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, JULY 29, 1965 run 1218 College St., Newberry, S. C. 29108 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 I cherish a warm fellowship with all newspaper brethren (and sisters, too, for we have lady-ed itors as well as men.) Scanning a number of papers, as I do every week, even every day, for I not only read The State, The Columbia Record, The News & Courier of Charleston, The Sumter Item, but the Business men’s Bible, The daily Wall Street Journal. And I have some reports from big Banks, such as Chase and The First National of Boston, with all that I rejoice in The Manning Times, as well as the resourceful papers from Kings- tree, St. George, Johnston, Wal- terboro, Ridgeland, Hampton, Al lendale, Edgefield, Pickens, Eas ley, Lexington, Newberry, Bam berg, Marlboro, Clinton and oth ers. I still miss the Aiken Journal, which slipped away from me while I was in the hospital. Now I’ve found something in the Johnston paper of my friend Magill of St. George. I quote it: “An editor knocked at the Pearly Gates, His face was scarred and cold He stood before the man of fate For admission to the fold. What have you done, St. Peter asked, To gain admission here? I’ve been an editor, sir, he said, For many and many a year. The pearly gates swung open wide, St. Peter touched the bell, Come in, he said, and choose your harp, You’ve had your share of hell.” As brother Magill has just clos ed a highly_jyi<ieessful subscrip tion campaign, I think he has re joiced too little, according to the poem on the trials, tribulations and what-not of editors. How now, Tom O’Connor, do you grieve over the hard lot of edi tors? Your Allendale and Hamp ton papers come with bright and sprightly appeal every week. I lift from The Ridge Citiz e n of Johnston some wise observa tions of Senator Harry Byrd. If we had 75 more Harry Byrds in the Senate I should feel safe. Says the Senator: “From experience, we have learned that the more government is centralized, the more easily it is influenced—if not controlled— by leaders of organized pressure groups. Certainly, the political target areas are more concentrated. We have heard that the more government is centralized in Fed eral bureaucracy at Washington, the more it is susceptible to the influence of labor leaders. It is now proposed that the Federal Government outlaw State right-to-work statutes. In this connection, think of this fact: In the past 35 years strikes in this country have prevented more than 800 million man-days of work; that is a loss of more than 800 million man-days of pay, and more than 800 million man-days of production. I have always conceded to good citizens in the rank and file of SENATOR STRO HURMOND Reports PEOPLE The Reapportionment Issue THE 89TH CONGRESS is proving itself to be one of the most controlled and yet most irresponsible Congresses in the history of our Republic. This Congress is giving overwhelm ing assent to virtually every piece of socialistic legislation the President has requested, no mat ter how much power the legis lation centralizes in Washing ton or how much money the pro grams cost — even at a time when we are bogged down in a costly war in Southeast Asia. THE PRESIDENT sends the bills to Congress, calls them up on the floor of both Houses, and then directs the Congress when and how to pass them. He and his Vice President have even gone so far as to try to intimi date farm-State Democrats into supporting repeal of State right- to-work laws under penalty of getting no farm bill and thus— as the Vice President has warned —jeopardizing their own seats in Congress. IN ITS PELL-MELL rush to pass legislation with mere per functory consideration, the Con gress has given scant attention to a most vital legislative item. This is the Dirksen resolution proposing that the U. S. Con stitution be amended to over rule a U. S. Supreme Court de cision and permit a State to ap portion one house of its Legisla ture on a basis other than popu lation. For instance, in South Carolina, as in many States, we now have one Senator represent ing each County, just as 2 Sen ators represent each State in the U. S. Senate; regardless of population. THIS COURT decision has wrought havoc with quite a few State Legislatures. Some Legis latures have had their people approve reapportionment plans only to have them okayed by one court and rejected by an other. They find themselves in the predicament forecast by a dissenting member of the Su preme Court, Mr. Justice Har lan, when he warned that the reapportionment decision would place “basic aspects of the State political systems under the per vasive lordship of the Federal judiciary.” AS A CONSEQUENCE, 28 of the necessary 34 State Legis latures have passed resolutions petitioning the Congress to call a constitutional convention *o the people can have an oppor tunity to change the court de cision. vAfter all, in previous court decisions, the composition (Not prepared or prtnied at oovommont expense) of legislative bodies has been ruled to be a political rather than a legal question. Thus, re apportionment has always been subject to the will of a majority of the people in the States, as it should be. THE DIRKSEN amendment, which I am co-sponsoring, has been modified to make certain that the apportionment of the State legislative bodies is truly representative of the will of the people in their respective States. Only after a majority of all voters has approved the appor tionment plan in a State-wide referendum could the plan be placed into effect. There is even a provision for a periodic re- view of any adopted plan by tjria The two same process. > ..