The Central New Jersey Home News from New Brunswick, New Jersey • 4

omment-r: Matter of Fact Quang Tri And After A Blow to Right To Be Informed Editorials By JOSEPH AISOP 4 grs Opinion Beef Prices Won Come Down The Supreme Court's ruling that journalists have no First Amendment right to refuse to tell grand juries the names of confidential sources and information given to them in confidence is, in the words of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, "a direct blow at the right of the people to be fully informed without hindrance by government." Although the majority in the 5 to 4 decision noted that First Amendment rights would come into play under such circumstances as a bad faith attempt by a prosecutor to harass a reporter or to disrupt his relationship with his news sources, the court placed the burden of proof on the reporter. Lower courts had held that when a newsman is subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and reveal confidences he may first require the government to show he probably has relevant information about a crime, that the government cannot obtain the information in any other way and that there is a compelling and overriding need for it. Now, a reporter would be excused from disclosing confidences if he can prove his testimony has only a "remote and tenuous relationship" to the investigation or if he can prove law enforcement officials have no "legitimate need" 'for it. The court's demanding view of the proofs a reporter must have to justify First Amendment protection makes easy any attempt by a prosecutor to annex the journalistic profession as an investigative arm of government, to impair the performance and to undermine the historic independence of the press. In light of this disturbing opinion, it is imperative that Congress act to pass laws which will give reporters the protection they need to insure the people's right to know.

Without such protection, the dissemination of ideas and information often unpopular ideas or information critical of those in power will be seriously impeded and the success of intelligent and informed self-government will be threatened. As Justice Douglas noted in his strong dissent from the court's ruling, "The press has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme not to enable it to make money, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but to bring fulfillment to the public's right to know. The right to know is crucial to the governing powers of the is essential to informed WASI1LGT0N-In the -fighting fui Quan- Tri the Hanoi leaders appear to be losing the unique provincial capital they have gained by cruel efforts and fearful expenditures of men. Unless the South Vietnamese later have untoward bad luck, in short, the great North Vietnamese offensive of 1972 must now be seen as a vast and unqualified disaster. The dimensions of this disaster have been largely concealed from the American public for two rather simple reasons.

To begin with, there are too many people in Saigon who have too often predicted disaster for the South Vietnamese government. Naturally, this makes it unpalatable to report disaster for the enemy. More importantly, the American public has been justifiably absorbed in the fascinating spectado of the Democratic Party tearing itself to bits on nationwide televi-sion. Yet even in terms of our own polities, the battle at Quang Tri can easily prove to be far more important, in the long run, than the battles for the California and Illinois delegations to the Democratic convention. Even Bet The truth is that President Nixon now has about an even chance of being able to claim that he has ended the war on reasonable terms before Election Day.

The fall of Quang Tri improves the odds in Nixon's favor, at least to the point of the bet being even. One must begin by asking, of course, just what the bet is really about. It would be idiotic, for example to bet that First Party Secretary Le Duan and the other hard liners in Hanoi will suiter a change of heart. At this moment, these men must instead be arguing desperately for hanging on at all costs, in the hope that Sen. George McGovern will somehow be elected, and will then come "begging" to Hanoi, as he has publicly promised to do.

Instead, it is now an even but that the disaster of the great offensive will cause a major change in the balance between the leadership groups in Hanoi. If that happens, the main losers are bound to be Le Duan and the other hard liners. And if the hard liners lose their former grip on policy, in turn, the President may easily attain his long-sought goal. This kind of development must now be regarded as entirely possible, for three quite different sets of reasons. First comes the President's brilliant success in separating Hanoi from Peking and Moscow in all the ways that matter.

Moscow and Peking can no longer "bring pressure" on Hanoi, as President Johnson used to hope. President Nixon's blockade and bombing are bringing more pressure than either of the big brothers could bring on their own. But both Peking and Moscow are also warning Hanoi that President Nixon is pretty certain to be re-elected, and that he will be a lot rougher customer to deal with once the election is over. "Do business now, while you can," is the advice being offered. That would be quite divisive enough, in and of itself.

