University of South Carolina Libraries
...and let us M Thantugiwng Day let us remember, as did our £;>flgrini fathers before us, to gioe thanks for the prosperity H : : ioe enjoyed in the past year. We who share in the St in ' Nestings of a good life should lift our ookes 3 ^prayerful thanks for the abundance of our festive 'aboard, spiritual freedom and boundless opportunities. st We hove watched with pride as our friends and family * blossomed ...our community prospered in this land s can proudly call our own. Now, when we pause to stock of our joys... let us not forget ours is a hard heritage, one we have worked for. fought for. Let us pledge to reaffirm our faith in this heritage and determine to preserve and cherish it... THE HAYNSWORTH TRAGEDY £ When Judge Clement Haynsworth i: was first nominated for the U.S. Su- ■; pretne court we said editorially that i: he would be the target of prejudice— i anti - South prejudice. However, we ^didn’t foresee that it would be so strong i as to bring about the defeat of his nomination. Clement Haynsworth is a man of high integrity and honesty. It pains us to consider that such a man has been subjected to a long, drawn-out public roasting by union and civil rights pressure groups whose mission was to conjure up a demonic image for an outstanding man. In being nominated for such a high office, Judge Haynsworth could —and should—expect to be the object of intense scrutiny and investigation. But it's quite another thing to be sub jected to a public character demolition by men of preconceived notions who i used half-truths and innuendoes to ac- i complish their purposes. Of course, we can understand the ; concern of the unions and civil rights • organizations. Their man—Abe For- ! tas—occupied that seat on the Su- f, preme Court. They don’t want to : : give it up to someone who is not an j : all-out liberal. Just being fair-mind- :• ed and qualified isn’t enough. They ; suspected that Judge Haynsworth :■ might not subscribe to their entire : philosophy and that was enough for them. •: Also, they had to get revenge for the embarrassment they suffered in ? the scandal which led to Fortas’ res- £ ignation. Judge Haynsworth was a I natural target for their vengeance. 6 c The men who brought al»ut Hayns- : worth/'s defeat can shoot up all the flak they want about Haynsworth’s '♦“conflicts of interest” but that was i just a lot of hypocritical hot air, cov- >ering their concerns about philosophy, j: If they are so interested in “con flicts of interests" why aren’t they screaming f o r the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas? About the time of the For tas affair, Douglas quickly dumped his interest in a foundation which had Las Vegas gambling connections. Isn’t even the hint of a Mafia connection on the Supreme Court worth investi gating? “Conflicts of interests" charges against Judge Haynsworth were un proven, although it certainly wasn’t because his opponents didn’t try. Judge Haynsworth simply lives on the wrong side of the tracks nationally. It is inconceivable to those who oppos ed him that a fair-minded, qualified man can reside in the South. We cannot la as kind as Judge Haynsworth who, upon the defeat of his nomination, called upon his friends v l and supporters to "recognize that the greatness of the Senate as an institu tion is not diminished by individual disagreement with it." We feel that the Senate cheaj>ened itself by knuck ling under to union and civil rights pressure groups and by acting with prejudice toward the South. We also do not think the Nixon ad ministration is without fault in this affair. The administration badly bungled t h e nomination. They put Judge Haynsworth out on a limb and let him dangle there for weeks and weeks—until it was too late. The af fair was so |KM»rly handled that it makes one wonder—was Haynsworth intended to l»o a sacrificial lamb from the start ? Was the initial move made simply to serve the two-fold purpose of making political bay in the South and at the same time paving the way for some other nominee? We will watch the next nomination with great interest—it may provide us with answers to some of our sus picions aroused in this tragic affair. Ocean Of Storms mm oe*. S'S**** /A/^A-^oW ^ *5* ^ J 2-B—THE CHRONICLE, Clinton, S. C., Nov. 26, 1969 Fuel For Future House Divided l . BY BABSON’S REPORTS, INC. Wellesley Hills, Mass. While World War n caused great disruption throughout the world, it did accelerate advances in weapons and technology. An obvious example was the deve lopment of the atomic bomb, which hastened the end of the war with Japan. At that time there was great promise for the peace ful use of atomic energy, prima rily as a new source of electric power. However, In the years since 1945, relatively little pro gress has been made in this field as compared with the pace of developments in the 25-year spans following the discovery of oil and of electricity. With nu clear generating stations abound, their power production ranks small as a percentage of total output. THE ATOMIC AGE Nevertheless, there is no doubt that we are now in an age that will see growing demand for elec tric power and the proliferation of nuclear reactors to supply this demand. It has been ertimated that by the end of the century much of the electric power pro duced in the United States will derive from the atom. But before then this infant industry must undergo a certain amount of re vamping. Currently some elec tric utilities are bypassing nu clear reactors in favor of the easier-to-build coal - or oil- fired plants rather than nuclear plants with long construction lead times and escalating costs. These are serious roadblocks to their widespread use as sources of electric energy. A NEW UNION another industry is coming into the picture as a builder of nuclear reactors, however. The chemical industry uses large volumes of steam in some chemical pro cesses and nuclear power is ideal for this purpose, sometimes with electric power a secondary product. Other applications of the atom are