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.

♦ / PREJUDICE OF ANOTHER SORT V When word leaked out last week that President Nixon might appoint South Carolinian Clement Haynsworth, 4r., to the U.S. Supreme Court, there totoa an immediate howl of protest from many political liberals. They might not know too much about his judicial record but he was a Southerner and that was enough for them. Automatically they put a racist label on him. If he’s from the South, h? must be a segregationist, they rea soned. Haynsworth became a target if prejudice against Southerners. Race and religion don’t have a monopoly on prejudice. Webster explains the word prejudice this way: 1. Injury due to some judg ment or action of another, as in disre gard of a person’s right ... 2. Precon ceived judgment or opinion; unreason able predilection or objection; esp., an opinion or leaning adverse to anything without just grounds or before suf ficient knowledge . . .” A qualified Southerner has just as much right to a seat on the Supreme Court as does a man trom any other part of the nation. Some of those who fight hardest against racial prejudice are themselves guilty of another sort of prejudice but protesting prejudice against Southern ers is not the “in” thing to do these days. YOUR PUBLIC RELATIONS Public relations is usually asso- ijAted with large corporations which 5d'i* e concerned about their public “image.” But public relations also should be an individual, day-to-day concern, says an expert in the field. Charles Sanders, public relations director for Greenwood Mills, told the Clinton Rotary Club last week: M ft ' r • “Public relations is the sum to tal of your contact with and con cern for other people. Industry is concerned about what its employees and people of the community think of their corporation. But public re lations should also be your concern, as an individual. “Consideration, courtesy and com- : passion form the basis for good public relations for everyone. Be truly interested in the people around you. Be a good listener. Even if you don’t learn anything, the speaker will appre ciate the opportunity to be heard out. “Do your part for your community and do it with enthusiasm. If you can’t bring enthusiasm to a commun ity project, it’ll probably be better off without your services. “And let the next generation know you are interested in them. A recent study shows that the average busi nessman spends only about 7V2 min utes per day with his son. How can we expect to pass on the lessons of our experience in such a brief span 9 And set an example worthy of youth ful respect. “Let your wife know you love and appreciate her. Public relations be gins at home with those who are clos est to you and should move outward into your everyday contacts. “No one can afford to be without good public relations. How’s yours?" MEMORIALS TO SENATORS The recent tragic death of a young .•woman in the automobile accident in volving Senator Edward Kennedy is just one more development in the rap- : id decline in the prestige of the Ken nedy name and image. It was just seven years ago that President John F. Kennedy was in the White House; Robert was in firm control at the Jus tice Department as Attorney General; and young Ted was the junior senator from Mas^LQl^iaetts. In those^peven years, two of the brothers have been assassinated by de ranged leftists, the president’s widow has made an unpopular second mar riage and books continue to appear that cut away at the image so carefully built over the years. The latest Kennedy incident will not be easy to forget. Too many important questions remain unanswered and the Massachusetts senator has stated flat ly that he will allow them to remain so. This attitude has simplilied congres sional opposition to attempts in the Capitol to subsidize a memorial to the late Senator Robert Kennedy. Plans call for an impressive granite wall and reflecting pool in Arlington Cemetery, costing over $600,000. The Kennedy family will contribute $4:20,- 000 and the taxpayers would supply the balance of about $258,000. Presi dent Johnson attempted to finance a larger share of the cost ($431,000) by including the figure in his budget re quest as an unspecified contingency, but the Nixon economists ferreted out the expense and removed it in an econo my move. The memorial to the late Robert Taft, which is located near the U.S. Capitol building, cost a million dollars, but not a penny of this was govern- mnt subsidized. The structure was paid for with voluntary contributions by people who admired the senator. Opponents of the Kennedy memo rial have grounds other than fiscal for their opposition to the memorial. Ar lington cemetery, with its rows of sim ple while headstones, is in danger of being filled. Even now there are re strictions as to who may be interred on its slopes. One wonders why so many acres should be dedicated to one man at the expense of others. Are men who gave equal devotion to the cause of freedom to be turned away from Arlington? Why not a privately fi nanced memorial to Sen. Kennedy elsewhere? She's Gone About As Far As She Can Go... Chitty Chitty Bang Bang 2-B—THE CHRONICLE, Clinton, S. C., August 21, 1969 UNITED STATES SENATOR King Feature* Syndicate '"Zscmesme— Steel Industry Performs Better Than Expected BY BABSON’S REPORTS, INC. WELLESLEY HILLS, MASS.