Asbury Park Press from Asbury Park, New Jersey • Page 14

'Time to Rebuild' Andrew Tully Asbury Park Evening Press established 1I7 THE SHORE PRESS J. Lyl Kinmenth, Editor, 1I96-1M WAYNE D. McMURRAY, Editor ERNEST W. LASS, Publisher Radio Station WJLK 1310 Xilocydet AM (Established 1926) SO Megacycles FM (Established 184.7) Owned, published and operated by Asbury Park Press, lnc Wayne D. McMurray.

President: Ernest w. Law. Vice President and Treaaurer; Julei L. Plangrre. Secretary.

Member of American Keuipaper Publishers jtsiooalion and udit Bureau Circulations. I I 'W I 1 O.rt Kim K. HO I-lie IS Moaaiaatk St. l-UN It Brea4af CA S-IM Aieerr Park Prase Plata PB 4-7aa Prwkali Itmi River Wuklartaa St. Dl Haas a n.ak Petal Pleaaaat 111 AreaM Are.

IW e.nee Lonr Braatk Trealaa Stale Haaaa Araa Ceae Ms, AX 1-SUS Entered at the Asbury Park, NJ. Poitoffic ai second clau matter. MEMBER OF THE ASSOClATtD PRISS The Aasoclated Press li entitled exclusively the tie for repubUcation of all tlx local newt printed In this newspaper at well as all AP news dispatch. A8BUR PARK PRISS MAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS rt.ItT Kaa. 127 2S a 7i Tilly JS 17 10 14 95 12 Raa.

7 i sn 6 OS li 25 75 71 a month 7 monf'n month! 5 months 4 month 3 month 3 months 1 month months II month! 10 month! months rwM dm ti Sea. 4 J(l 3 1 20 IIS .30 10 770 9 7S .10 51 IS in ettT monthlr contrtrt Copr Ashurv Park, Monday. June 30. 1969 14 llockr feller Trying to Find Spot On Both Sides of Content ing for a small Republican turnout. If the Republicans voted in droves, they said, Marchi would clobber Lindsay.

So, there was a small turnout, and so Marchi won. Nonsense, reply the Lindsayites, you've got to let us have it both ways. Your father's mustache. a a The real story is much less complicated. It is that the the New York Times, the liberal bloc, and Nelson Rockefeller refuse to face the facts of a primary election in which both parties nominated a "law-and-order" candidate, the Democrats going for the flamboyant Mario Procaccino.

Why these people should find incredulous an electorate which simply and vigorously opted for safe streets and the occasional arrest and prosecution of a mugger or rapist must seem preposterous to most Americans. But there it is. The Lindsayites seem to be saying it would be dangerous to elect a "mayor who would enforce the law. They are deaf, and apparently they can't count. 'Marchi won every borough but the island of Manhattan Lindsay's Fun City.

Out in the boondocks, where the votes are, the people cast their ballots for the right to walk the streets at night, to have their garbage collected, to have their snow removed. They voted against violence in the city's colleges and public schools. They are not interested in an exciting mayor or in the chic gambols of the Upper East Side. Perhaps all this does not guarantee that either Marchi or Procaccino will win in November. But it does suggest strongly that John Lindsay will be a loser.

Lindsay certainly will not get the regular GOP vote or the Conservative party vote. His chances of cutting into the Democratic vote as a Liberal party and independent "coalition" candidate are better. But times have changed since the Democrats helped sweep Lindsay into office in 1965. Lindsay's glamorous image has been tarnished by four years of what almost seems to be calculated anarchy. The Irish, Italians, and Jews in the Democratic party are just as burned up at this anarchy as the Republicans and the conservatives.

And their votes in the primary said they did not believe the election of a Marchi or a Procaccino would be a disaster-except to the criminal creep bloc. WASHINGTON New York's Gov. Nelson Rockefeller constantly amazes. His statement that he will support the Republican and Conservative party candidate for mayor of New York City but will take no part in the campaign is another example of his unremitting, almost desperate, search for a position on both sides of the fence. Perhaps the GOP nominee, the colorless John J.