It must be even more divisive for Hanoi to have to watch the once tough North Vietnamese units throwing away their weapons and running like rabbits, when serious South Vietnamese pressure is applied. That has happened quite often on the approaches to Quang Tri. One of the units involved has also been Hanoi's last reserve division, the 325th. That sort of thing never exerts a unifying influence in any government, especially when it also means that the lives of many tens of thousands of men have been spent to no good purpose. But third and" finally, there Is the simple fact that the Hanoi leadership has never been i By JOHN WASHINGTON-Two weeks of buffing and puffing at the White House about beef supplies and food price controls have left U.S.

consumers just about where they were before it all started. Meat prices are not down, and are not going to come down because of last week's actions on beef imports. Applying the same rules on supermarket margins to unprocessed foods, that have been in effect for meats while 1972 retail prices hit record levels, will not prevent prices for fruits and vegetables from rising sharply as supplies become short this summer or fall. The exchange that began 10 clays ago between the Cost of Living Council and the Price Commission had all the earmarks of a careful orchestration to cover up the most limited government action. Even as the President talked to reporters of his concern over meat prices and as trial balloons went out to the cattle states about suspending all beef import controls for the rest of the year, government experts were admitting that such an action would have little effect on meat supplies and prices this year.

Nearly every consumer in the world wants more beef and poultry as his income rises, and buyers from all countries are bidding for the world's scarce supplies. The U.S. is no longer the most attractive market for cattle growers in Australia, New Zealand and Ireland. They can now sell much of their beef in Europe and Japan at premiums over U.S. prices.

Our beef import law, passed nearly 10 years ago when the U.S. was by far the highest-priced market, is not the import barrier it then was. Why The why the administration rolled out the President, Secretary of the Treasury George Shultz and Cost of Living Council Chairman Donald Rumsfeld to try to pump up more meat imports. Why are Labor Secretary James Hodgson and Herb Stein of the Council of Economic Advisers being pushed into the act to try to jawbone a little price inflation out of meat margins or a little more beef into U.S. supermarkets before the election? The answer is that, for meat and especially for beef, there is not much else to do, and apparently something must be done to impress if not to help consumers.

Beef supplies are inflexible. Nine months gestation, 18 months growing up on the farm or ranch, and five months in the feedlot represent the average life cycle of a beefsteak. Not even the White House can speed it up. Unfortunately, the administration has addressed itself, to meat imports at least six months too late to have much effect this year. And only if the President is willing to suspend the 1973 beef import quota soon, so that exporting countries can gear up later this year for a bigger U.S.

market next year, can we expect substantially SCHNITTKER larger imports in 1973, when domestic supplies will again be short. The fact is that U.S. cattle numbers have been expanding too slowly to keep up with consumer demand. The Western range has been fully stocked for years. Cat-- tie numbers have expanded in the South on land formerly producing cotton or other cultivated crops.

In the plains and mountains, expansion of herds on fixed pastureland areas has been helped by the increasing movement of young cattle into giant feedlots for fattening. But there is no place else to turn in 1972. Today, nearly every young beef animal marketed comes from a fattening pen. Beef production cannot be increased measurably in any period short of two or three years. Worse still, if basic cow herds are to be expanded in 1972 and 1973 to insure larger beef supplies at lower prices in 1974 and 1975, the short-run effect will be even higher prices.

Some of next year's potential beef supplies will have to be kept on ranches and farms this year, to drop the calves that would expand beef supplies late in 1974 and 1975. Every heifer that goes into a breeding herd this year reduces next year's beef supplies and raises prices. The trade-off is direct and simple. There is another factor that will force an even greater delay. Major farm policy changes will be required before a sustained expansion of the U.S.

beef herd can be undertaken. Some of the 55 million acres of land now diverted from crops each year, principally in the belt and Great Plains, will have to be turned to beef production. To expand cow herds sharply on existing ranges would seriously deplete them and would increase the risk of wind and water erosion. More Land for Beef Organized cattlemen have always been able to amend the farm laws to prevent extensive grazing of land diverted from grains under federal programs, and they had a fairly good case in the 1960s. Now, the evidence, is overwhelming that we need more land to produce more beef.

Farmers diverting land from corn and wheat should be encouraged to turn it to beef production when the farm laws come up for revision in will help by 1974. Fruits and vegetables will now be subject to the same rules that governed meat prices during the past six months, and they will scarcely be affected by the new acreage decisions and by weather. If supplies are short, prices will jump. Peaches and cherries, already hurt by late spring freezes in several states, will probably be scarce, with the same result. Consumers are not likely to be much impressed by the results of the latest Washington crisis on food prices.

