Star Tribune from Minneapolis, Minnesota • Page 4

Will New Leaders Break Away From Old? Mt JMmneapoIfe tribune. THE VOICE OF MINNESOTA AND THE UPPER MIDWEST JOHN COWIES, Chairman; JOVCI A. SWAN, Viea-Chairman) JOHN COWIIS, Praiidant and Editar; OTTO A. SIIHA, Eiacutiva Vica-raiidant and Pobliihtrj JOHN W. MOFFETT, and Advartiiint Diractar) HOWARD MITHUN, Vica-reiidant and Sacratary; PHILIP VON HON, Vica-'Praiidantj ROBERT WITTE, nd.nl and lutinau Managar, CLARENCE McCUE, Trtanirar.

PuUiihad avary mamlnf af fha yiar by th Minwiaailli Star ami Tribune Company at 42S artland Minntnptlii, Minn. 55415. Tataanant 372-4141. OTHEI NEWS OFFICBSt 40 National hi Ivilding Wathingtan, D.C. 347-9111 IWA tha TimM, Printing Houit Squara landif.C.4CEN73M IMa Caorl, 36 MaidanntN Id.

Hong Kong J39Jif IOWER HAWTHORNE Exocuriva Editar Established 1867 1EONAR0 INSKIP Editarial Utitr WAUACE AllEN Managing Editar Circulation more than 235,000 Morning, 665,000 Sunday 4 TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1968 VOLUME Cll NUMBER 11 who and what will take their place. The first major elections of the last third of the 20th century are now taking place in the United States, Canada and France. They are all at a critical moment in their histories, where the people under 30, and in some countries, including the United States, the people under 25, are soon to be in the majority. THEY HAVE all been carried backward by the old leaders in the last few years toward nationalism, and even face once more the revival of the isolationist spirit. So we have reached another important fork in the road.

Watching America approach this critical juncture is an exhilarating and sometimes frightening experience. So much depends on the choice and lead we give not only for ourselves and so much By JAMES RESTON New York Times Service WHO WILL be the leaders of the 1970s? The old generation is obviously passing in world politics. President Johnson has withdrawn from the struggle in the United States. De Gaulle in France, Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan, Mao Tse-tung in China, Haile Selassie in Ethiopia, and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam are the last of the 19th century leaders, and all are in trouble with time and the young. They will not go at once.

They are fighting their last battles with a certain grandeur. They are still prominent and even dominant on the a of the troubled political waters, but the deeper tides are sweeping them away. IT MAY NOT be too early, tlitn, to think about seems to depend on accident and caprice that the primary elections in the United States appear almost frivolous. KENNEDY is "the man to beat," we are told for a few weeks, because he won the primaries in Indiana and Nebraska. He is in "deep trouble," we are told later, because he lost to Sen.

McCarthy in Oregon. Never mind that these states are not typical of the rest of the nation: The issue will be decided by California, which gave us Goldwater over Rockefeller in 1964, and is so divided politically in both parties that it cannot even unify itself. Republican party politics seem even less logical. The historians tell us that Rockefeller is going with the trend of the time and Nixon is going against it. The pollsters suggest that Rockefeller would probably win and Nixon would probably Who Will Survive in California? Gaulle wants Pompidou, and the Republicans want Nixon.

The old generation is passing but is trying to impose the middle generation the men of the depression and the Cold War on a young generation that remembers neither and thinks Humphrey, Nixon and Pompidou are almost as outdated as President Johnson and De Gaulle. THIS couid easily take us down the wrong road. The political, economic and social revolutions in the world have moved so fast in the last decade that they may very well have outrun the middle generation. The Cold War goes on, but is being replaced gradually by a new worldwide class war between the rich and the poor nations, and the rich and the poor people within the rich nations. The primary conflict of the 1970s, for which we are now picking leaders, may not be ideological and East-West.

The primary conflict may therefore require new young men, un-contaminated by the agonies of the depression and the Cold War period, but in the United States, we have clearly not made the jump to the new young men of the 1970s. lose in November. Nevertheless, Nixon is moving triumphantly toward the nomination. THIS COULD some awkward results. The leading candidates for the American presidency Humphrey and Nixon are strong with the established and satisfied forces of the nation, and weak with the young, the disillusioned and rebellious poor, and the articulate militants in the universities.

In short, we seem on the point of choosing between two men who are in trouble with the rising generation, the most militant, the most aggrieved, and the most articulate of our people. This is obviously more true of Nixon than of Humphrey, but paradoxically, Humphrey has gained the support of his old conservative enemies, who can help him get the nomination, and in the process has lost the support of many of his old friends in the slums and the universities, whom he needs if he is to govern effectively. IN SHORT, we are moving in world politics from the 19th century men to Cold War men. Mr. Johnson wants Humphrey, De Poor People's March possibility both Kennedy and McCarthy will continue in the race.