Marchi. is better served by the Rockefeller stand. There are friends from whom a candidate must be protected, and Rockefeller added nothing to his stature by his on-again, off-again candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination last year. Still, the Rockefeller position is almost incredible. The man says that although he had endorsed Mayor John Lindsay, "The party voters have decided otherwise and, as head of the Republican party in the state, I have always respected the decision of the majority in Republican primaries There you have it.

Rockefeller is head of the New York GOP and he "respects" the decision of the majority in Republican primaries. Yet he refuses to campaign for the majority's choice. Were I a New York Republican, I would suspect his motives in rejecting any campaign help to Marchi and I would think at least thrice about voting for Rockefeller for the GOP gubernatorial nomination next year. As a party regular, I would wonder about a party head who refuses to come to the aid of the party. Probably the answer to Rockefeller's posture is that, along with the New York liberal Establishment, he agonizes over the thought that Marchi only seems to be the choice of the GOP majority.

Led by the hand-wringing New York Times, this block keeps insisting, in effect, that the Republicans of Fun City really prefer Lindsay, and that, anyway, the Democrats don't want Marchi. To be sure, Marchi defeated Lindsay in the GOP primary. But hold, say the Times and its cohorts, only one-third of the 600,000 registered Republicans voted. In their convoluted thinking, Marchi therefore is a minority candidate. But hold, yourselves, fellows.

Before the voting, Lindsay and all his aides were pray- JjS I David Lawrence Behind the News Urban Congressmen Revolting Against Farm Subsidy Bills President Truman found it was necessary to have wage and price controls to curb inflation during the Korean war. They were necessary in the tv world wars. They may be the only thing that will curb inflation during the Vietnam war. No one wants wage and price controls, but sometimes we have to take our medicine to cure the disease whether we like it or not. Individual Responsibility During the past week three collisions have occured on the ill-fated Long Island Railroad.

Two of them were caused by throwing the wrong switch; the other resulted from the failure to set a signal against an oncoming train. Blame for these mishaps must be jointly shared by management and the union representing operating personnel. Management has been remiss in upgrading the safety of its passenger service for the obvious reason that it would like to withdraw from the passenger business and retain only the lucrative freight traffic. Union leaders are to blame for discouraging attempts to discipline their members when they are found to have been the of rail accidents. Until responsibility is impressed upon the appropriate representative of management and penalties are meted out to the employe responsible for throwing the wrong switch or failing to set a warning signal against oncoming traffic, these accidents will continue and increase in number.

There is no collective guilt for such mishaps. Somewhere along the chain of operations some individual failed to do his duty and upon him rests the blame for the persons injured in the collisions. And only as individuals are held to account will they be put on guard against accidents. Unless the man who throws the wrong switch is held to account there is no lasting good served by bringing damage suits against the corporation that owns the railroad. Payment of damages goes to the alleviation of the injury sustained by a passenger but it won't make the derelict towerman mend his ways.

Only by holding him to individual accountability can this be brought about. The World Today Full-Time Lawmakers A hearing last week on the advisability of a one-house, full-time legislature in New Jersey supplied abundant evidence of the need for the change. Assemblyman Robert N. Wilentz presented irrefutable arguments to support the proposal and no tenable objections were offered. But as Mr.

Wilentz observed, "the setting of the hearing proves my point more than anything else." And indeed it did. Of the nine members of the Assembly's state government committee, only the chairman, Assemblyman Walter S. Smith, was present. And two legislators who support the change failed to testify, although they submitted statements. Here, in a one-act scene, is proof that the present two-house, part-time legislature is what Mr.

Wilentz accurately calls "institutionalized petence." For the system under which the legislature operates is basic in the government of the state. In a sense it transcends all other issues because it determines whether they can be intelligently resolved. Yet at a public hearing on this vital question almost the entire legislature was conspicuous by its absence. All but two or three of the 120 members were too busy in personal pursuits ranging from practicing law to playing golf to participate. And that is why the legislature bumbles through its work, encumbering the state with bad laws, compromising important matters, and tossing responsibility about from one house to another until no one can pinpoint it.