John Schniftkcr Is a Washington consultant and former Undersecretary of Agriculture. Airport Tax Real Nuisance tered the equation. On this, the record is quite Bitter Disputes In 1965, there was a fitter internal "dispute about whether to answer the American intervention by pouring more North Vietnamese divisions into South Vietnam, or whether to go back to classical guerrilla war. In 1967, there was a second bitter internal dispute about whether to make the enormous sacrifices demanded by the Tet offensive. In 1971, there was a third dispute, on the same pattern, about the preparations for the present offensive.

Each time, Le Duan and the hard liners won the argument. But each time, subsequent experience proved that Le Duan and the hard liners were tragically wrong. Af'er Tet, to be sure, Le Duan had a kind of fig leaf to cover his folly. He could boast and did boast-that Tet had knocked President Johnson out of the box, and had also ended the bombing. Now, however, the new offensive has started the bombing again, has blockaded the ports, and has produced an even greater disaster than Tet.

You can see why the hard liners may have some hard arguing to do. Letters to the Editor The swift emergence of taxes on air passengers, which follows a Supreme Court decision in April upholding use and service charges at airports in New Hampshire and Indiana, is a nuisance if there ever was one. Five airports joined the taxing parade over the holiday weekend. The big hassle, accompanied by massive delays, involved Philadelphia. There what is euphemistically called the City of Brotherly Love is imposing a $2 charge for every airline passenger arriving at the airport, and the same charge for every passenger taking a flight out of Philadelphia.

Many passengers are refusing to pay the tax. Those who refuse are required to fill out a form and sign their name. Long lines of passengers awaiting embarkation have developed. And the airlines say they have to transport passengers who have paid the posted fare, whether or not they pay the city tax. The city, in turn, is threatening to fine the airlines heavily for failing to collect the tax.

If Philadelphia gets away with this, all major (and minor for that matter) cities are likely to think they have found a pot of gold in this new form of municipal revenue. So you'll pay every time you get on an airplane and every time you get off. But have the cities forgotten about bus stations? How about a municipal tax for departing and arriving bus passengers? Then there are the rails. Why, should not Metuchen and New Brunswick add to the monies in their municipal coffers by placing a tax on each arrival and each departure? Of course, there are differences between airports and the other points of departure but the basic principle is the same. And, of course, the airport tax is no real innovation.

Some European airports have been doing it for years. But that doesn't make it right. ployment to many. Slums would tend to be eradicated. With greater employment, less welfare would be needed, and the politicians would have less of an excuse to levy an income tax.

So, if the people really want "tax reform," they will have to deluge their representatives with letters and telephone calls denouncing the proposed state income tax and the attempt of the state to get its hands on the property tax, and the people should insist, instead that the state pass the necessary enabling legislation permitting communities to tax the value of land 100 per cent and to remove all taxes from improvements. O.B. JOHAXNSEN', Roselle No-Fault or No-Gain? To the Editor: The issue of no-fault insurance, although seemingly settled by the legislature, is very unsettling to me. Insurance companies have left few stones unturned in their apparently successful media campaigns, locally and nationally. Trial lawyers appear to oppose no-fault generally, but I suspect their motives are somewhat less than purely consumer oriented.

Little, if any, attention has been paid to the direct cost to the insured, except for a largely unsubstantiated claim that across-the-board reductions will follow under no-fault. The issue is much more real to the driver already insured under no-fault The cost of additional insurance required to permit me to collect damages from my own insurance company when the other driver is "at fault" has been either overlooked, omitted or deliberately hidden by the proponents of no-fault. Clearly, the additional premium may turn no-fault into no-gain. It appears to me that the legislature has relieved itself of the politically undesirable task of expanding the court system to accommodate the backlog of automobile claims cases. The insurance companies have relieved themselves of the cost and bother of so-called "nuisance" claims, while simultaneously creating a market, complete with captive customer, for profitable liability insurance.