exciting, ranging from desalination of water to direct extraction of minerals and chemical elements. URANIUM AND NUCLEAR FUELS If we believe in bright pros pects for nuclear energy, it is obvious^MmT'Cbmevihere- u> the AitfrefefMjyW fccrjfc*** mand for fuel to feed the reac tors. By 1980 domestic demand for uranium oxide !b expected of exceed 30,000 tons annually. World-Wide requirements added to this indicate a large market for the scarce "yellow cake.” Further evidence of Rite in mi- clear energy Is given by the at traction that nuclear engineering has for the oil companies. Already, petroleum concerns have become renewed geologists and have accumulated a wealth of data in the course of oil drilling. Most major oil compa nies have positions in oil, coal, and i&tural gas; so uranium and nuclear research round out their total energy posture. EXPLORATION Uranium seekers concentrate largely in the American South west and the Canadian pro vinces of Ontario and Saskatche wan. These regions are known to petroleum operators and possess proven uranium deposits. Pros pecting for uranium should con tinue for many years, even after the next generation of “Breeder” reactors are built. These produce more fuel than they consume, hence providing the real cost breakthrough. WHO'S WHO Following are examples of the types of nuclear activity in which oil companies are involved. Many are not yet in commercial pro duction in these fields, but in time nuclear revenues could be important. Standard Oil of N.J. — Ex ploration in the far West plus proven uranium reserves in Texas estimated at 5 million pounds. Babson’s Reports currently favors purchase of Jer sey. Continental Oil — Nuclear fuels for the utility industry; participation in mining and oil field stimulation via nuclear ex plosives. Buy. Gulf Oii -- Reactor develop ment, nuclear fuel assemblies, and uranium exploration. Subsi diary a leader in reactor cons truction. Kerr-M:Gee -- Exploration, mining, and processing of ura nium. Substantial backlog of com mercial orders for nuclear goods and services. Atlantic Richfield -- Repro cesses spent nuclear fuels. De veloper of plutonium-run cardiac pacemaker for human heart sti mulation. SENATOR STROM THURMOND REPORTS TO THE PEOPLE OUR CHROME SUPPLY Four vears ago this month, Rhodesia declared its independ ence from Great Britain. The United States, in a strange at titude of subservience towards the British, undertook a policy of hostility towards the Rho desian government. By an ex ecutive order in 1967, Ameri cans were forbidden to import certain items from Rhodesia, an order intended to cripple Rhode sia’s economy. The result has been that Rhodesia has flour ished, while the United States has dealt itself a serious blow to its own national security. In recent weeks, Congress has heard testimony from the Execu tive Branch and from private citizen# concerning the effect of the sanctions on our chrome supply. The chief chrome mines in Rhodesia are owned by U.S. firms which formerly used the ore to operate their plants in the United States. THREAT TO U.S. Despite the threat to Ameri can jobs and industry, the rep resentative from the U.S. State Department boasted that “the U.S. is second to none in its conscientious observance of the sanctions restrictions." Fortu nately, other testimony from the Executive Branch shows a grow ing awareness that this boasted “conscientious observance” will make us dependent upon the So on for heavy dependency upon the So- ry Ur viet Union strategic war ma< or the supply of this terial. Hie predictions which I more than two years ago have been falfllled. The UJS. national stockpile of usable chrome ore has been depleted. We are now drawing from the stockpile at twice the rate as before we em bargoed Rhodesian ore. We have than a year’s supply left Without chrome ore, oar prodne- tkm of stainleaa steel sad rare alloys weald grind to a viet Union. If the USSR were to decide to discontinue sales of chromium ore to the United States for one year, we would use up the entire uncommitted stockpile excess in that year . . . There is no way to see the chro mium ore needs of the United States being met without chro mium ore from Rhodesia.” OTHER PROBLEMS Moreover, the Soviets a»e tak ing advantage of their near monopoly. Since the Rhodesian embargo, the Soviets have raised prices $30 per ton, from $26 to $56. In addition, the Soviet Un ion makes American purchasers buy a ton of low-grade ore along with every ton of usable ore. These uneconomic burdens have raised the price of refined chrome 16.3 percent. Moreover, the threat to our chrome supply is not the only hardship resalting from the sanctions. Rhodesia is also the sole source of petalite, a rare lithium ore used in the manu facture of high-temperature glass and ceramics. In the past 15 years, a whole new industry hss developed from these mate rials, first used in aerospace ap plications, but now popular for cooking utensils and other do mestic uses. Tbere is no practical substitute for Rhodesian petal ite, and present stockpiles are practically exkausted. Represent atives of tke Corning Glass Com- i thst they will have the are testified pany i to MV off 4,900 workers if sanctions against not lifted. The sanctions were imposed by President Johnson in January, 1907, through an executive order baaed upon a previous resolution which tlie U.S. supported in the United Nations Security Coun cil. This UN resolution iteelf it phisticated deft to say aetkiag of The fallacy of the State De* I of dubious locality, since the question of Rhodesian indeptad- ence Is clearly g domestic mat ter. Tbs UN Charter forbids in tervention In domestic matters. The present Administration should rostudy the action of its ■^■^^■and the legality of Supreme Court Rulings Have No Permanency ■9\1 ; * v "V'.-ys..