In a thoughtful analysis of the post-California period, a New York Times writer notes that there are two imponderables that could change the balance of power at the Chicago convention in a way that the California primary cannot. One would be a breakdown in the Paris peace talks and expansion of the war. The second would be convention fights on a number of issues, fights that could shatter Humphrey's alliance of labor, business, southerners and party organization. Those possible fights the analysis goes are a credentials fight over seating delegates from those southern states where Negroes are not fully integrated into party processes, a fight over a peace plank in the platform and a fight over the vice-presidential nomination (some southerners are seeking nomination of a conservative). Robert Kennedy already is talking of a united Kennedy-McCarthy front to stop Humphrey and to bring a new direction to national policy.

The prospects for such a front will be clearer after today's election. And the nation may soon have an answer to the question of whether both men continue in the race. PRINCIPAL contestants in today's primary election in California are Sen. McCarthy of Minnesota and Sen. Kennedy of New York, and one will receive more votes.

The real winner, though, may be Vice-President Humphrey, for his two opponents could reach a sort of standoff that does little toward heading off Humphrey's drive for delegates via the non-primary route. Unless Kennedy loses to McCarthy or unless Kennedy scores an impressive victory, it seems hazardous to predict that either man would fold his efforts to win the Democratic nomination. After all, the party convention is nearly three months away and events this year have shown the unwisdom of projecting contemporary political trends that far into the future. The Romney fadeout, the McCarthy primary successes, the off -and -on candidacy of Gov. Rockefeller, the withdrawal of President Johnson, the entry of Kennedy and Humphrey all of these attest to the fluidity and unpredictability of this year's politics.

But should Kennedy or McCarthy withdraw after today's election, it seems possible that Humphrey would pick up some votes. Not all McCarthy delegates would shift to Kennedy, or vice-versa. This adds weight to the Another Report on Lisbon Indians Et-aT" tir Vii.r m- -f A.i-.ir-v i i i here in fiscal 1967. A sampling of those cases in the university study showed that more than 80 per cent had received no BIA relocation aid under the regular program. But the employment center has been inadequate, too, in lacking enough staff to help Indian employes stay on the job (only 10 per cent remained at work in one period studied).

Inadequate or not, the center may be shut down soon anyway. The BIA has advised that it will cut off the funds at the end of June and Indian migrants once again will be assisted only through the regular (and insufficient) BIA programs. Meantime, the Upper Midwest American Indian Center, representing another attempt to establish an Indian facility, also may fold soon. An Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) governing board here has threatened to withdraw staffing money because the center directors have refused to seek broad representation and failed to engage in enough community organization to reach the Indians of the inner city. So the outlook is discouraging.

The university report suggests that an effective Indian center, with adequate and stable funding, may be the only way to involve Indians in the solution of their unique problems. We believe that local officials, perhaps through the Urban Coalition, should make a major effort to obtain funding for that kind of a center. The BIA and OEO would be logical sources of money. It will be tragic if another 10 years go by with still no significant response to the poverty and unemployment of the urban Indian. THERE HAS BEEN talk and talk for more than 10 years of the need for an effective center in Minneapolis to aid Indians in making the transition from the reservation to life in the city.

The need is still there, only more so, but the center is not, as was pointed out in the report last week on Indian employment by the University of Minnesota Training Center for Community Programs. Perhaps the most significant part of the report was its strong evidence that Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs are not doing nearly enough to help Indians enter the urban society. An extensive BIA relocation program offers financial aid, urban orientation, job referral and vocational training. But the university study found that the program is not reaching large numbers of Indians coming to the Twin Cities. There probably are several reasons for thisIndian distrust of the government, shortage of money, red tape, lack of follow-up to see how the Indian makes out on a job, the continuing movement of Indians back and forth between the cities and the reservations, and the fact the BIA has only two out-state offices to take applications.

An on-again, off-again American Indian Employment Center was reopened in Minneapolis in late 1966 to fill the gap, becoming the first center of its kind in the country to receive BIA funding. That center handled more than 1,200 applicants by the end of last year, compared with only 296 cases for the BIA employment office rv it THE MIWNfAPOUf. Little for Reagan in California Letters to the Tribune Cosgrove No Racist To the Editor: Recently the Minneapolis newspapers have seen fit to devote some of their prime space to what The Tribune has called "the Charles Maddox case." Now Maddox and the black athletes have listed their demands, one of which appears to have grown from this case. Most of these demands would seem to merit serious school board consideration. But the athletes' first demand, that Washburn teacher-coach James Cosgrove be removed from his position, is totally unjustifiable and nothing more than ludicrous.

