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.

Page Two THE NEWBERRY SUN, NEWBERRY, SOUTH CAROLINA THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1963 1218 College Street, Newberry, S. C. PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY O. F. Armfield, Jr., Owner Second-Class Postage Paid at Newberry, South Carolina. SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $2.00 per year in ad vance :Six Months $1.25. THE “SPECTATOR’S” COLUMN In some respects, though few, this is a free country, more or less. No one compels me to have electricity; ice, gasoline, oil are plentiful and available: I ne d not use electricity unless I want elec tricity. Why use lectricity ? As condit ions are at the moment, we pre fer electric lights to oil lamps; electric refrigerators to ice boxes; electric power to gasoline or oil. Why ? For better service, for reasons of economy. Why the hos tility of the Coop leaders? Be cause they cannot compete with the tax-paying companies except when pampered and petted and subsidized by cheaper interest than the government pays for the money still lent to Coops (and they pay virtually nc taxes.) Two per cent charged Coops by the government, and the government actually pays 4 and 1-2 per cent for that same money. Democracy fails when thous ands are the petted darlings of a paternalistic government which disregards all right and equity in order to appease numbers of peo ple in a flagrant discrimination against their patriotic, self-reliant neighbors and fellow citizens. A high-minded and patriotic citizenry does not crave favors against their fellowmen. The Coops are not content with the special favors they enjoy: they want to destroy the com panies which pay taxes. In this they seem to be inspired and prompted by the government. Marvellous, eh? At bottom, the politicians throw right and justice to the winds and make a cold calculation that 40,- 000 favor-seekers, paying no taxes are more deserving than five- thousand who pay taxes which support all government, schools, and public order. It amazes me when I resolve this problem into simple terms: We must have taxes or shut down all government and public schools. Yet the political philosophy of the day is to penalize the taxpayers, while pampering competitive bus iness which pays virtually nothing. It doesn’t make sense, does it? But in this great day law, justice, equity and common horse sense are thrown out the winow. However, I am bound to admit that law-makers are aware of taxes because they increase the burden on those who pay while developing every subterfuge to exempt competitors who don’t pay. I admit that all the time I’ve spent studying Economics was time utterly wasted in view of the prevailing notions of public conduct. Years ago I knew a country merchant who bought cotton, al ways declaring that he lost money on every bale that he bought. A farmer asked him “Well, if you lose money on every bale, how do you explain your magnificent home, carriage and horses and your bank stock, if you lose on every bale?” “Why” said the merchant “I make money because I buy so many bales.” I used to laugh at that, but I was wrong: that man was a gen ius of the Roosevelt, Kennedy type, for our government today tries to borrow three hundred million dollars at 4 1-8 per cent in order to lend it to Coops at 2 per cent even exempting them from taxes. I’m bound to tai e off my hat to such phenomenal financing! My old friend of many years, Senator Edgar Brown, is well known as a State Senator, but he is also a farmer on a large scale and a banker, wise leader in a large and successful bank. What would he think of borrow ing money ffrom New York at 4 1-8 per cent and lending it at 2 per cent. Why my cherished friend, who manages the Senator’s bank would have a heart attack But thousands of public men support that policy. “The welfare state is the great fiction where everybody tries to live at theexpense of everybody else.” “The idea of government eco nomic planning appeals to many intellectuals and politicians today. What they forget is that each of us, in his private capacity, is con stantly planning ahead—regard ing his job, his business, his lei sure, his spending, his saving for a home or a car or the education of his children. These millions of individual plans are coordinated through the marvelous mechanism of competition and the free mar ket. The question then is never whether there should be planning or not, but who should plan for whom ? To put it another way, the question is whether each of us should be free to make his own plans, or whether all of us should be forced to work or consume ac cording to some Master Plan drawn up for us by some group of supermen. While most Plans being pro posed today are plans for acceler ating economic growth, there are also, under the influence of J. K. Galbraith, Plans to control our spending. According to the Gal braith thesis, most consumers do not know how to spend the in comes they have earned. They have atrocious taste, and they W'aste their money on trivialities and junk. SENATOR STRO HURMOND Reports PEOPLE Disarmament— Wishful Thinking THE COST OF LIBERTY is high, and there is no such thing as a deferred payment plan to “live free now and pay later.” When a challenge to freedom arises, there is a great tempta tion to look for an