^11 THERE HAVE been many so- cieties in the history of the world with governments slttAi- lar to ours. However, few have * survived so long or prospered * as much as has our ingenious system of government. The fte- cret to our success lies not so much in our ability to count votes for and against, but rather in the attainment of a balance of opposing and conflicting in terests so as to provide a great measure of stability. We have been able to assure protection of minority rights and interests while providing for majority rule. This was essentially the idea behind John C. Calhoun’s famous theory of the concur rent majority. f THIS VITAL concept of gov ernment is needed today as never before because of the many diverse interests in Amer ica. In fact, the group hurt most by the Supreme Court’s decision is our rural population. It was our farm families who, in large part, composed our Minutemen of 1776, providing the spark and the powder for the greatest rev olution for freedom the world has ever known. IF THE CONGRESS wishes to do something for the people and not just for the President, then the Dirksen resolution should be approved by the nec essary 2/3 vote. The people should have the opportunity to determine the composition of their own State Legislatures. If the Congress does not provide this opportunity very soon, then the people should get enough of their State Legislatures to ini tiate action for the calling of a constitutional convention. - j. Sincerely, labor unions the privilege of or ganizing. I have conceded to legitimate labor unions the privilege of col lective bargaining when they rep resent their members. But I also concede to men and women the right to work if they choose. This is certainly a basic right. Labor leaders want the Fed eral Government to force mem bership in a union as a condition of employment. In excess of 50 million, or more than 70 per cent of those employed in the U. S. are not now members of the big national and international unions. Generally speaking, State right- to-work laws provide that the right to work shall not be denied on account of either membership or non-membership in labor or ganizations. The Taft-Hartley Act recogniz es States rights in this field. La bor leaders want this provision repealed. Without it, we couid expect the present Supreme Court to strike down every State right-to-work law in the country. Nineteen states have these right-to-work laws, a number of them enacted with constitutional amendments adopted by referen- dums. If they are not desired, the people in the States who approved their enactment could bring about their repeal. But the labor leader pressure is at the Federal level. They want Federal action for wholesale null ification of the States’ rights these laws represent, and the in dividual liberty they protect. I regard the right to work as I do the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. States have the right, the re sponsibility, and the duty to pro tect this fundamental freedom. This is my postition and I shall fight for it. I am the only member now in the Senate who voted against the Wagner Labor Act of 1939, giv ing special privileges to labor and therefore to their leaders. I voted for the Taft-Hartley act and against the Truman veto. I supported strong labor legislation in the past, and I will do it again. When labor leaders have the power virtually to shut down the country, our national security is imperiled. When they have the power to stop production and wages, our economy is impaired. When they have the power to force wage increases without in creased production, they create in flation. We have deficits and threats of continuing deficits; we have for eign trade balance trouble and dwindling gold reserves; there the Communist gains in their race against the free world in th e scien tific, military, foreign relations, and economic fields. These are serious weaknesses which must be reversed. I have been a member of the U. S. Senate since 1933. I have seen the reasons for most of these weaknesses develop. I have tried to prevent them. I wish I could have done more. I am still trying. .1 say this as I think over the trend toward centraliatizon in the Federal government over the past 30 years; and we must keep this trend in mind as we attempt to act intelligently on public matters which will affect the lives of all of us in the period