In the Washburn halls, Maddox was seen wearing his African robe in the company of two other gentlemen wearing suits, all quite dignified. Upon seeing the men at Washburn, my reaction was exactly that of coach Cosgrove: Washburn had some foreign visitors. Cosgrove's casual comment at the coaches' meeting about having seen Maddox in an African robe at Washburn was hardly in the nature of a racist remark. The Tribune's (May 25) editorial would have one believe such African robes are becoming commonplace on the American scene. Perhaps this is true in some places, but not at Washburn.

Had a male student of Scottish ancestry worn a kilt to school, or had I decided on the ornate garb of my Norwegian ancestors, I'm quite certain some remarks would have found their way into a number of faculty conversations. For Maddox and The Tribune to interpret Cosgrove's remark as racist-motivated or responsible for Maddox's being awarded only an honorable mention at first is indeed presumptuous. Any white person who refuses to grasp minority sensitivity and the need for a great effort from all whites in present race relations is either a fool, a bigot or hopelessly ignorant. Cosgrove is certainly none of these. One can and should appreciate an occasional over-reaction on the part of the Negro community.

But so should reason also be a part of the Negro leader's makeup. In demanding the firing of Cosgrove from his job, Maddox and his fellow black athletes are not using reason and in fact are doing a disservice to the rest of their demands, which do seem reasonable. In turn, The Tribune has done the whole community a disservice and James Cosgrove a great injustice by helping blow this incident far out of proportion. Michael J. Dills, teacher, Washburn High School, Minneapolis.

Latin Very Much Alive To the Editor: Is Latin dead? Impossible! At Susan B. Anthony Junior High we now have Latin students in seventh and ninth grades, and next year there will be a continuous three-year course. Our school feeds into Washburn and Southwest High, where there are continuing classes and increased enrollment, too. Our school will be a demonstration center next year for experienced teachers who will be developing and using new materials and techniques in the teaching of Latin. "De mortuis, nil nisi bonum." (About the "dead," nothing but good can be said).

Latin is a "fixed" language, very specific and still very prolific. We can see so much of what we have learned in Latin used in our other classes. If we were to strike Latin from our civics, geography, science, or math classes or from our English classes what a small vocabulary we would have! It's a pleasurable feeling to know where words came from. We do enjoy this ancient language and will go on to read Caesar, Vergil, Cicero. We won't have to trust the words of some translator, or study mythology vicariously in an English literature coure.

A committee of ninth grade Latin students, taught by John Reiter, Susan B. Anthony Junior High School, Minneapolis. What Power for Wallace? To the Editor. The editorial (May 20) on the threat of George Wallace calls for some clarification. At what point would Wallace have the power to throw his votes to another candidate? When the votes have been cast, is there an intermediate step before the decision is handed to the House of Representatives should there be a majority for no candidate? Your editorial makes it appear that such is the case.

That it would be a very serious matter to have the election go to the House is true, and it is good that the public is informed of this. However, in such a serious election as the forthcoming one, it would seem to be far better for people to be considering who would be the best possible president rather than spending so much time speculating on who is going to win, as if it were a horse race with betting involved. Newsmen seem to take delight in forecasting the outcome, and it becomes a game. The few primaries carry weight out of proportion to the number of people they represent because the results are pictured as being so portentous and as carrying so much influence on the voters. We need to think more seriously about who could do the job best, and less about the campaign as a feat in political dexterity.

There are good indications that many voters want 'something more substantial than prognostications. Mrs. Franz GuliI, Dassel, Minn. Editor's Note: Although the presidential election this year will be held on Nov. 5, the electoral votes are not cast until Dec.

16, nearly seven weeks later. Should the Nov. 5 election show that neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate would receive the required majority of electoral votes, Wallace would have those seven weeks to bargain wiih the two major candidates for the support of those electoral votes committed to him. The electoral votes will not be counted until Jan. 6 in a joint session of the Senate and House.

Should neither major candidate then have a majority, the election would be decided in the Bouse of Representatives, with each of the 50 stats delegations having a single vote. a fragile notion. Reagan is more vehement in private than in public in saying he would never consent to such an alliance. He chafed at Rockefeller's insistence on meeting him in New Orleans. ROCKEFELLER'S zeal on this occasion puzzled admirers who suspect that the New York governor can win the national election on his own and concur with the contention of the Ripon Society that, if Reagan is unqualified to be president, he is also unqualified to be vice president.