easy way out and to avoid facing up to the challenge and the hard, often risky decisions which an effec tive defense of liberty requires. THE FREE WORLD is now confronted with the most serious challenge to liberty in history, for the communists are relent lessly waging war against free dom. The defense of freedom falls primarily on the United States. The U.S., together with its al lies, has the strength to defeat the war against freedom, but we have failed so far, simply be cause we have sought an easy way out. Instead of resolving to win the war being waged against freedom, we have sought to “liquidate” it, or make it go away. MANY “EASY WAYS OUT,” separately and in combination, have been tried unsuccessfully —such as containment, foreign aid, cultural exchanges and “the spirit of Camp David,” to name a few. In the past few years, a new “easy way out” formula has been expensively prepared, enticingly packaged and boast- ingly advertised. Early delivery has been promised, so the time has arrived when Americans had better take a long hard look at the product—disarmament. DISARMAMENT is not a new product, but the latest mod el prepared by U.S. policymak ers has a new name and sever?! attachments. The new name is “arms control.” The principal new attachments arc- “mutual deterrence” and “test ban.” THE U.S. HAS proposed to the communists a treaty for “general and total disarma ment.” This proposal provides for creation by stages of an “international peace force” and the reduction and elimination of all national armaments except those necessary for maintaining internal order. Even the U.S. policymakers correctly recog nize, however, that the commu nists, with all their devious practices of cheating on agree ments, are not likely to agree to a stage reduction proposal while at the starting point the U.S. has a clearly evidenced su periority in nuclear weaponry. That is where the theory of “mutual deterrence” or “nuclear stalemate” comes in. “MUTUAL DETERRENCE” will come into being, according to “arms controllers,” when both sides develop a “creditable sec ond strike capability,” or in other words, have the ability to strike back effectively even after receiving the first blow. At this point, our policymakers reason, neither side will have to fear the other, and the reduction in arms by stages can then begin. There can be no “mutual deter rence” stability, however, as long as weapons development continues, for one side might possibly achieve a weapons breakthrough and upset the bal ance. The first step, our policy makers therefore say, must be a nuclear test ban so that new weapons cannot be developed. LIKE OTHER “easy ways out,” this attractive package will work only in an idealist’s mind—never in practice. Con sider a few of the defects: 1. The Soviets secretly pre pared for a nuclear test series while we refrained from testing during negotiations. Then they “surprised” us with a series of tests. They would have every thing to gain by another secret preparation under cover of a test ban and another “surprise” testing program. 2. The Soviets are not work ing toward “mutual deterrence,” or a parity with U.S. strike forces. They are straining every resource to obtain a break through in new weaponry that will give them nuclear superi ority. 3. The “disarmament” idea is based on the presumption that both sides want “peace,” as we understand the term. The com munists have repeatedly said— and proved—that their goal is world domination, not peace. 4. Armaments do not cause wars. It is the lust of men for power that causes wars; and military weakness, not strength, invites attack. 5. Disarmament proposals are directed at conventional and nu clear weapons. By far worse to contemplate than nuclear at tacks are the attacks which can be waged with chemical and bacteriological weapons—small - in size, easily concealed and de liverable to targets by human vehicles. What type of inspec tions will guarantee against use of CBR warfare? The only sure road to peace js superior military strength. The only hope for freedom lies in total victory over commu nism. There is no “easy way out.” Sincerely, The natural conclusion is that the consumers should be supplied not with what they themselves want, but with what government bureaucrats, full of wisdom, think is good for them. And the way to do this is to tax away from peo ple the income they have been earning over tliat required to meet their bare necessities, and turn it over to the bureaucrats to be spent in ways they think would really do people the most good. The goods and services for which people voluntarily spend their own money make up, in the Galbraith- ian vocabulary, the ‘private sec tor’ of the economy, while the goods and services supplied to them by the government, out of the income seized from them in taxes make up the ‘public sector’. This is a neat semantic triumph, for the word ‘private’ is meant to suggest the selfish and exclusive, while the word ‘public’ is meant to suggest the democratic, the shared, the public-spirited. Actually, what Galbraith calls the ‘private sector’ of the economy is in fact the voluntary sector; and what he calls ‘public sector’ is in fact the coercive sector. And as this sector grows at the expense of the voluntary sector, we come to the essence of the welfare state. In this state