The sun. [volume] (Newberry, S.C.) 1937-1972, July 19, 1956, Image 2
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.