ahead. greatest foundation atones in our form of government ‘are individual liberty and State sovereignty. These are the strongest deterrents to centralized government. Centralization of gov ernment leads to socialism. Looking to the future, against -the-background of trends over the past years, there is reason for concern. The trend has been to ward centralization of govern ment with inevitable fiscal and socialistic deterioration. I have confidence in our fu ture if the citizens of the Na tion will oppose those things which are destructive of the prin ciples underlying our form of government, our individual liber ties and our national solvency. Our system of government is being menaced by three subvert-, ing trends which must be stopped. These trends are: (1) increas ing Federal paternalism with fis cal deterioration; (2) increasing usurpation of power by the Su preme Court and the Federal Gov ernment; and (3) increasing in fluence of labor leaders over Fed eral authorities. Reverse these, and I have no doubt about our strength to meet any foreign challenge. I pledge my unrelenting effort in that di rection. It is up to all who believe in our system to fight for progress without destroying the fundamen tal principles of our Government which, in a short space of time, have made us the greatest Na- tio in all the world.” L. Udell's opposition to the pro posed plan of Duke Power Com pany to build a $700 million plant at Middleton Shoals on the Sav annah River in Anderson county. This Duke Power Company plant, known as the Keeowee-Toxaway Project, would pay something like $24 million into the Federal treas ury annually, and about $20 mil lion into the South Carolina treas ury annually. The Keeowee-jLOxaway project of Duke Power Company has the solid backing of the entire S. C. delegation in Congress, including both Senators. It has the backing of the Governor of South Caro lina. The people of the area, ac cording to reports, favor the Duke project. In fact, about the only opposition we can find comes from Secretary Udall and one or two REA coops. Ev e n in this day of galloping centralization of power in Wash ington, proponents of government intervention, control, and regula tion give at least lip service to the thesis that such government intervention, control, and regula tion is necessary because private enterprise or State responsibility has failed to do what some bureau crat thinks is necessary in that particular field. But in this in stance Secretary Udall’s empire building proclivities are laid bare and nakedly exposed. Here is an instance in which private enter prise anxious to do a job in which the State’s Congressional delega tion, Governor and other State officials favor letting private en terprise function, and only the Secretary of the Interior raises a powerful voice in opposition. There is no justification for Secretary UdalTs opposition . . . Nowhere is there an indication that private enterprise has failed . . . But there is obviously and flagrantly a desire on the part of Secretary Udall to build his bureaucratic empire at the ex pense of the well-being of the people of this section of South Carolina.” Just what Constitutional right the Government has to impede the natural development of our region I can’t understand. # Dean Manion * MANION FORUM I quote with 100 per cent en dorsement an editor of The Ridge Citizen: “It is well known that the prime objective of the Federal Bureaucracy is empire building, and this fact is nowhere more flagrantly obvious than in' the Secretary of the Interior Stewart One of the talking points of American businessmen who would like to expand business relations with Communist countries, is that it is immoral to deprive people whose standard of living is in need of improvement. It should be made clear that we are opposed to the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe and not the citizens of those nations. The governments of the satellite lands are denying their own cit izens improved living conditions and subordinating their best in terests to Communist policies. When we supply economic support by trading with the enemy, we commit an immoral act by perpet uating the illicit governments which rule the captive peoples of Eastern Europe. For example, the Polish govern ment exports agricultural prod ucts as a major part of its trade policy and has supplied farm equipmtnt to Castro’s govern ment. Yet the people of Poland find food rationed and periodic agricultural crises developing be cause their government is far less interested in their welfare than it is in co-operating with world wide Communists. Communist leaders will deprive their citizens of any necessity if they can bar ter it for material or equipment which has strategic value for them. The Communist use trade as a weapon for the conquest of . the world. We could use trade as a vehicle to promote freedom in the world. Trade, if properly used, can be the most effective weapon in the arsenal of the free world in developing a winning cold war