nobody pays for the education of his own children, but everybody pays for the educa tion of everybody else’s children. Nobody pays his own medical bills but everybody pays everybody else’s n.wiical bills. Nobody helps his own old parents, but every body helps everybody else’s old parents. Nobody provides for the contingency of his own unemploy ment, his own sickness, his own old age, but everybody provides for the contingency of the unem ployment, sickness or old age of everybody else. The welfare state, asthe French political economist Claude Frederic Bastiat put it with uncanny clairvoyance more than a century ago, is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of every body else. This is not only a fiction; it is bound to be a failure. This is sure to be the outcome whenever effort is separated from reward. When people who earn more than the average have the “sur plus” seized from them in taxes, and when people who earn less than the average have the defici ency turned over to them in hand outs, the production of everybody must decline; for the energetic and able lose their incentive to prod uce more than the average, and the slothful and unskilled lose their incentive to improve their condition.” I had along distance call recent ly. It was a voice from New Jer sey. As I’m a wee stockholder in Standard Oil, due to Brother Staf ford of Merrill Lynch. I thought it might be the president of the Standard Oil company. It was another big-shot—a magnet in clays, porcelains, etc, and an in law who is a Scot of the Scotch I and who will repent in sackcloth blorth and South vulnerable. East deals. NORTH ♦ AQJ V AJ962 4 A Q 10 3 *2 EAST 4 10 8 7 2 4 10 4 3 498 * Q 10 8 7 SOUTH 4 K643 4 K8 4KJ74 + AKJ The Bidding: East South West North pass 1 NT pass 3 4 pass 3 NT pass 44 pass 44 pass 54 pass S NT pass 7 NT pass pass pass Opening lead: Six of clubs. This hand had twelve sure tricks regardless of the lead. When West led a club and gave South a free finesse, school was out. With a spade or diamond lead, South would have had to finesse the club or the heart suit for the extra trick. South couldn’t miss on this one since either finesse would have worked. COMMENT: So many average players are afraid of a seven bid. The only thing to say about this hand is that it was nice to see the grand slam bid. BEST 4 9 5 4 Q 7 5 4 652 bio one vulnerable. North deals. NORTH 4 J 410 9 3 4 A 7 4 4 Q j 10 8 6 5 WEST EAST 4 Q 4 J 75 4 J 10 9 3 2 4 AK92 4K10 87532 44 4KQ86 43 SOUTH 4 A9 64 4 AKQ862 45 474 The Bidding: North East South West Pass 14 2 4 34 Double 34 44 Pass Pass Pass Opening lead: Queen of spades. South wins opening lead with ace in closed hand, returns small spade which West trumps with the jack while South sluffs a small diamond from the board. West leads ace and king of clubs, then small diamond which dummy wins with the ace. South leads two rounds of trumps ending in dum my with the ten; then sluffs the two spades on the queen and jack of clubs and lays down remaining hearts to make contract. COMMENT: I see no fault in the play of the hand, but disagree with East’s opening bid of one •pade. The hand was too weak. East should have opened with three spades. South would proba bly have bid four hearts and play would have«been the same. Boys May Win Camping Trip COLUMBIA, May 4.—Boys from 12 to 17 years of age can win a free one-week trip to the South Carolina Boys’ Forestry camp to be held at Camp Forest, Cheraw State Park August 5-10. Boys can apply by writing a postal card stating “I would like to attend Boys’ Forestry Camp.” Cards should give name, age, school and grade, address, and county of residence, and should be mailed to the County Ranger, S. C. State Commission of Forestry, at the county seat. The deadline for mailing cards is midnight July 3. From cards received, one boy will be selected from each county to attend the week-long forestry camp. Trans portation to and from camp, food lodging, and all camp expenses will be provided. This is the 17th annual Boys’ Forestry camp spon sored and conducted by the S. C. State Commission of Forestry. In addition to the 46 boys to be selected by the Forestry Commiss ion, 24 FFA boys and 24 4-H boys will be selected to attend camp. Boys interested in winning this free week of recreation and for estry instruction at the 1963 S. C. Boys’ Forestry Camp should apply at soon as possible, said State Forester Chas. H. Flory. and ashes this great outlay in the depreciated money of Uncle Sam, as was said of the Prodigal when he came to himself. But deep down in his capacious heart he had such a flow of bro therly love as to call me because he enjoyed my Spectator Article on Philadelphia. Undoubtedly Bill had just re turned from a party and with warm affection for everybody. So he rejoiced to know that Phila delphia was as attractive as I reported. Dean Manion THE MANION FORUM I can think of nothing more typically or traditionally Ameri can than the love of liberty ex emplified by the principle of vol untary unionism. The concept of “Right to Work” is as deeply en twined in the warp and woof of the American pattern of the phil osophy of our Government as free dom of religion or freedom of speech. While the powerful intellects of Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson and others of that great company of Patriots, created