The Emporia Gazette from Emporia, Kansas • Page 2

'age 4 1 rin William Allen White, 1895 1944 William Lindsay White, 1944 1973 THE GAZETTE, EMPORIA, KANSAS Glen Albert Bradshaw, Foreman Everett Ray Call, Managing Editor James Vernon Nirider, City Editor Elizabeth Thomas Robinson, Advertising Manager Carol Martin Shirley, Circulation Manager Paul David Waiker, Assistant Publisher To every thing there is a season, anda time to ctery purpose under the A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance. Eeclestastes 3:1, 4 From Marion Ellet: Their Beef TT TNION members and their wives are people. They buy at the shopping centers and supermarkets just as we all do. They squawk about prices as we do sometimes louder. And, where food is concerned, they are apt to put the blame squarely on the farmer and the cattleman when often it is their own fault.

This is pointed up by something interesting which is happening in meat marketing. It is the question of "boxed beef." Is it to be or is it not to be? Cattlemen and some supermarketers in the large cities are in favor of it. The cattlemen tend to be because they think it might reduce the price spread between beef on the hoof and beef at the retail market. Retailers themselves are inclined to think it might reduce the price to the customer. Beef trimmed and packaged at the packing plant ships for less money.

Also there might be savings in time and manpower at the retail level. BUT, the unions say no. In many large workers will sign only such con- tracts-iasi -policy of handling no boxed beef. They are so vindictive about it that in some instances union representatives refuse to discuss the matter with the press. So, what they are protecting, obviously, is teatherbedding.

Multiply this particular food policy by our many branches of retailing and services and you get a pretty good idea of what feauS- erbedding costs the consumer. And the union policy is stupid for two reasons. In the first place any innovation in marketing usually involves only a shift in jobs. Old jobs go but new jobs are created in the process. In che instance of boxed beef, some jobs might be lost at the retail market level, but more jobs would be available through additional labor at the packing plants.

In the second place, the union member's wife is hit just as hard as the non-union Wife by high retail prices. In this problem, which involves all phases of marketing, the unions may one day have to 'learn that they, can't 'have the'ir beef and eat'it. The Wailing Place Fears Union Control Editor of The Gazette, Sir: Do you know what 14-B in the ji Tafc Hartley Law is? Do you the Common Situs picketing bill is? Do you know s-3how Ford and Carter stand on irthese issues? Why do we have so welfare and unemploy- ment? Fourceen-B in the Taft law permits states to have K'their own righr-to-work laws; enjoys this freedom of Union Bosses call for its so they can have more over union members and in reality more dicta- t-rion. President Ford supports Carter has pledged to S)'irepeal it. Common Situs picketing -3bill would have permitted one "Bunion on strike (regardless of fihow many employed) to force all union employes on the project out on strike.

This would permit union bosses control and dictation every building project. What this do to building costs? i-' Ford vetoed the bill already passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress. The union bosses have already told Carter what to do on this. What can you steal by giving too much? Our generous welfare and unemployment programs are actually stealing the incentive of our workers- Is there a better way to destroy a nation, than to steal die incentive of the people? The reward and honor system we have set up under" Democrat-controlled Congress for welfare and unemployment is not only skyrocketing the cost of the programs, but stealing the incentive of the ones pledged to help. How can we expect to'im- prove unemployment with the reward system? Republicans think diese programs should be overhauled, what do you think? Would someone please tell Carr- ter you shouldn't saw the board off twice, then wonder why it is too short? Respectfully, R.F.

Fankhauser Madison JlMore About Pickups Editor of The Gazette, Sir: I ifJiaye" read Representative Lowther's recent statements the truck marking as published in your of Sept. 24th, 1976. fi I can fully understand Mr. defensiveness about question, because he voted the bill which led to the prob- rXiem, and at the same time raised fees which truck Downers will begin paying next It is surely candid of liMr'. -Lowdie'r to recognize his mistakes; and' to agree to fe sponsor corrective legislation.

Obviously, if he and the others in the legislature had more foresight, many Kansans would not suffer from needless and short-sighted, mistakes such as Fortunately, county treasurers will be able to. change their administrative procedures in January, 1977, to relieve affected truck owners from the expense and inconvenience of marking their truck vehicles. Respectfully, Curt T. Schneider Attorney General OK, pass next. By William F.

Buckley, Jr. UTSIDE THE United States, when the Earl Bucz story broke the talk among seasoned Americans tended to nonchalance. In Caracas, they do not publish such pith as you can find in Rolling Stone, or The Village Voice. Under the circumstances, when the Associated Press sent out the actual text of Mr. Butz's remarks, and they spread about by word of mouth, there came the distinctive sense of shock that follows when a community has already made up its mind about something, and learns that it was wrong.