Under the present system the great majority of legislators devote so little time to the state's service that they acquire most of their information from lobbyists and pressure groups. They ignore pressing matters while they become excited over such silly issues as whether barbers should be required to have had two years of high school. We have yet to equate how the ability to read Virgil in the original or solve a problem in trigonometry leads to tonsorial perfection. Most men visit a barber shop to have a haircut or a shave, not to discuss medieval history. All they ask is that the barber wield the scissors or the razor stylishly and safely.

But when a significant issue arises one house is likely to pass bad legislation to appease pressure groups while relying on the other house to kill it. Bills are passed without many who vote for them acquainted with their contents with the governor's veto the only protection of the public interest. There are many professionals in the legislature, but they devote their aptitude to their personal pursuits and operate as amateur lawmakers. And the results of their feeble efforts so testify. We hold no legislator or group responsible for this fiasco.

It is built into the present two-house, part-time system. And the state will enjoy good government only when, the system is changed and a full-time, unicameral legislature makes the state's business its business. 'National Commitment Action By Senate Is Not Constructive It will be recalled that, when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, President Truman ordered American forces to go to the aid of South Korea. Almost simultaneously, the United Nations took upon itself the task of forming a collective military force from various countries, including the United States, to thwart the invaders. Action was taken promptly by Truman because of a belief that, under the United Nations charter, there is an obligation for members to come immediately to the assistance of countries which are the victims of aggression.

Even when American troops were made part of the United Nations command, Truman did not ask for any resolution of approval from Congress. Silence by Congress was regarded as acquiescence. National commitments sometimes begin with informal conversations between diplomats of foreign countries and American ambassadors. It would be difficult to carry on effective negotiations with foreign secretaries or representatives of foreign governments if the spokesmen or the United States had to get permission from Congress before they could make proposals to other governments on ways and means of preserving peace in the world. a Again and again secret information becomes available to our own government through intelligence sources, and the executive branch finds it necessary to prepare for contingencies and to act in emergencies in view of the confidential data it has received.

Usually the President or the secretary of state confers privately on such matters with the Foreign Relations committees of both houses if such consultation is deemed necessary by the chief executive. The resolution just adopted by the Senate has been opposed by both President Nixon and Secretary of State Rogers as likely to interfere with the normal processes of diplomacy. Despite the fact that the new resolution Is not binding upon the executive branch but advisory, and merely expresses "the sense of the Senate," it is not constructive. It could do more harm than good in the conduct of our relations with other countries, which has always been considered the prerogative of the president of th United States. WASHINGTON What is a "national commitment" by the United States in the conduct of foreign policy? The Senate, by a vote of 70 to 16, passed a resolution trying to define the term.

But only a few days before on television, Sen. J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and one of the authors of the resolution, voiced approval of President Nixon's expressed "hope" that all American combat troops would be withdrawn from Vietnam by the end of 1970. Fulbright, in referring to Nixon's remark, said: "I think it is a commitment." The resolution, on the other hand, insists that a "national commitment" results only from "affirmative action taken by the legislative and executive branches of the United States government by means of a treaty, statute, or concurrent resolution of both houses of Congress specifically providing for such commitment." If it is the purpose of the senators who backed the resolution to insist that certain processes be followed before American military forces are used in foreign countries, then the blame must be placed upon Congress and not the President for any such "commitments" made in the last several years. The Senate, for example, by a vote of 82 to 1, ratified on Feb.