- Although most steel companies have reported both lower sales and earnings for the first half of this year, compared with the Initial six months of 1968 (the year-ago period was Inflated by buying in anticipation of a pos sibly industry-wide strike), the industry still has performed somewhat better than originally expected. The high level of In dustrial activity so far this year has buoyed steel demand, es pecially in such important areas as automobile production, con struction, and the capital goods field. At the same time steel imports, reflecting the U.S. dock strike earlier this year and ex ceptionally strong demand in Europe and Japan, are well under the 1968 rate. With steel demand continuing strong during the third quarter, SENATOR STROM i THURMOND REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE A MOMENTOUS DECISION Last week, the Senate ap proved the momentous decision to begin deployment of the Safe guard Anti-Ballistic Missile de fense system. Although the vic tory was a tribute to the Nixon Administration’s commitment to peace, in a larger sense, it was a triumph for all Americans. The ABM is a key element of our national security, and will contribute to the safety and well being of every citizen. For some reason, opponents of the ABM system attempted to transform the issue into one of militarism versus domestic spending. They wanted to make the Safeguard deployment a symbol of unnecessary spending for military purposes. They said that the ABM would cost too much, and that it wouldn’t work. They said it would escalate the arms race, and force the Soviet Union to adopt a more militant posture. SOVIET POSTURE One by one these arguments were ably refuted. The deploy ment of a United States ABM has been urged in the Senate since 1967. The Soviets began deployment of their own ABM in 1962, and have gone through two generations of improvements since then. They are convinced that their system will work, and they have gone ahead to strengthen both their ABM de fense systems and their offensive missile capabilities. Today, the Soviets have 1,200 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s), while the United States has 1,056. At the present rate of construction, the Soviets can have 2J100 ICBM’s within ive years, while the U.S. is not planning to increase the present number. Even more significant is the Soviet construction of the gigantic SS-9 missiles, capable of knocking oot United States ICBM’a in their hardened con crete silos. The United States has built no missiles in this super-size category. The SS-9 gives the Soviets a so-called “first-strike capability," that is, they have the power to attempt to destroy our strategic missile system. Although Ameri can opponents of the ABM have claimed that the Soviets would never attempt a surprise attack, it is noteworthy that official Soviet literature on military strategy clearly describes the Soviet intention to destroy our ICBM’s on the launching pads. FIRST STRIKE The Soviet strategists claim that they have the ability to de tect the enemy’s preparations for an ICBM launching in the early stages. Under this pretext, the Soviet strategists would launch what they call “a retaliatory first strike’’—that is, it would retali ate against the enemy’s prepara tions, but it would be a first strike in the sense that it would be launched first. Whatever the Soviet claims of “retaliation,” it is obvious that the capability required for a surprise attack and the so-called retaliatory first strike are identical. Moreover, the Soviets have already adopted a militant pos ture in all categories of arms. In total megatonnage, the Soviets achieved parity with the U.S. in 1968; they will have a 2-1 ad vantage by 1971. The Soviets have 900 bombers; we have 549. The Soviets have 700 interme diate-range missiles; we have none. The Soviets have the capa bility to exceed us in submarine- launched missiles by FY 1971. The Soviets have 375 subma rines; we have 142, mostly of a much older vintage. The Soviets are testing space weapons and space defenses; we have none. For these reasons, if we are to keep the peace and to protect our freedom, the Safeguard is absolutely essential as a begin ning. DEFENSIVE WEAPON The ABM is a purely defen sive weapon. The Soviets under stand it as such, and will not be misled as to our intentions. They will know that we are simply trying to provide our Nation with the same protection that the Soviets have installed on the territory which they hold. In rejecting curtailment of the Safeguard ABM, the Senate has reaffirmed the traditional policy of maintaining a poaition of strength. This policy has served the world well for 25 years in avoiding a war between