At first, it was supposed that Earl Butz had said something routinely invidious about American blacks. After all, it was only a fortnight earlier that the Vice President of the United States and the Speaker of the House of Representatives had disported on the subject of what would have happened to Edward Brooke if his ancestors had stayed in Liberia. The microphones were accidentally live, arv'd an'entire the slurs. i1 They were to be distinguished from those of Earl Bucz by their relative mildness; and perhaps by the all-important fact that one of the slurrers is a Republican and the other a Democrat; so that there was no partisan leverage in the episode for one political party to exploit. If Earl Butz had been exchanging views with, say, Teddy Kennedy, who had echoed them, his moral guilt would have been unmitigated but his political career might have survived.

Jimmy Carter would not demand die resignation of Senator Kennedy if Teddy came out against Anne Frank. Generation Gap Most people are aware chat, in respect of ethnic jokes, there is something of a generation gap. Not long ago a prominent American liberal in New York told a friend that, throughout his youth, he heard at the dinner table of his distinguished father in Boston, racial stones which now the New Yorker would leave the room if repeated in his presence. There is still something of the lure of audacity in the racial story, and it is fair at this heated moment "to'observe that there is no documented correlation between racial hostility, arid an inclination to racial jokes or racial slurs. When, four elections back, terHorst learned about Henry Cabot Lodge's promise that Nixon was elected, he would name a black to his Cabinet, he was riding on Kennedy's press plane, and scratched out the verse, "Gone are the days when the Cabinet Jim Treasury has a boss named Old Black did it all, that blueb- He heard a crowd in Harlem -Black Joe." KKK Wit That is the kind of thing it was assumed Earl Butz was guilty of.

What he said was breathcarch- 'ingly coarse. It betrayed a kind of personal insensitivity that induces sheer wonder. The statement had what one might call KKK wit: but the coarseness overwhelms. It would not have been the charitable thing to say, but Gerald Ford could plausibly have said that he. could not feel comfortable in the presence of who spoke those phrases.

Getting Back to GET involved in some crazy contests in Washington. One such contest is to determine which of the regulatory agencies can impose die most costly, the least practical, and the most exasperating burdens upon the businessman. Ac the moment, OSHA seems to be out in front. In case you have not encountered this outfit, OSHA is.the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Ir was created back in 197 1, and has done little to justify its existence over the past five years.

Periodically OSHA gets in the news, ordinarily with something especially inane. There was, for example, By James J. Kilpatrick the recent proposal mandating the Cowhand's Portable Privy. Two New Moves This time OSHA is up to something more serious. The agency is holding hearings on a proposal to impose new noise level standards on industry; and in an unrelated area, OSHA is pressing the Supreme Court for nullification of the right of jury trial in civil cases.

Both propositions are important. Under present regulations, OSHA enforces what is known as the 90-decibel (dBA) standard. The rule is predicated upon a worker's exposure to steady state noise over an eight- hour day, with certain exceptions for impulse or impact noise. A Albert Rejected Coup 3 JT By Jack Anderson OURCES CLOSE to Speaker Carl Albert say he could have been President today he had been willing to manipulate the" congressional machinery. In discussions so secret diat staff members were excluded, some Democratic colleagues urged Albert in 1973 to hold up the confirmation of Gerald Ford to be Vice-President.

This would have left the Speaker next in line for the presidency. The Democratic schemers predicted that the embattled Richard Nixon, then in the last ditches of his presidency, would be impeached. He was unworthy, they argued, to select his own successor. All Albert had to do, they suggested, was to delay Ford's confirmation and wait for Nixon to be impeached. Then under the Constitution, Albert could take over the White House and bring the Democrats to power.

This possibility stirred deep controversy at the secret strategy discussions. Some argued that it would amount to a Democratic coup and, therefore, would alienate the voters. Others contended that the Republicans had been so badly discredited by Watergate that a Democratic' takeover would be best for the country. Our sources disagree over how serious the Democrats were about blocking vice- presidential selection. Some say the idea never got beyond loose talk.

Others insist that if Albert So much for poor Earl Butz. Now one wonders: what purpose did the ideological tabloid press serve in reprinting the slurs? The Village Voice, whose article on the wedding of Tricia Nixon could have been written by Earl Butz, is in the contemptible business of simultaneously' moralizing, and sensationalizing. A simple letter to the White House calling attention to Earl Butz's language might well have been justified. But to publish words so offensive to an entire race of people renowned for their gentility is to poison the well. No doubt John Dean has maximized his incumbency as a free lance journalist.

He and those who publicized his story have done so not so much at the expense of Earl Butz's political career Bucz was expendable but at the expense of stimulating a dreadful resentment by one-tenth of the American people. 1 had gone along, Ford's confirmation would have been top privy to the backstage 'told us that Albert could have become President merely by remaining neutral. It took Albert's active opposition, said our source, to thwart the scheme. All our sources agree that me Speaker refused to hold up Ford's confirmation. During one discussion, he cited the second section of the 25th amendment to the Constitution.