strategy. We should demand en forceable political and economic concessions for each trade trans action. We should demand release and rehabilation of political pris oners, complete religious freedom, freedom of speech, fre e dom of the press and freedom of movement. For instance, if East Germany wants to trade, they should be required to tear down the Berlih Wall, cease all interference with access to Berlin, and they should be required to cooperate in hold ing a plebiscite to bring about a united Germany. There is complete inconsistency of our policy in supposedly dedi cating ourselves to resisting Com munist aggression throughout the world while we prepare a trade policy to strengthen the economic power of Communist governments. Any trade with Communist na tions should include an assurance that the people themselves receive tangible political and economic benefits. _ Looking A bead ...by Dr. Georgt S. Btnson PRESIDENT—NATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAM S*arcy, ArkanMt FULBRIGHT STATES THE CASE Undoubtedly some worried Dem ocrats were wondering last month if the Johnson administration’s fortunes did not need bolstering for 1966 and 1968. With many of its intellectual stalwarts either abdicating or teaching-in, the souring press around the liberal world pouring acid on the Presid ent’s reasonable actions, and top level assistants having a rough time out on the circuit explaining what needed no explanation, some thing had to be done. It was per haps time for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman to make a statement. Senator J. William Fulbright therefore spent several hours with the President. When next he made an address he cited the “stead fastness and statesmanship” of Mr. Johnson, a compliment that only would have restated the ob vious in other circumstances But now th2 President’s liberal friends had been yakking that the Pres idential advisors are “Men of un paralleled arrogance, stupidity, and incompetence” Other Senators were rising to emotional peaks, in their unreasoned attacks. Perhaps no liberal in ADA, unless it was Vice President Humphrey, could now go all the way with LBJ. Some Reality, More Myth It was an appropriate time, therefore, for Senator Fulbright’s summary of Johnson foreign pol icy that comprised a portion of his speech. His realities—no with drawal from South Vietnam that would “betray our obligation to people we have promised to de fend,” et cetera—were perhaps more obvious than his myths. Al so, his point was well-made that Peking must not be allowed to get away with the belief that guer rilla infiltrations are a cheap and safe way to expand Communism. This much of the Senator’s speech at least, needed saying and truly reflects the views of most Amer icans. Unfortunately, however, the Senator went on to fall into the same ditch with the rest of Mr. Johnson’s critics when his inter pretation of the U. S. dilemma in 1 Vietnam led him to the pessimistic comment that victory there would be costly, considering the “re quirements of our interest , and honor.” Only a “holding” action, he indicated, would be required to “persuade the Communists that we would not be driven out and thaL Siagon could not be crushed. The Alternatives The Senator again has d e mon- strated his flair for muddying the waters by saying some good things stirred in with a great many non-sensical notions. He opposes escalation, whatever that is, because bombing has so far failed to weaken the North Viet nam capacity, because it invites great numbers of troops from the North into South Vietnam, and because we are not prepared to accept either a jungle war or the alternatives. Well, there is noth ing in all this except a fearful re-statement of the liberal dilem ma that knows nothing more than to give ground before the push of the Communist world revolution. " NOTICE Prospective candidates for May or and Aldermen in the six city wards in the city of Newberry may file for the position with the undersigned Secretary from July 26, 1965 to Noon, August 14, 1965. Fee: with opposition, Mayor $115; Aldermen $60; without opposition the fee doubles. Pete Parrott, Secretary City Democratic Executive Comm. 7-22-3t 315 Caldwell Street Making concessions now or any other time gets the U. S. nowhere with the Communist, a fact of history which Senator Fulbright ought to know. Distorting History These current distortions of his tory, to use Senator Dirkson’s phrase, ignore the expressed Communist intention to expand and to swallow up by force, receit, and intrigue any free countries they can and finally the whole free world. One of their planned techniques is actually being tested in South Vietnam, that of infil tration and treachery within. Such readiness to let them have their way, coming from the Senator and others in high places, only encourages the Reds to believe they can get away with it. If the Communist world is convinced that we are divided and uncertain, the pressure is going to remain on us indefinitely. And they will divide