the super powers. The Senate’s decision is the first round in the continuing battle to assure Americana the protection they need. Here We Go Again (not propond or primtod ot gorrrnmrnt second-half results, for most companies, should compare fav orably with the depressed showing in the latter half of 1968 (when swollen inventories were being worked off). Consequently, full-year results for 1969 could approximate last year’s level. CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING AIDED 1968 RESULTS On the surface, the combined figures of most of the steel companies for 1968 gave the im pression that the industry had performed exceptionally well. On a 10.4% gain in net sales and revenues (as compared to 1967) the industi-y posted a 12.3% gain in net income. A closer look at the latter figure, however, reveals that much of the increase came as a result of a change in accounting methods as most companies switched from the ac celerated to the straight line me thod of computing depreciation. Consequently, depreciation, de pletion and amortization charges declined 19.7% from the year- earlier figure. Thus the gain in per share results, reported by many companies, was at least partially due to the new book keeping. RENEWED OPTIMISM Despite the frustrations of the past, there is a growing sense of optimism about the future of many steel companies. Toagreal extent, this is based on the in dustry’s willingness to look at other areas which could provide greater growth. Diversification seems the most promising method by which steel companies can move out of the doldrums, improving both their financial re sults and their Wall Street image. Looking at the steel business itself, there is also room for op timism. As mentioned earlier, foreign imports of steel are under last year’s rate. Imports have been one of the greatest problems facing the steel Industry In re cent years, and any relief in this area could prove significantly be neficial to domestic companies. Also, the massive outlays on new plant and equipment should re sult in increased efficiencies in the future. A CHANGE IN DIRECTION Despite the massive capital outlays of recent years, the steel industry has not improved its return on investment to any sig nificant degree. This has been a chronic problem for the indus try. Recently, improvement in this area has become the prime objective of management in steel companies. More significantly, there is now a discernible trend toward diversification through product development, acquisi tion, or merger. In time, we feel that many steel companies will be importantly involved in other areas besides steel — areas which offer greater growth op portunities. At the present time, the Re search Department of Babeon’s Reports recommends that new purchases of steel equities be de ferred, pending a more stable market atmosphere, or further price weakness. In the ten year period 1950- 1960, the United States lost 400,000 textile jobs. In the campaign in 1960, Kennedy blamed the Eisenhower-Nixon administration and later insti tuted his 7-point program in May 1961. In the 1964 cam paign, Johnson alluded to the failure of the Kennedy admin istration to carry out the Ken nedy program. Later, in 1968, Nixon blamed the “Johnson- Humphrey team” for the loss of textile jobs. It’s gone the full circle in four administra tions. Each has blamed its predecessor, and now Nixon has the problem all over again. During these four adminis trations, there has been one enemy—the State Depart ment. In this Department they have a Russian desk, a French desk, a Chinese desk—but ap parently no American desk. When it comes to Japan, our own State Department could not represent the Japanese government better. They do it through the office of Special Trade Negotiator. Last year, when the Senate had approved my textile bill and I appeared before the Conference Com mittee with the House, who was in the room opposing tex tiles? Ambassador William Roth. Obviously I have been watching closely the appoint ment of his successor by Pres ident Nixon. When he an nounced Carl D. Gilbert, I was alarmed. This fellow was the chairman of the Committee for a National Trade Policy, an import group which op posed us when we obtained the Kennedy program in 1961. In fact, according to Gilbert’s own testimony, he has been opposing us for 19 years. Last year when he testified on the House side, he said he was opposed to quotas of all kinds. He characterized the textile industry as "non-competitive," “broken down,” a baby wean ing on mother Federal Gov ernment. Disregarding the quota agreement on cottons, which 34 nations have agreed to, he said quotas would pro mote corruption. When Con gressman Phil Landrum asked him about losing 1,000 jobs in a textile shirt plant in Geor gia, he admonished Landrum that the shirt plant ought to go into another business. Fi nally, he said that the indus try could live on the dole; that is, if it were important to the national security, then the government ought to put the money in