It states simply: "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice- President, the President shall nominate a Vice-President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress." Albert declared firmly that he did not intend to tamper with the constitutional processes. Nixon nominated- Ford for Vice-President on Oct. '12th, 1973. Ten days later the House Judiciary Committee began an inquiry into possible impeachment charges against Nixon. By late November, it appeared to leading Democrats that there were grounds to impeach him.

Our sources differ over who led the move to delay Ford's confirmation until Nixon was impeached. Some say it was House Majority leader Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, But O'Neill told us he supported the Speaker. Our sources recall that the matter finally was brought up at a secret caucus of House Democrats. House Judiciary Chairman Peter Rodino, warned that any delay in the confirmation process would violate the spirit of'the 25uS amendment. Speaker Albert strongly agreed.

So on Dec. 6th, 1973, Gerald Ford was confirmed. Footnote: The Speaker did not return our repeated Old Ramrod Sen. Strom Thurmond, who comports himself like the last surviving Civil War general, has been a mode! of personal integrity. He lives scrupulously on his Senate salary.

Even his speaking fees wind up in a loan fund for needy college students. But Old Ramrod has let his standards droop a bit when it came to three of his trusted lieutenants. Thurmond siphoned thousands of dollars to the trio through an obscure loophole in a 1964 law. 90-decibel level is about what you hear in a subway station when the train comes in. Hearings began Sept.

2 1st on a proposal to reduce the permissible level to 85 dBA. This is not a reduction of merely five points on a uniform scale. On the scale used by sound engineers, the difference between 90 and 85 is enormous. An 85-dBA level is about the level of a busy street corner. It is roughly one-half as noisy as a 90-decibel level.

The hearings involve several variations on a new standard. The Environmental Protection Agency, a consistent frontrunner in the Harassment Sweepstakes, is pushing OSHA for drastic application of the 85-dBA limitation. Some labor unions are supporting the EPA position. The Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations are fighting the 85-dBA standard as unrealistic. They make a good point: By OSHA's own studies, an 85-decibeI limit would impose cost's between $18.5 and billion on American industry.

Fishy Statistic In the eyes of bureaucratic extremists, to be sure, costs are nothing a mere bagatelle. The thought that reasonable protection could be afforded, in many cases, by ear plugs or ear muffs is a thought that does not penetrate the bureaucratic mind. In. one burst of wild surmise, OSHA's consultants estimated 770,000 workers could be saved from permanent loss of hearing by the 85-dBA standard. It is the kind of fishy statistic one approaches with a sensitive hose.

For the record: Deafness is indeed a serious matter. There can be small sympathy for employers who.make little or no.ef- fort to reduce noise levels in their plants. But it is absurd for government to impose requirements fantastically out of line with benefits and costs. OSHA also has bobbed into the news with an ominous legal position it has taken before the Supreme Court. The case involves a $5,000 civil penalty levied by upon a Pennsylvania contractor who failed to shore up an excavation ditch.

The contractor is standing upon a constitutional right explicitly guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment the right to jury trial in civil cases where the value in controversy exceeds $20. OSHA's position, stated most simply, is that die Constitution doesn't apply to it. The agency is proposing to carve out a new sanctuary in the law. Here an "administrative adjudication" would reign supreme and untouchable; and to hell with the Seventh Amendment. If the theory wins Supreme Court approval, a monstrous weapon will have been placed in bureaucratic hands.

So the maddening race continues. Sometimes the Federal Trade Commission, as in the great case, gets out in front. Often the Consumer Product Safety Commission leads the baying hounds. The EPA witness the fiasco it has made of pesticide registrations is always a strong contender. Right, now OSHA ranks Number One, the most oppressive of them all.

It's enough to make a bureaucrat quietly proud. (Copyright 1976, Washington Scar Syndicate) Saturday, October 9, 1976 You Should Read Black Ties That Bind THE IMPACT of slavery on black Americans has long been a source of controversy among U.S. historians. Prior to the civil-rights movement, some American history books-described the Southern plantation as a rather benign institution in which docile slaves learned the virtues of the wh'ite man's civilization. Then, in th'e early '60's, historians began to stress the brutality of enslavement, comparing America's "peculiar institution" to Nazi concentration camps.