1, 1955, a pact known as the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty. It was under the commitments specifically made in this document that Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon have acted in maintaining our military forces in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. If there are any doubts as to whether a president has authority as commander-in-chief to utilize American troops in a particu-lar instance, Congress can always express itself by adopting a resolution. Indeed, the so-called "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution which was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress in August 1964, when the Vietnam conflict began to expand is the real basis for the President's authority today to continue to help South Vietnam repel aggression. Congress has the right, under the 1964 resolution, to terminate it at any time by a concurrent resolution, and call for a withdrawal of all troops.

vote in the House to impose a $20,000 ceiling on payments to individual farmers. Urban members, mostly Democrats, aligned themselves with a majority of Republicans to tack the subsidy limitation on to an agriculture appropriations bill. A similar measure had been passed by the House in 1968 as part of a one-year extension of the omnibus farm program, but was later dropped by a House-Senate conference committee. Urban Democrats say farm programs take tax dollars from city residents to subsidize large farm operations. Lists of 1968 recipients of subsidy payments of $25,000 or above showed large payments were going to banks, private companies, and large corporate farms, among others.

Rep. Paul Findley, who has sponsored a subsidy limitation plan since 1965, charged on the House floor that the top 15 per cent of the farmers, with sales in excess of $20,000 per year, received almost one-half of the government payments each year. Such Republicans as Findley have another reason for opposing the subsidy programs: they want to see an end to all government price support and production control programs in agriculture. A free and competitive market, they say, where supply and demand would determine market price would earn the farmer a better income. The coalition of convenience between the urban Democrats and the Republicans spells deep trouble for farm programs in 1969.

The subsidy limitation plan passed the House by a 70-vote margin in 1968. The margin had widened to 83 votes in 1969 and it might have been even greater if the Republican leadership and several other Republican members who voted for limitations in 1968 had not felt it necessary to honor the administration's plea for more time to develop new farm legislation. Twenty-three northern Democrats who had opposed subsidy limitations in 1968 voted for the plan on May 27. All members from districts in New York City, Chicago, Detroit, and Philadel- By BARBARA COLEMAN Congressional Quarterly WASHINGTON -City representatives in Congress may never have plowed a furrow on a farm, but they will have a great deal to say this year about the direction of farm policy. Urban House members are staging a revolt against the continuation of major farm subsidy programs which are intended to limit production and stabilize farm income.

Million dollar subsidies are helping "fat cat" farmers to get fatter, members charge, and doing little for the small farmer. At the same time, spending for urban programs is held to a minimum or cut back, they say. Before reapportionment increased the number of urban seats in the House, the rural bloc could control farm policy. Now they need urban votes to continue farm programs. But urban members in increasing numbers are complaining about $6-billion-plus budgets for the Department of Agriculture.

They ask why spending for farm programs continues to increase when the number of farmers keeps declining, production continues to rise, and farm income is still low compared to the income earned bv other workers in the society. At the heart of the controversy are the subsidy programs for cotton, wheat, and feed grains. In a complex system, the government pays farmers to plant within a certain maximum acreage or to withhold acreage from production entirely. In several programs, the government also agrees to give the farmer a loan for his crop if he cannot obtain an adequate market price. By thus holding back crops from the market, the government hopes the market price will rise.

If commodity prices rise and the farmer wishes to sell his crop, he can take it back from the government and repay the loan from the money he realizes in the sale. If the market price remains low, he can forfeit his crop to the government which then stores it, distributes it free to the poor through one of the government food programs, or sells it abroad. The latest demonstration of urban displeasure with the subsidy program was a May 27 By RICHARD SPONG Most of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1968 go into effect tomorrow. phia voted for a subsidy ceiling. One member who switched from opposition in 1968 to support for limitations in 1969 was Richard Boiling, who said he would vote in the future against any federal subsidy that came his way that did not deal with urban problems.

During the 1968 debate on subsidy limitations, Rep. Ray J. Madden, who represents the city of Gary, spoke bitterly of votes by rural members who oppose "relatively small appropriations for Head Start and manpower training programs for our urban areas." The same rural members, Madden charged, "enthusiastically support the $3.5 billion boondoggle, 85 per cent of which will be syphoned into the profit receipts of corporate and wealthy farm operators throughout the nation." The "boondoggle" in Madden's opinion was the subsidy program. Rural members have not been unaware of the need for urban support to pass farm legislation. Only 31 representatives in the House in the 91st Congress are from districts where 25 per cent or more of the residents live on farms, according to a study by the American Farm Bureau.

