edible packaging film that is now being used commer cially in the baking industry; the film is made of soluble, high- amylose cornstarch. RECYCLING IS ULTIMATE GOAL While soluble or self-destruct ing packaging is one answer to the waste disposal problem, it is not the ideal solution. Recycling or reclamation of waste to recover natural resources is the ultimate goal. Along these lines, Reynolds Metals has set up a reclamation project in Florida where empty aluminum cans are collected and processed for reuse by secondary aluminum producers. Ford Motor’s San Jose, Cali fornia assembly plant has a ma chine (developed by Pan Ameri can Resources) that converts waste packaging materials into combustible gas and charcoal. And the glass industry is explor ing the possibility of giving glass more salvage value by using greater quantities of broken pieces in new glass molding. COMPANIES WITH A STAKE IN WASTE DISPOSAL Many companies are involved in the waste disposal field, but few major concerns derive a large part of their revenues from technologies dealing with such disposal. Those with some repre sentation in the area of waste disposal that the staff of Bab- son’s Reports currently con siders suitable for purchase in clude: American Maize-Products (recently near 24), Borden (re cently near 32), Union Carbide (recently near 45), and Penn Cen tral (recently near 52). A dangerous threat to aca demic freedom exists on the campuses of many American universities and high schools. A small group of students, orga nized by the so-called Students for a Democratic Society and various bands of black militants, have joined forces to disrupt the operations of our educational in stitutions and to radicalize the mor«v-moderate students. The issues proclaimed in these campus riots are secondary to the main purpose, which is to break down the respect for au thority and to seize control of the decision-making power. Such a process feeds upon itself. Pas sions are aroused, and excite ment is generated. Many stu dents are swept into action and find it difficult to back out. In the meantime, the education of the majority is disrupted, some times for the rest of the term. MAJORITY CALM In schools where the adminis tration has laid down clear lines of responsibility, and has prom ised to take proper measures against student rioters, the campus remains calm. Such is the case in the majority of our educational institutions. But where the administration has wavered and made concessions to blackmail and violence, the students, both militant and mod erate, regard the authorities with contempt. When campus order breaks down, the rights of many inno cent students and teachers are threatened. These people should not be penalized because weak administrators fail to take ac tion, or fail to call in the pro tection of the State. The Na lion’s schools of higher education cannot be allowed to become havens for those plotting dis ruption of the academic process and civil order. The chief weapon which the Federal Government presently has against rioters who cross State lines to incite riots is the Thurmond Anti-Riot Amend ment to the 1968 Civil Rights Act. The Nixon Administration already has indicted several members of the SDS and other militants under this law. FEDERAL INTEREST However, the Federal interest in higher education is strong. For fiscal year 1967, the latest figures available, eight agencies of the Federal Government pro vided some $3.3 billion in sup port to higher education. This is up from $1.4 billion in fiscal year 1963. In 1967, 80 percent of our universities and colleges, that is, 2,056 institutions, re ceived Federal support. With such a high level of sup port, the Federal Government has the duty to see that its pro grams are not disrupted by violence. Accordingly, I have introduced legislation to be known as the Academic Freedom Protective Act of 1969 (S. 1988). This bill would make it a Federal crime to interfere with the orderly ad ministration or operation of a Federally assisted institution. It is not enough to cut off funds to rioters, or to schools which permit disorders. Such fund cut offs come too late to provide an effective deterrent, and they are difficult to administer. INTERNAL SECURITY The Academic Freedom Pro tective Act takes the internal security approach and is di rected at the techniques of the militant demonstrators. It would make it a crime to cause dis ruption by: First, committing an act of force or violence or uttering a threat to do so; Second, obstructing access to, egress from, or the use of any part of the school’s premises: Third, entering or remaining in any structure or upon the premises with the intention of obstruction; Fourth, committing any overt act in violation of any provision of law, or any duly adopted regulation of the school. In ad dition, anyone who conspires with any other person to violate these prohibitions will also be guilty of a crime. Such an approach would bring the established system of the judicial process into play to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Furthermore, the rights of the majority to work without intimidation and disrup tion would be restored with the return of academic freedom. Public opinion vrill determine whether this legislation is passed. (not pretmred or prxntrd at government expente) Supreme Court Aids Welfarists BY THURMAN SENSING Having compelled the states to surrender their traditional and constitutional authority over pub lic education, the U. S. Supreme Court now has decreed that states may not make fundamental deci sions as to who is eligible for wel fare assistance. In a 6 to 3 decision, the court struck down state laws and regu lations requiring welfare “clients” to wait a period of months before becoming eligible for relief payments. In so doing, the Supreme Court tossed out rules that are in force in 40 states ind the District of Columbia. The gr juud on which the deci sion was made was nothing less than fantastic. The court held that requiring people to wait be- for getting aid is unconstitutional because it restricts the right of all citizens “to travel throughout the length and breadth of the land.* To reach this conclusion, the court had to ignore the facts. No person, except those restric ted by a court order, is hindered from traveling anywhere in the United States. Freedom of move ment never has been curtailed. States simply have drafted sen sible rules that prevented hand out hounds from dropping into any community they pleased and be coming an immediate burden on the taxpayers. Now the Supreme Court has said that welfare careerists have an automatic right to get a hand out in any state they choose to reside temporarily. This ruling is another nail in the coffin of state sovereignty, in the concept of a federal Union as extablished by the founding fathers of the U- nited States. On the practical side, the deci sion most probable will lead to the creation of wandering bands of welfare recipients who migrate from state to state according to the season and their whims. Sunny states such as Florida and Calif ornia may become winter resorts for a roving drone population. In Florida, the law on the books re quires a person to have lived in the state five of the past nine years, and at least one full year prior to applying for welfare. Floridians have been well aware of the possibility of hordes of professional reliefers des cending on the Sunshine State. It is impossible to calculate at this point how costly the new ruling will be to many states, but it will likely run into millions of dollars. Taxpayers, who are already overburdened, will be faced with a new weight of taxation. Secre tary of Welfare Finch has warned that the decision will have a se vere financial impact. He has said that states should have the right to set their own welfare standards, but, in the light of the court’s ruling, he added, the states ‘are going to have to scramble to meet the extra bud getary load." Inevitably, the Supreme Court’s ruling will lead to de mands for federal uniform wel fare standards. And as a prac tical matter, the scale of pay ment almost certainly will be what is being paid in New York State. This, in turn, will impact staggering financial burdens on the poorer states. In additon, a federal welfare minimum would mean that those getting relief could move into those poorer states and live on a higher scale than many of the people in those states who are employed and pay ing taxes. Thus the court's ruling will be an incentive to many per sons to give up working and to get on welfare. The drones In American society believe they have a vest ed right to a comfortable living at the expense of working citi zens. And the Supreme Court’s latest ruling in effect is a judi cial mandate for this philosophy of compulsory handouts. In the long run, the United States may not be able to survive such an assault on productive citizens by organized, non-productive ele ments.