But Rockefeller is more eager for Reagan's delegates than for Reagan. They are mostly businessmen and most of them will instinctively be drawn to Nixon after the governor frees them. Rockefeller needs bait and the best available is the inducement to put their own man within a heartbeat of the presidency. by the April riots, the campus turbulence, and the march of the poor. The mood within the Republican party should veer toward the right and toward Reagan.

OREGON furnished the most discouraging proof to date that this is not happening. The appeal of Reagan's simplified solutions is circumscribed by suspicion that he is not profound enough for the problems. The enthusiasm for another conservative hayride is inhibited by memories of 1964. The issue of what will happen to California's 84 delegates in Miami Beach has become more interesting than what will happen to Reagan. They were primarily chosen for their loyalty to Reagan and they will be legally bound to him for the first ballot.

This is where the so-called "dream ticket" of Rockefeller and Reagan becomes a factor. It is in fact Debate Didn't Shed Much Light By CHARLES BARTLETT Publishers-Hall Syndicate Sacramento. THE OREGON primary has left Gov. Ronald Reagan looking less than ever like a potential Lochinvar, even in the restricted circle of those who take seriously his chances of carrying off the prize. The California primary is not apt to revive his national luster.

The handsome governor is caught in his own state between the persisting skepticism of those who don't believe he's smart enough to be governor and the single-mindedness of supporters who hold him to his promise to serve out his term. NO POLL at any point has shown that more than 11 per cent of California's voters want Reagan to be president. Several polls have found that a majority of the state's Republicans would prefer to send unpledged delegates to the convention. However, Reagan's slate is the only one listed on the Republican ballot and the blank beneath his name has been carefully inked out to discourage write-ins. Californians have been consistent in their objections to governors who use the state as a base to run for president and Reagan has begun to look to some who are close to him like an incumbent who aspires to be re-elected in 1970.

His in-state standing will suffer if he becomes an acknowledged candi date, so no one expects him to reach toward Miami Beach with an overt hand in the weeks ahead. Reagan's should be facilitated, according to calculations within his camp, by the pattern of recent events. Middle-class America is presumably being moved into a stemet frame of mind By DAVID LAWRENCE Publishers-Hall Syndicate Washington. THE Kennedy McCarthy "debate" on television was a lost opportunity to tell the American voters something they could really understand about the main, issues that are troubling the nation today. Instead of simplifying the subjects discussed, the two senators indulged in words like "coalition government" and "National Liberation Front" or "escalation" and "de escalation," all of which have meaning to those who are well informed about the Vietnam controversy but not to the vast majority who listened Saturday night INDEED, it may be questioned whether the format used for the "debate" is as useful as a speech by each man on a single subject could be.

There were so many different phases of national issues argued about that no topic was treated with any thoroughness or clarity by either of the two senators. Even more unfortunate was the indulgence in personalities. Sen. McCarthy said that, if elected president, he would fire J. Edgar Hoover, director of the moderator's request for a two-minute statement from each senator telling why he felt qualified to be president.

At least the biographical material was pertinent, though it is hard to figure out why 10 years in the House and 10 years in the Senate makes the Minnesota senator better qualified than Vice-President Humphrey or former Vice-President Nixon, who have concentrated on national and international questions both at the White House and in Congress. As for Kennedy, he declared that his experience on the National Security Council and as attorney general gives him a background that would be helpful in the presidency. WHAT voters want to know, however, is just what policies each candidate, if successful, is likely to pursue. It was not made clear how either McCarthy or Kennedy would deal with the problem of riots or crime or "civil disobedience." Nor was it explained by either senator why they feel the United States has a "commitment" to help Israel militarily in the Middle East against aggression while the people of South Vietnam are not entitled to be a beneficiary of America's armed assistance FBI, and also Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Sen.

Kennedy was more tactful: He said he didn't want to engage in personalities and that naturally a new president would pick men who agreed with his own views. MCCARTHY criticized Rusk for declining for a long time to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kennedy, who was attorney general during his brother's administration, suggested that at any moment President Johnson could have given his secretary of state permission or instructions to appear before the Senate committee. ON THE WHOLE, the New York senator seemed to be more knowledgeable about governmental operations than the Minnesota senator, and gave the impression that he had had more experience in the decision-making processes of the executive branch of of government. About the most interesting part of the broadcast was the reply made to the Gauge of Riches A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.

Henry David Thoreau. "Why, Mr. Reagan and I have much in common hair, eyes, nose.