a defense ap propriation and let the Pen tagon distribute it to the in dustry. On our birthday trip to see Governor Byrnes, I told Presi dent Nixon about my concern over the Gilbert appointment. The President said he would look into it, and I held up the appointment for three months. Finally, last week the Senate confirmed Gilbert by a vote of 61 to 30. Here we go again- the same old credibility gap. Each President promising— but the State Department blocking the way. Secretary of Commerce Stans, on the high road, will be making headlines, working to solve the textile problem; but, on the low road, Ambassador Gil bert will be doing as before, telling the Japanese: “Don’t worry, America is an open market.” Is there any wonder the Japanese have refused to negotiate? The high standards for United States industry of health, safety, minimum wage, social security, unemployment compensation and antitrust provisions are not required in Japan—most Japanese goods are manufactured under con ditions that would be criminal in the United States. Add to this the low wage scale and the subsidization by Japan of its exports, and you’ve got the answer: (1) Japan ships into the United States $1.3 billion more in goods than Japan re ceives from the United Statez; (2) A special consultant’s re port indicates at the present rate a loss of 600,000 more textile jobs by 1975, or for South Carolina 48,000 Job*. Now when Ambassador Gil bert tries to negotiate, the Japanese remind him that for 19 years he charged that the American textile industry was “non-competitive” and ought “to discipline itself." To nego tiate the sale of your horse, you don’t select a man who has called it a broken down nag. President Nixon has been giving attention to textiles. He committed in the cam paign, followed through with talks in his visit to the Euro pean capitals, and he was making attempts at negotia tions. But, like Bossy the cow that had given a full pail, he promptly kicked it over with the Gilbert appointment. Sensing Opposes Nixon's Family Security' Plan BY THURMAN SENSING Executive Vice President Southern States Industrial Council President Richard Nixon has done a lot to clean up the mess in Washington since taking office last January, but he apparently listened to the wrong advisers when he gave his approval to the so-called “family security’plan. The plan, as announced by Mr. Nixon, would vastly enlarge the dependent population in the United States and would gravely under mine the principle of self-reli ance on which this country was built. The Nixon administration is correct in thinking that the ex isting welfare system is hurt ful. But the remedy consists in revising or abolishing the old plan, not in creating a huge new subsidy system. As outlined by the administration, the plan would provide an income floor - -a sub sidy, that is -- for families be low a certain level. For the first time there would be a federal minimum floor for welfare recip ients -- $1,600 for a family of four. A pleasing feature of the Nixon administration’s proposal is that a recipient of a subsidy would have to take a Job when it is offered, if he were deemed qua lified. But initial announcement of the plan does not reveal whe ther the family aid would be au tomatically cut off If the aid re cipient did not accept the job. The subsidy plan is disturb ing from several angles. First of all, It would double the number of individuals receiving a federal handout The total would rise to more than 23 million Americans. It Is shocking to think that any one would propose that more than 10 per cent of the U. S. popu lation be subsidized by Uncle Sam. If these were dark, depres sion days such a burden might be understandable. But these are times of general prosperity and une<pialed opportunity for gainful employment No reason exists why 10 per cent of the coun try's population should be sup ported by the taxpayers. Furthermore, as outlined by the administration, the “family security* plan would virtually double the cost of existing wel fare programs. "Certainly computers will speed up our economy, helping to turn out more goods at better prices than ever be fore; helping us to raise our standard of living; even help ing us to improve the ghetto problems — poverty and un equal economic opportunity... “Keeping the role of the computer in its proper perspec tive as a tool of mankind, human beings—past, present, and future—must always point the way and lead and inspire and achieve the goals.” —Thomas J. Watson, Jr. Chairman, IBM Wish I’d Said That Adult education is what goes on in a household con taining teenage children. — Joe Harrison, The Spur, Dickens County, Texas. Why spend time looking for four-leaf clovers... when there are weeds growing in your garden?—Jim and Barb Gardner The Fowler (Kans.) News. Department of Labor forecasts indicate that by 1975 there win be 11.5 million openings for Jour neymen in the skilled trades be cause of national growth, normal attrition and replacement of craftsmen who die or retire.