University of South Carolina Libraries
PAGE TWO THE NEWBERRY SUN THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1956 1218 Colie re Street NEWBERRY. S. C. PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY O. F. Armfield, Jr., Owner Entered as second-class matter December 6, 1937 at the Postoffice at Newberry, South Carolina, under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1879. SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $2.00 per year in ad vance; six months, $1.25. COMMENTS ON MEN AND THINGS By SPECTATOR Thus, at a time when the school segregation problem should have the Board’s attention, the agency has been tack ling non-educational projects which other groups are will ing to handle. Some SREB people have been playing poli tics while turning their backs on urgent education matters. For political reasons, the SREB seems to want to expand into the field of industrial development. This is a popular topic today as evidenced by the fact that there are more than 500 Southern organizations active in the field. But the South is doing extremely well in industrial de velopment. Our various local, state, and regional organiza tions have proven themselves to be highly effective. It is obvious to us that SREB would serve the South bet ter by leaving industrial development to the well-estab lished, experienced agencies already active in the field, and by concentrating its efforts on the major educational problems. At some future date when or if the SREB succeeds in solving all of the South’s educational problems, then and only then, should consideration be given to expanding the scope of SREB’s activities to include non-educational af fairs. Meanwhle, we ask that the SREB put the school segrega tion problem at the top of its list of research projects. We ask that all available funds and staff workers be assigned to this study. Finally, we ask that SREB face the issue squarely and make a straightforward statement of its posi tion. The taxpayers of the South deserve no less.” This ^was called to my attention by my distinguished friend, Mr. B. M. Edwards. 'HEY, MISTER' stir yourself / ^ Ui IMPofCTAKT ELfiCTUWV UP // "DUCK A UTTLft TIME OFP FROM YoUR SbMMIA *R*OLCDe$ % Aft/D 6cr*0R6 •rtPOft»MT)Ort A8ot/7 Yfetm. LOCAL politics — amo National problems amp 0 World sou/mo* / Tins «9 a Dmocracv amp YbuR VOTE means that YOU beusvc im nr/ ^|%/alYTr Your PEosPscTrvt oinpipatbsaio MMtf SURt. ■ftlAT TUR 9*9r m*— AMO ~ft/* BR*T IPSAS — WO//* \ ivt-jw Old Karl Marx, Patron Saint or Imp of Socialism advo cated: X. All estates should be confiscated through a 100 per cent inheritance tax, so that the state would eventually be come sole owner of land, buildings, factories and business enterprises. 2. A graduated income tax should be levied, which should increase progressively to the point of confiscation, whereupon all private initiative, private capital and private property would cease to exist. In the past 40 years we have traveled a long way on the road that Karl Marx laid out. The soaring cost of government—Federal, state and lo cal—for the calendar year 1955 aggregated more than $97 billon. This amount is $50 billion more than it was in 1946, a gain of 100 per cent. Furthermore, the debt of state and local government since 1946, has nearly trebled to over $38 billion, and it is still headed sharply upwards. Senator Wofford thinks Governor George Bell Timmer man should be proclaimed South Carolina’s favorite son. The Governor has been speaking out “in meeting” and on the outside, too. Certainly the South needs a spokesman. Senator George is disqualified because he has recently been offered a posi tion by President Eisenhower. Inevitably that softens his approach to anything savoring of opposition to the Presi dent or his program. Why should not South Carolina have a man of leadership ? The suggestion of Senator Wofford has merit; we should take a stand and our leaders should faithfully represent that stand. It is not of supreme importance to us that either Party should be victorious since neither Party speaks our lan guage or seriously considers our attitude or our wishes. Since we have nothing to lose and small chance to gain any thing from either Party, why do we not adopt any meas ure, whatever expedient, may develop bargaining power. We are not playing politics; we are seriously advocating a way of life that should be steadfastly adhered to by all, fighting with every resource to the last ditch and then across the ditch. The Springfield Republican publishes a fine statement regarding the Federal Supreme Court. I quote it, at least in part: ‘Two decades ago the U. S. Supreme Court was caught in a political controversy. On that occasion it was Congress, still controlled by its more conservative members, which frustrated President Roosevelt’s attempt to mold the Court into the image of the New Deal. NoW once again the Supreme Court finds itself buffeted In the winds of political controversy. This time it is pri marily the conservative members of Congress, with support from like-minded state and other political .leaders who Would like to see the Court remolded, or at least curbed in its apparent power of the Federal Government. Why this turn-about in twenty years? And how are the battle lines forming? Part of the answer to the first question goes back to that earlier battle. Although President Roosevelt was balked in his attempt to pack the court with judges subservient to the New Deal philosophy, nevertheless time, death and cir cumstances slowly altered the Court’s ideological complex- m ion. All but two of the present justices—Chief Justice War ren and Justice Harlan—are appointees of either Presidents Roosevelt or Truman. Meanwhile, the power of the Federal Government has grown, and with it there has come an alt ered attitude of the judges toward Federal power.