But either way, blacks were made to appear pawns who were unable to fashion a vigorous culture of their own. By 1965, nationalist-minded blacks were demanding from scholars a more dynamic account of their enslaved forebears. What they got instead was Daniel Patrick Moyhihan's controversial report, "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," which offended some blacks by pointing to the broken, mother- centered family as the root of their problems. Reflecting the scholarly consensus at the time, Moynihan argued diat slavery, reconstruction (which led to the humiliation of public segregation) and urbanization were the basic causes of what he called "the tangled pathology" of black family life. "It was by destroying the Negro family under slavery," the report said, "that white America broke the will of the Negro people." Now, after a decade of examining letters, plantation records, marriage applications and other quantifiable data, social historian Herbert Gutman has produced "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," a massive study that contradicts what and most previous about the effects of Without overlooking the destructiveness of enslavement, Gutman argues for the vitality and distinctiveness of the post-bellum black family.

Despite its title, Gutman's study focuses mainly on black- family relationships in the mid-nineteenth century. If slavery had destroyed the black family, Gutman reasons, then the havoc should have been manifest in the 1860's when emancipation and the Civil War had destroyed the plantation system. Indeed, Union. Army chaplains expected to find hordes of orphaned children and abandoned mothers among ex-slaves after the war. Instead, they were amazed to discover a right kinship network in which, as one white minister put it, "all indigent or helpless people are being supported by relatives, parents or friends." The basis of this network, Gutman believes, was the black emphasis on monogamous marriage and two-parent families.

Drawing on military census data throughout the South, Gutman calculates that at least 75 per cent of ex-slave households contained both a husband and a wife. To be sure, many of these were second marriages; nearly one ex-slave six who registered with Union Army, chaplains in Mississippi reported a previous marriage. Yet few of their first marriages, Gutman concludes, had been severed voluntarily. Most had been broken when an owner sold or gave away one of his slaves. Premarital Sex MOST OF GUTMAN'S book is an effort to explain how this rightly knit pattern of domestic life developed and flourished f.n 'A QilMOd Hlfliol the.constramts or slavery.

Here Outman, who is a prores-, 1 spr at the City College or INew York, breaks sharply with those, historians, both traditional and revisionist, who believe that die. values slaves placed on monogamy and parental responsibility, were learned from their white masters. On the contrary, Gutman convincingly that blacks developed kinship networks under plantation owners who were either ignorant of or indifferent to their slaves' domestic arrangements. Although masters prized female slaves for their ability'to produce capital gains (in the form of slave children) for the plantation economy, they displayed little concern about marriage between blacks. The fact that young slave women often had children before marrying only confirmed the white view of slaves as sexually permissive.

However, Gutman's book shows that prenup'tial child-bearing was normally followed by a stable relationship with a man. Unlike theit masters, slaves tolerated premarital sex, but also zealously defended marital fidelity. Moreover, Gutman deduces from birth records that blood cousins rarely married a contrast with the inbreeding of some Southern white families. Gutman suggests that this prohibition, like the extended family, was rooted in West African tribal mores. More important, the author demonstrates that slaves developed their own method of maintaining family identities.

Through a unique analysis of slave birth records on six plantations, kept for business reasons by the owners, Gutman reports that slaves often named their sons; after the father or grandfather, thus contradicting the notion mat their families were essentially matriarchies. Hair WHAT HAPPENED to family ties when slaves were sold or given away? Some of the most affecting passages in Gutman's study are from letters written by and often for slaves to their separated spouses. "I would much rather you would get married to some good man, for every time I gits a letter from you it tears me all to pieces a remarried slave writes to his former wife. "I want to see and I don't want to see you. I love you just as.

well as I did the last day I saw you, and it will not do for you and I to meet." Then he'continues plaintively, "Send me some of the children's hair in a separate paper with their names on the paper You know I am one man that do love my children." Families broken by sale did not lose their ideals of kinship, Gutman finds. Instead, they formed themselves into "fictive" family clans under which other slaves become substitute "aunts" and "uncles." In this way, Gutman argues, Afro-Americans reconstituted the family unit. Through this he concludes, each generation learned distinctively black rules for living and passed along a distinctive Afro-American heritage of and religion. When Gutman turns to his more limited analyses of census data from 1880 and 1925, he also finds the two-parent family solidly established among lower-class urban blacks. Although his book does not trace the generational links between slave past and- urban present, Gutman has at least soundly rebutted the theory that slavery shattered the black family unit.

That, he suggests, was the work of the Great Depression and subsequent decades of hard-core poverty. Some blacks arc hailing Gutman's study as the answer to the Moynihan report. Roger Wilkins, the only black on the editorial board of The New York Times, welcomes the book as proof that' the black family is "a strong and resilient institution. Current black stagnation," he insists, "must be seen as a malfunctioning of the American economy." Social psychologist Kenneth Clark doubts whether the black family even today reflects more pathology than white families. "There is an increasing number of whites who live together without marri'age," says Clark, "but ho one has ever asked Moynihan to deal with that." In NEWSWEEK'.