us at home if they can. They understand the fatal chink in leftward thinking only too well: that Marxism is first tolerated and then embraced. This blind side of our intellect uals shows up in this debate with increasing clarity. It appears they do not want democracy or freedom in Vietnam half as much as they want a green light for Marxist ideas at home and abroad. Increasingly, the noisy academic “intellectual” dissenters to the President’s policy are showing their true colors: socialist pink. The full body of American opinion Mr. President, remains anti-Com- munist. So take it from there and 1968 will take care of itself. VIEWPOINT . . . (Continued from page 1) while postponing payments on her debts to us, again and again. Brit ain, once free-enterprising, is now free-loading. In 1964 some 200 ships flying “free-world” flags carried supplies into North Viet nam. Forty per cent of these ships were British. Britain is like an old prostitute: she’ll do business with anybody who’ll pay the price —cash. Other nations selling to our North Vietnam enemy (where we fight alone) are: Japan, Greece, Norway, Lebanon, Italy, West Germany, and Panama. We do hope that American mothers who lose their Sons in Vietnam may get some solace from the thought that our friends helped kill them. We’ve given the above friends $30 billion. If they spit on us as they accept our gifts as Nassar, Sukarno, Tito and others have done, we must remember to live up to our friend Khrushchev’s inspiring tribute: “When you spit on Americans, they think it is dew.” We’ve given over 2.5 billion to help Tito succeed in Yugoslavia. When Tito was young, he had a fine record as a bank robber in Cordoba, but then he evidently fell in with the wrong crowd and turned communist. He shot down our planes and killed our flyers after the war was over, and we repaid him for this by training some of his flyers at our Perrin Air Base in Texas. He is one of the many Communist friends of our own Supreme Court Justice, Earl Warren. They play together at Tito’s Black Sea resort. Fam ilies that play together stay to gether. The House voted to cut down our gifts to Egypt’s Nassar who trumbed his nose at us with both hands. Then the House restored the cut, and now Narrar takes our aid with one hand and thumbs his nose at us with the other. So, we’re making progress. Our “conservatives” sometimes ask: “If Russia has accomplished so much by giving away so little, why have we accomplised so little by giving away so much?” Take a “given” country like France: France has received $10 billions from us in foreign aid and is therefore now almost compl e tely pro-communist. Not just pro good Communists, as we are, but pro bad Communists too. France has “recognized” Red China and re portedly will share atomic sec rets with her. De Gaulle has now gone Communist, whether or not he carries a communist card in his pocket. You will forgive me for not more accurately assessing the foreign aid program, but it’s sorta like tryin’ to hug a cloud, or nail an apple pie to the wall, or pre dict who Lyndon will have his arm around tomorrow. At least one American cargo ship (renamed ‘Kolkhonik’) which we lend-leased to.Russia in 1943 is now home-based at Havana. So, at least she’s only 90 miles away! Small world! Devotedly, Your Uncle Sam NOTICE TO CREDITORS All persons having claims against the estate of Walter Gustave Hou- seal, Jr., deceased, are hereby no tified to file the same, duly veri fied with the undersigned, and those indebted to said estate will please make payment likewise. Robert W. Houseal, Executor, 29 Heathwood Cr., Columbia, S. C. Sarah H. Goggans, Frances H. Rutherford, Executrices. IUUV9 jMc**M*h HANDY MOP... AIKJB0ER WtfMCR AMP A I \ Are all savings accounts , insured by U. S. Government Agencies? No, but Corigness has enacted laws to provide places where you can be sure of insured safety. Most Savings and Loan Associations are insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corpo ration (FSLfCy. Most commercial banks and sav ings banks are jnsjured by the Federal Deposit in surance Corporation (FDIC). Both FSLIC and FDIC are Government agencies established by Congress for the protection of the public. Both insure sav ings up to $10,000. Both require periodic exami nations and provide continuing supervision by governmental authorities. Both are safe and de- pendabjf. ^ ^ Not ail Savings and Loan Associations are mem bers of the FSLIC, and not all commercial banks or savings banks are members of the FDIC. Ypu will find the FSLIC emblem displayed in all Savings and Loin Associations where accounts are insured by this Government agency. There are more than 4,400 insured associations serving 37 million savers in ail of the United States and its territories. No one has ever lost a penny Jn any savings account insured by the FSLIC.f . * BRANCH OFFICE—BATESBURG, S. C. SOOJATIOJT *•••-••****» a* ■a>T,aa vasBar, a. ad DIRECTORS JOHN F. CLARKSON M. O. SUMMER V W. C. HUFFMAN J. K. WILLINGHAM E. B. PURCELL G. K. DOMINICK