-. ' '• BY THURMAN SENSING Executive Vice President Southern States Industrial Council Refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to grant the Nixon admin istration’s request for reason able delay in implementing full integration in 30 Mississippi school districts raises grave questions for people in all parts of the country. First of all, the decision by the Supreme Court poses the question of what is constitutional. The Su preme Court’s rulings have no permanency. For 14 years, the court held that it was constitu tional for school districts to pro ceed with integration with “all deliberate speed." In other words, gradualism was deemed constitutional. All of a sudden, gradualism is out. The Supreme Court says that integration must be accomplished “at once." This raises the question: If gradua lism was constitutional last year or last month, why isn’t it con stitutional this month or in the future? The court’s latest ruling con firms the suspicion of many citi zens that it doesn’t really have a constitutional standard, but sim ply adopts this or that sociologi cal standard, depending on the whim of the justices and the temp er of the times. Moreover, even the limits of this sociological standard are un clear. Does the latest Supreme Court ruling apply only to the 30 Mississippi districts? To all the Southern states that formerly had legally segregated school sys tems? Or does it also apply to Northern school districts where de facto segregation prevails? If past experience is any in dicator, the court will zero in on the Southern states, treating them as targets for a judicial crack down. The other states, which maintain de facto segregated school systems, may escape cen sure and regulation. Understandably, Southerners are very sensitive in this mat ter. They teel, with justice, that tbere are two classes of law in the United States — one tor the Southern states and one for states outside the South. They can point to the unequal application of the law insofar as voter rights leg islation is concerned. The voter rights law was framed to apply to the South ami the South only. The law is unconcerned with vio lation of voter rights else where. It is intolerable and out rageous, of course, to have a double standard of law in a fed eral republic. Then there Is the practi cal question of how Mississippi and other similar situation states and fotowi districts will adjust to tha "at onoe” requirement of the Supreme Court. No natter what tha high court rates, there art limits on what 10C&I SCuOOl OXUClaUo CnUu QO vO may simply result in the end of public schooling. Parents with sufficient means will send their children to private schools. Those without means may decide to relocate, to move elsewhere. No court can abolish a parent’s concern for his children and his determination to give them good schooling and a decent educa tional environment. If the schools in a community are virtually shattered by arbitrary court act ion, parents will withdraw their children from the schools and look for other communities in which to earn their living and continue their careers. It is too the-ApjerJcaq pqople yaitf,today, much to expect responsible par ents'to accept the notion that their children must be guinea pigs in a sociological experi ment — and experiment, more over, that is not desired by the majority of either racial group. One way or another, responsi ble parents will get acceptable schooling for their children, even if they have to “bootleg* it In the Northern states, the flight to the suburbs is an attempt to do just that. The courts have lost sight of the fact that education is an La- timate matter, touching on family values. In the past, the courts honored and respected these dif ferences, and saw in them the source of a vital differentiating liberty in the United States. Now, unfortunately, activist judges and liberal politicians de mand a totalitarian uniformity — a rigid democracy that isn’t at all what the Founding Fathers intended or that the majority of In other weirds, the courts are n rultoff^tfl&WH tatiifc de-* 1 sires and best interests of the A- merlcan people. They are ruling against the spirit of the U. S. Constitution. It is time that the federal judiciary reappriase its thinking about public education in the United States. If a sound and thoughtful reappraisal is made, there won’t be any more “at once* declarations by the Su preme Court. FREEDOM TO CHOOSE! The freedom of opportunity for every American to work at an available job for which he is qualified is an objective of our way of life. Employment and assignment to jobs should be determined solely by matching an individuaPs skills and qualifications with the requirements of an available position. The proposed Employment Opportunities En forcement Act—designed to eliminate unlawful hir ing practices—would give the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission almost unlimited power, including ccasc-and-desist orders patterned after those of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). It would necessitate the addition of substantial numbers of lawyers and hearing examiners, together with a large supportive staff, at a time when the Administration is making sincere efforts to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy. Also, the act would combine within one agency the power to en force the purposes and policies of the Act, and, at the same time, serve as a decisional agency on ques tions of fact and law. Experience has proved that it is impossible for a single agency to serve both as an advocate and an impartial judge. Broader enforcement authority will not prove an effective remedy. Op|M>§ition to the proposed legislation in no way indicates that we are opposed to equal employment opportunities for everyone. We strongly support efforts to assure this objective, but we believe that those who create and susUin jobs should not be subjected to unnecessary harassment. We feel that the courts should review in full any alleged viola tion so as to protect the rights of all parties. tad still scnooiing fiurrsuiffB moots HR Tfrtil to officteitf. a GREETINGS-- PllfifflS y^oftdaij Season Zip cod e ALL ADDRESSES Cuouridoft immeaiaie xorcoQ oftfiiso of ooRooltas meois a-CCODi&Dio to ooto ■rl* :