- The immediate source of the present controversy, how ever, is something more recent. In a series of decisions, the Supreme Court has expanded the power of the Federal Government, while shrinking the power of state and local governments. To conservatives in and out of Congress the Court has thus seemed to distort the intent of both Con gress and the Constitution. The result has been more than 70 bills proposed in the present Congress which would either reverse some previous decision of the Supreme Court or, one way or another, curb its jurisdiction and its power. The most important of the Court’s decisions touching off this counter-attack is, of course, its desegregation ruling. In the South this has led to the ‘interposition’ movement, a plan for the several state legislatures to adopt resolutions holding in effect that the Supreme Court decision was un constitutional and proposing that the segregation question be settled drectly by Constitutional amendment. Criticism of the segregation decision has not been'limited to the South. Many lawyers and political leaders elsewhere questioned it on purely legal grounds; they consider it an improper enchoachment not ony on ‘States’ Rights’ button the prerogatives of Congress. Congress had repeatedly re fused to legislate what the Supreme Court did by decrees. But this ruling is only a part of the conservatives’ com plaint. # / In the High Court’s last session alone, the conservatives were stirred by decisions that: Knocked out state sedi tion laws and held that Uncle Sam has exclusive power in this field. Voided a New York City law which made “taking the Fifth Amendment’ grounds of discharge of municipal employes. Ruled invalid state laws which ban the union shop for railroads and airlines. The total effect of these and like decisions over the past few years has been to harrow the field of local autonomy and broaden the power of the Federal Government to act as it will. Naturally there have been exceptions; the Court, f|r example, ruled against the Government in the du Pont anti-trust case. Further, the judges do'not agree with each other or—from one case to another—always with them selves. This leads to a second complaint, that the court today is mercurial and undependable. The alignment of the justices, indeed, is one of the in teresting aspects of this controversy. Justices Douglas and Black have long been confirmed ‘liberals’—in this instance meaning supporters of Federal authority—and they have been joined by Chief Justice Warren in enough decisions to suggest that the duet is becoming a trio. The conservative bent of Justices, Ree \ Burton and Minton has meantime be come more clear, particularly through their dissenting op inions. ‘ This has tended leave Justices Frankfurter, Clark and Harlan as the ‘floaters’, very often holding the balance of power. Lawyers find Frankfurter unpredictable, Clark rather easily swayed by the majority, and Harlan as let an unknown quantity—although the most experienced lawyer, he is the newest appointee. In many recent cases enough of these three have floated over to the ‘liberal’ side to affect the decision. Most of the 70-odd Congressional bills aimed at the Court are designed to overrule one or another of the Court’s decision. Congress has power to do this when the Court decides a case on its own interpretation of the ‘Con gressional intent’ in the law or where it finds that Congress has expressed no legislative intent. For example, the union shop cases were decided on the grounds that Congress specifically authorized this type of labor contract and did not authorize states to legislate dif ferently. Thus Congress could if it wished to, change this decision by changing the law. But some of these Supreme Court bills would go much further. Just a few days ago the Senate Judiciary Commit tee approved a proposal which would directly limit the High Court’s power to interpret laws passed by Congress. If passed, this law would attempt to take away from the Supreme Court the power to interpret Federal statues ov erriding state laws. This, should it come to pass, would be a great abridgment of the present powers. However, such a law would raise an interesting point. Actually there is no law that says the Supreme Court can declare a Congressional statute invalid; it is simply a power Prom the Granite State News, Wolfeboro, N. H.: Speaking of ju venile delinquency, which we were not, it often seems that parents are perhaps the greatest source of juvenile delinquency. A Father who runs his car for' fifteen days on ten-day plate# and boasts about it to his family; the parent who always has a mean word for every police officer. Trooper and Con servation Officer; the fattier who takes short trout or more fish than his legal limit; some gravel or loam or a Christmas tree or a few bean poles; the fattier or mother who drive home with