one of the great est systems of government in the history of the world, yet they were not infallible. Had they been able to pierce the mists of the future to foresee that the human dignity and liberty of American citizens in the 20th century would be endangered by the growth of union monopoly power, they most certainly would have protected the right of a man to join or not to join a union as he chooses by protective inclusion within the Bill of Rights. During the first half of this century, business grew at such a rapid pace that the Congress of the United States deemed it nec essary in the public interest to place restraints upon the growth of monopoly power by the passage of the anti-trust laws; and indus trial leaders who, through courage, initiative, resourcefulness and cap ital investment, created vast cor porate complexes giving gainful employment to millions of per sons were, and still are, subject to anti-trust suits so, in too many quarters, the term “Big Business” is one of ill repute. - v In recent years, however, the American public more and more is becoming aware of the fact that another giant straddles the Na tion from coast to coast, and a majority of our citizens believe that this new colossus, “Big La bor”, should, in the public interest : be subjected to legislative res traints by the Congress of the U. S. through the enactment of new laws making the anti-trust laws applicable to unions. The Congress, with the enact ment of the Taft-Hartley Act and later, the Landrum-Griffin Act, j have placed certain restraints and controls upon both employers and unions. Section 14B of the Taft- Hartley Act ^cognizes the right of the several states to enact the Right To Work laws. The unions | seek to destroy the principle of I voluntary unionism through the • repeal of that section. Why do unions object to Right To Work laws? Labor spokesmen claim such laws are union-busting devices, result in economic stag nation, violate the principle of majority rule and give a free ride to non-union members who do not pay dues but reap the benefits secured to a union by a union ma jority in a particular plant. This argument is easily refuted by the fact that in every state that has enacted right-to—work laws, union membership increased. Even when there was a national de crease in union membership, some of these states showed an increase. The compelling answer to the union’s position on free-riders is that proponents of compulsory un ionism proceed on the unwarrant ed assumption that the actions of the unions must necessarily bene fit every employee. This reasoning ignores the fact that many non union employees may seriously question whether it is for their benefit to have prolonged strikes, picket line violence, union secur ity clauses in lieu of wage in creases, and the expenditure of union funds for political object ives with which they do not ag.-ee and for candidates whicn they may not like. The fetters of economic bond age imposed by union compulsion whether the links be closed shop, union shop, or maintenance of membership, were all forged in the foundry of Big Labor. Many em ployers have been afraid to fight on principle for the freedom of a large segment of their labor force and countless numbers of workers have thus been denied their right to work as they choose. Have the businessmen of this country lost faith in, and the will to fight for, the principles of a free society in the American tra dition? Or shall the right of work- eis to earn a living be circum scribed within the narrow confine.? imposed by tyrannical union com pulsion which will eventually put out the last flickering fires of in dividual liberty which once shone so brightly in the hearts and minds of men? This is a questien to be answered by the legislatui-es of the 50 states of the Union. Recent Marriages T. E. Richardson of Prosperity and Earline Cromley of Columbia were married April 21 at New berry by Rev. Herbert H. Dunlap. Carrol Brooks Alewine Jr. and Dorothy Faye Livingston of Pros perity were married by Rev. Garth Hill at Little Mountain on April 27th. Alton H. Eargle of Route one, Little Mountain and Margaret Wessinger of Route 2, Chapin, were married at Newberry on May 3 by Probate Judge Frank Ward. William L. McLain of Route 1, Clinton and Nancy Jean Collins of Clinton were married May 3rd at Duncan by J. dice Hendrix. "We can start the Clean-up Drive right away” "Yes, let’s make our city cleanest in the State” Beginning this week, the Clean-up, Fix-up, Paint-up, Light- up campaign in Newberry is designed especially to pro mote community spirit and encourage everyone to take pride in the appearance of our town. Although the main promotion is geared during this week, the campaign will continue throughout the summer, until September when there will be another week-long promotion to climax efforts. Newberry is in competition with other cities of similar size in this campaign to see which town best shows interest in the drive and best trys to improve its community. We know of nothing that would speak better for our community in search for industry than to be a winner in the Cleanest Town Achievement Contest. I0S» OOU.B0B 0TBBBT, BBWBBBBT, •. C. J. F. CLARKSON M. O. SUMMER DIRECTORS G. K. DOMINICK J. K. WILLINGHAM E. B. PURCELL W. C. HUFFMAN BRANCH OFFICE — Safesburg, S. C. ?