A total of 83 members represent districts with 15 per cent or more farm population. Urban support for passage of the Food and Agriculture Act in 1965 was obtained after rural members helped pass the repeal of Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. Section 14(b) permitted states to enact "right-to-work" laws. A Senate filibuster subsequently defeated the repealer. Today in History On this date in 1946, the third atomic bomb was dropped in a test over ships anchored at Bikini in the Marshall Islands.

On This Date: 1777 British forces in the Revolutionary War evacuated New Jersey and crossed to Sta-ten Island. 1834 The U.S. Congress established the Indian Territory. 1859 Some 5,000 persons watched a French acrobat, Emile Blondin, cross Niagara Falls on a tightrope. 1941 In World War II, German troops captured the Russian city of Minsk.

1950 President Harry S. Truman announced he had ordered U.S. troops stationed in Japan to Korea to assist in the war against North Korean invaders. I960 Belgium proclaimed its African colony of The Congo an independent republic. Ten years ago 16 persons were killed on Okinawa when a U.S.

jet fighter crashed into a village. The pilot safely ejected himself from the burning plane. Five years ago The last United Nations soldiers left The Congo on the fourth anniversary of independence. One year ago French President Charles de Gaulle's government crushed its opposition and won an overwhelming majority in France's National Assembly. Today's Birthdays: East German Communist boss Walter Ulbricht is 76.

Actress Susan Hayward is 50. Thought for Today: "When a thing is done, it's done. Don't look back. Look forward to your next objective." Gen. George C.

Marshall. U.S. Pay Raise LAUGHS FROM EUROPE The nomenclature is a trifle complicated. The title of the law is the Consumer Protection Act of 1968. Part of it is known as the Truth-in-Lending Act.

The rules for its enforcement laid down by the Federal Reserve Board Feb. 9 are embodied in a document called Regulation Z. The purpose of the new law is to assure that consumer borrowers and that includes just about all of us be given full information to enable them to shop effectively for credit. If properly understood, its heaviest impact will be on the ghetto, where the cost of credit historically has been high often outrageously so and the buyers are unsophisticated. The President's Commission on Civil Disorders in its report of Feb.

29, 1968, found that deceptive sales and credit practices were among the 12 bitterest grievances in American ghettos. After July 1 a good many shady sales and credit gimmicks will be either forsworn or outmoded. The new law is one of the toughest and most far-reaching consumer bills adopted by Congress in many years. It will affect practically all credit or loan dealings the consumer enters into with banks, savings and loan associations, department stores, credit card companies, credit unions, automobile dealers, finance companies, home mortgage brokers, and even plumbers and electricians. Truth-in-Lending actually is incorporated in Title I of the act.

It is essentially a labeling law. Consumer Reports observes: "It provides for meaningful labeling of most kinds of installment debt, including consumer credit." Lenders must provide their customers with full, honest, and most importantly comparable information about the cost of the credit they are buying. For example, when a bank offers a 5 per cent discount rate on automboile loans, the true annual rat on paymenls spread over three years is really 11 per cent. When a department store charges a charge on a revolving charge account of 1 Vi per cent a month it comes to 111 per cent a year at the true annual rale. A consumer loan from a personal finance company may have as much as 48 per cent tacked on as a credit charge How effective this part of the act will be depends on how well it is publicized.

Organizations ranging from the American Bankers Association to the AFL-CK) have been spreading interpretations. The Federal Trade Commission has sent out 750,000 copies of the new law to lenders. Signs Point to Sen. Kennedy's Avoiding '72 Presidential Race ble to speculate with great confidence of hitting the target correctly. First, the youngest Kennedy is quite shrewd enough to see that all too many of the liberal slogans and shibboleths, plans and prescriptions of the last 10 years have been distinctly counterproductive.