a firm beer breath; the parents who stage solid family rows with loud language and four letter words ere setting their children up in the business of becoming The Fattier whe bee no time for his son and the mother who has no time for her daughter are setting them outo the road to de linquency. The Father who wanes into Traf fic Court with a eMp on his shoul der when his sen is picked up on a motor vehicle violation charge and proceeds to tell the Judge that every one ie out of stop except his Jimmy, is giving Jimmy the false impression that ha can always get away with violations. Whan and if Jimmy is pulled out of a wrecked car some night, cooling off fast and ready for the embalming table, it is the Fattier and not Jimmy who is basically to blame. The Mother who has a boy friend and who trains her daugh ters to help cover up for her, has no reason to be surprised when her daughters turn out to be bobby sox tramps, with fewer inhibitions than drunk Parisian ladies of pleas ure. Parents who have such unattrac tive homes that home is the last place that a boy or girl wants to go after echoed is over, are push ing the youngsters straight into trouble. Of eburse, there are exceptions, when youngsters from good homes, reared by conscientious parents, go bad. But these exceptions simply go to prove the rule. The longer we live, the more sympathy we have with boys and girts that ere In t less sympathy we have with the parents, ha the majority of it is the parent who should go to Reform flrHpHl and • • • ■ n g i o n Q—Can yen gtte me tttoT details of the New Highway BUT as finally A—-The bill calls for construction of 41,000 miles of interstate highways, over a period of IS year* at a total cost of $32.9 billions, $27.7 to be paid by the Federal government and $5.2 billions by the states. Fed 1 * oral funds for the first thfee years are to be allocated—two-thirds on a basis of thk states; one-sixth on urban road mileage, and one-etxth an rural road milettg*. After that time allocation wS be i nilelei ruined on a basis of needs. The tax portion calls for an additional $14$ Kiini«M on highway users between July L 1953. and July 1, 1912 to include: ooe-cent hike in federal gas tax. diesel fuel and other spsaial motor tarts; a boost of 3 cento a pound on tires, and a new tax of 2 osnts a pound on retread rubber; a two per cent rale* in the 8% manufacturers tax on trucks, buses, truck traitors, etc.; a tax of $L90 per 1.000 pounds on the entire weight of over 2$,000 pounds, and a door stoek tax 1 Powd«r«d •oapstoM 8 Antic 10 Outer garment 14 Lamb's pan name 18 Maks speech 15 KlUsr whala IT — Musiai IS Marly ercetu Indian tins to IS Noval by Zola SO Salactad S3 Head cold • (slang) St Musical composition SS To cut. after snick *7 Suitable SO Turkish weight 4var.) S3 Thrown Into crowning stone 37 Atmospheric disturbance 38 Spanish title M Cereal g <pi.) Pigpens name 46 One ralatad on the mother's side 47 A fray 40 Assist BO Certain colored DOWN 1 — of the D'Urber- vlUes S Singing voice S Prevari cator 4 Division of long poem 9 Manages 5 Form of '•to be” T Strokes 8 Sbort’jaeksts S To lament ^ 10 One taking part In a consultation 11 13 assumed by the Court in its early days and now hallowed by tradition. But under this tradition, could the Supreme Court rule invalid a Congressional statute aimed at reducing its own power? No one knows for sure; it would certainly stir up a furious storm. Actually, it is doubtful whether any of these 70-odd antj-Court measures will get anywhere in the remaining weeks of this Congressional session. And when the Su preme Court reconvenes this fall, it is possible that it will alter its own course. It has done so before—just twenty years ago, for one nstance—and as Mr. Dooley once re marked, it follow^ the election returns (and public senti ment) pretty closely. But be that is it may, the Supreme Court, which in theory -is supposed to be above politics, is once more the center of a major political controversy. Even if next year it adds no more fuel to the flames, the pot is already boil ing. “Engine Charley” as C. E. Wilson, Defense Secretary, used to be called, in the days when he was the great driv ing power of General Motors, Engine Charley spoke to The National Cotton Council about ten years ago. That was the only time I ever saw him. He was suave, genial, entertain ing and persuasive. I was very much attracted to him. Recently Mr. Wilson let off a little steam and spoke somewhat lightly of the attitude of Congress relative to an additional billion for aircraft. I don’t like to say this, but I really think the average Congressman knows very little about our military needs, but he must speak out on all popu lar matters—and on the side most likely to,permit high notes of patriotism. At the same time Mr. Wilson must try to treat the Congress with respect, regardless of his real feeling.^ x This on' That BEDLEG ACE is » reason for Ctwohmstrs high position in Nations! League nan* race. Be hit t Brooklyn game, and is Our people are waking up. The voters of Ogdensburg, N. Y., rejected proposals to buy power from N. Y. State Power Authority and will continue to be served by Niagara Mo* hawk Power Co., a private enterprise. This is the period of the Fourth of July. The Declaration of Independence was probably the greatest single battle-cry for freedom since the beginning of time.