The Home News should seek a comprehensive cost report from the state Insurance Commissioner, in order to publish a table of "expected" or "average" insurance coverages and premiums to be borne by the driving public under the no-fault system. JOHN F. HYFANTIS, East Brunswick For Single Tax on Land To the Editor: Our august state politicians are adroit in getting the homeowner to help raise his overall tax burden without his realizing it. The bait dangled so temptingly before him is "tax reform" which is supposed to result in an average 40 per cent reduction in his property taxes. The price to be paid for this presumed saving is a graduated income tax together with a statewide property tax.

While at first, no the homeowner's -property taxes will be reduced, that is only temporary. In the long run, taxes go only one way upwards, so the homeowner will Ultimately wind up not only with higher property taxes, but an income tax, not to mention the sales tax which our ever-loving politicos saddled us with a few years ago. Real "tax reform" can take its clue from the suggestion contained in the N.J. Tax Policy Committee's report. This is to permit the larger cities to levy lower tax rates on improvements than on land values.

Actually, what should be done is to permit all communities to tax the value of land 100 per cent and to remove all taxes from the improvements. This would mean the price of land would tend to. drop to zero. Thus the prospective homeowner would have more funds available for building his home, so it would tend to be the best possible and not the cheapest. Also, present homeowners could make extensive improvements to their homes without having any taxes levied on the improvements.

Under present day practice, the man who improves his home, makes it more beautiful and a greater asset to the community is penalized by having higher taxes, whereas the man who lets his home become an eyesore is rewarded by having lower taxes. (Here is where we can have some real "tax reform," rather than the phony kind the politicians are trying to foist on us.) In addition, while land is a larger proportion of a homeowner's assessment, nonetheless the larger proportion is the home itself. If no taxes are levied on the home, and instead are levied only on the land value, almost invariably the homeowner will have less taxes to pay. The taxes he saves will be made up from the increased taxes levied on vacant land which the land speculators have been holding out of use in order to make a killing at the expense of the prospective homeowner. Also, the additional taxes will come from the increased taxes on land in the center of the community which is so much more valuable than land under homes.

The owners of this valuable land have been enjoying what amounts to a subsidy for years on end with the homeowners paying it in the higher taxes on their homes. The building of new and bigger factories and stores would be encouraged if no taxes are levied on these improvements. A building boom would ensue giving em Malevolent Influence of Chess To the Editor: The French essayist, Montaigne, objected to chess on the ground that playing it raised passions to a pitch wholly incommensurate with any game; the pride of the victor wras unwarranted and the' loser's humiliation unbearable. Four hundred years later chess continues its malevolent influence over hifmanity and produces as its foremost western champion Robert Fischer, a man dedicated exclusively to his art and to the furtherance of that art. Fanaticism in an artist is admirable as long as it is separate from practicality, but mixed with cold cash fanaticism becomes at best ludicrous.

Fischer in his conniving flirtation with the chess championship has earned his ducats and a place in history as America's least amiable methodical crackpot. A baseball player' who refuses to sign a contract Is interesting because he is arguing with a multi-million dollar industry of significance to a large portion of the population. Fischer is angling not only for personal satisfaction but for the aggrandizement of a pastime, a parlor game of remarkable intensity that simply cannot be rammed down the public's throat as a vital part of international politics. Whether any impresario could draw chess out of its inherent seclusion is a moot question, Wt the game is certainly not elevated by the petulance of Fischer, who falls a long way short of P. T.

Barnum whatever other qualities he may have. On the other hand, if golf could make it, why not chess? D. ANTHONY ENGLISH, Franklin The Home News A Sunday newspaper established 1786 Daily newspaper established 1879 HUGH N. BOYD, President and Publisher SATURDAY, JULY 8, 1972 Two Standards of Justice To the Editor: Your editorial "Two Standards of Justice" was the best I've seen in your paper in a long time. I sincerely hope that you and many more editorial writers will continue to bring out the facts concerning these "favored prominent criminals." I only wish you had also made a bigger point of forcing these criminals to make full restitution for monies stolen from the private or public sector.

Finally, because we do have these two standards of justice, why don't you add that to your platform as the fifth goal, "Elimination of Two Standards of Justice?" I'm also writing Congressman Thompson to explain his action in this case. HARRY ROTH, Madison Our orm Elimination of slum areas Restoration of Raritan River Regional Planning for the Raritan Valley Another Ronton River Bridge.