Given his constituency, he cannot say this. But being a realist as he is he must be far from unwilling to have President Nixon affect a general clearance before the time comes for a new start. Realism bulks large, in fact, in "the spirit of 76." a a a Second, there is the senator's rather obvious dissent from the common run of political calculations in this henhouse of a city. The cackle of the henhouse is that Vietnam is more important than anything else. The Los Angeles and Minneapolis elections and the New York primary say, instead, that the middling voters are far more worried about black militants and student extremists than about the war.

Third, there are small signs that suggest a certain disenchantment with the louder voices of American liberalism's existing establishment. Sen. Robert Kennedy sometimes allowed these people to infest him to the point of making one thing of Edward Lear's limerick: There was an old man with a beard, Who said, "It is just as I feared! Two owls and a hen. Four larks and a wren Have all built their nests in my beard." But the noninfestation of Edward Kennedy is almost as conspicuous, at the moment, as the infestation of his tragically lost brother occasionally became in the old days. Speaking very seriously, moreover, any practical person who cares much for the things that President John Kennedy and Sen.

Robert Kennedy cared for can see that Sen. Edward Kennedy will have a major task to perform in 1976. Joseph Alsop WASHINGTON The signs are daily growing stronger that, contrary to the almost universal expectation. Sen. Edward Kennedy is not aiming to run for the presidency in 1972.

"The spirit of 76" is the watchword, quite clearly. There are two reasons for this. Very naturally, to begin with, the young senator still needs time to recover the needed zest for the rough and tumble of political combat. More importantly, however, it is evident that Sen. Kennedy is increasingly persuaded, with every day that passes, that 1972 is going to be a rotten time to run.

This is the real reason for the warnings, Issuing from the senator's office in a scarcely veiled manner, that President Nixon has turned out to be an unexpectedly tough political customer; that the trends favor the President; that the Democrats are in for some painfully rough going in the years immediately ahead. There can be no doubt at all that these warnings are the real thing, directly reflecting the senator's own thoughts. One might suspect the kind of tactical maneuver that is common with intending candidates. But that suspicion has to be discarded simply because the senator's actions are in accord with his words. a As previously pointed out in this space, Kennedy has been shrewdly conducting a quiet withdrawal from the limelight, which shone upon him with such a fearsome glare only a few months ago.

Even on the Vietnamese war, he said his say very quietly and coolly in his speech at Fordham University. And he can now be expected to let others do the talking which, of course, they will, at the top of their voices. What is really interesting, meanwhile, is to know the calculations that have led Kennedy to adopt a course so utterly different from the one generally predicted for him. Here one is in the realm of speculation, yet it is possl- Nearly 5 million federal workers and military personnel almost all the federal establishment not subject to presidential appointment will share in a $3.3 billion raise July 1 ordered by President Nixon. It is the final step under the 1967 Pay Reform Act, aimed at bringing federal salaries and wages in line with private industry.

The 1.9 million classified employes, foreign service and veterans administration medical personnel will get an average 9.1 per cent raise. The rank and file postal workers in the big clerk-carrier level will receive 4.1 per cent. The President's authority to change pay rates by executive order expires with this increase. Without weighing the pros and cons of this raise, it is fair to ask what the effect will be on inflation. Employes say that Washington landlords, parking lots and food stores raised prices earlier this year in anticipation of the federal pay raise.

Many say that higher rates have been ordered into effect July 1. This, coupled with the surtax and higher local taxes, will wipe out the pay increases for lower and middle grade workers. This anticipated boost is what wc mean by inflation. The, wage and price spiral rose even before the new pay rates came into effect. Inflation took most if not all the increases.

Willi $3.3 billion more to spend, federal workers, like workers everywhere in these strange times, have little or nothing to show for it. Inflation snatched it out of their hands before they got it. FRANCE l-3t "You'd better push off unless you've qlready had measles." 4 1.