The Missoulian from Missoula, Montana • 4

4-The Missoulian, Wednesday, May 23, 1973 EDITORIAL PAGE Editorials, Letters, Opinion fisherman's information bureau She Was Special their own and a great endowment of intestinal fortitude, Jeannette Rankin depended on her own conscience. She was always courageous; it was an integral part of her composition, to be naturally accepted rather than remarked upon. It might have bothered her to stand alone, but it would have bothered her more to betray the dictates of what she thought in her bones was right. The fire within her never died. She addressed Montana's Constitutional Convention in March, 1972, at the age of 91, urging the delegates to support direct election of presidents.

The personal impression she made was profound. In no way was it based on the notion that someone who can still move about at 91 is an interesting freak. The delegates got a taste of zest and force that is rare in human intercourse but was innate in Miss Rankin. After her death last Friday, Sen. Lee Metcalf said, "Our world is a better place because she has passed this way." Exactly right, and it might be added that persons like Jeannette Rankin pass too seldom among mankind.

She was special, which makes the news of her death especially sad, and the memory of her life especially pleasant. Reynolds Jeannette Rankin. Where does one begin when trying to assess, this fine woman and the unique role she played in United States and Montana history? What she DID during her life can be totted up easily enough. She voted twice against U.S. entry into this century's world wars, the second time in 1941, when alone of all the members of Congress she voted no.

She was instrumental in obtaining women the right to vote. Throughout her adult life women's rights were what most stirred her to fiery action. She fought for consumers, for racial equality, for children, for basically what she thought was right. But her record was the product of the person, and the person was not a creature of the things that happened but the creator of them. Miss Rankin achieved because she was Jeannette Rankin a unique, courageous, intelligent, gracious, dedicated, strong, warm human being, and those elements were what made her so interesting and delightful.

Of those elements courage especially stands out. While her solo vote against entry into World War II illustrated her courage, it would be wrong to conclude that that vote was an isolated act elevated above the norm. Like most persons with decisive minds of "Watcha mean, "worms?" These fish got so much junk soaked up, you can catch 'em with a more introspective look into the whole university system: i.e., if cutbacks are made here, possibly we should undertake a general cutback in scholarships, salary increases, new departments, fringe area studies, etc. Dr. Edward J.

Shelton, Butte. fectiveness with Congress, foreign heads, even business and labor leaders is finished. We can't afford three-and-a-half more years of Checkers speeches, and you should work for his resignation or impeachment. Bill Cregg, 530 McLeod Missoula. public indignation would have been much less had he been successful.) Now we have the ultimate in fraud, deceit, arrogance, manipulation, power-mania, connivance, dishonesty, bur glary, underhandedness, duplicity and corruption in the country's long history.

Can we really tell our children, lie to ourselves, that this is the way the game is played is typical, is "politics?" Your law-and-order man's ef- Don't they learn at the of a person has a trial of law before he is guilty or not? They all forget that Nixon is the. man that helped end the war over in Vietnam and bring home the POWs and all the other good he has done. Far as the Watergate scandal goes, that has been going on for years. It's the first time one of the parties has gotten caught at it. Thank God we got a man like Nixon for president.

Ben Kearney, 1124 Toole Missoula. The Ultimate Re: Watergate. I'm disappointed that my Republican friends aren't uptight over Watergate. When our guy, LBJ, slipped, it was quick party pressure that ended his career. And LBJ was more guilty of bad judgment believing generals that told him we could easily win.

(Though a case could be made that his decision had moral and philosophical overtones. Still, American people mistrust each other, and indeed themselves, to the point where genuine democracy is something they cannot contemplate without fear and confusion. Eric Johnson, 726 N. 5th Missoula. The First Time It made me sick to my stomach the other day to see a car ahead of me with a of sticker on it and also an "Impeach Nixon" sticker on it.

A Den All to Blame Democracy, like marriage, is an institution that works well only when people can trust each other. Perhaps this is why the Greeks (who fathered democracy in the form of city-states) had the good sense to gather together periodically in the openness of amphitheaters to discuss proposals, conflicts and the wrong-doing and right-doing of citizens. The root, political assumption behind this procedure was that nothing good could come from behind closed doors. The idea that the communal security of a city-state could be better served if one or a handful of its citizens assumed responsibility for discovering, packaging and parceling out the truth would have struck any decent Athenian as ludicrous. So, after 2,400 years, we have arrived at Watergate and it's certainly not Nixon's fault.

Rather we must all assume the blame for electing a man who no reasonable person could ever call a democrat (in the broadest sense of the word). We learn that Nixon ordered the phones of many of his key subordinates tapped. Why? Because someone was telling the American people the truth about Cambodia, about the Pentagon papers, about the food value of the American hot dog. But, in the name of "national security," this sort of thing has been going on for years and the people keep right on voting for it. I can only conclude that the nations, but you have made it a den of thieves." Mrs.

Lee Wilhelm, Seeley Lake. Making Hay The big fuss over the Watergate deal seems to be a case of everybody "Making hay while the son lies." Frank M. Hansen, Superior. For Athletics (To Robert T. Pantzer:) I have read with increased distress the problems the University of Montana is having with athletic funding.

It comes as an extreme surprise to hear that you also are tending towards the current student trend of cutting back on athletics, specifically football. The coaches and football team at the University of Montana have done an excellent job in bringing national recognition to our great state. Now it seems, with the problems they have had both in court and with the student body, that these gains are going to be lost. It seems extremely incongruous to detract from this area of college endeavor in order to increase salaries and-or student scholarships in other fields of study. I know from both past experience and present involvement with athletics here in Butte and previously in the Air Force, that to keep a healthy mind and body, engaging jn athletics is one of the single most important factors in developing an all-around normal personality.

It seems just as logical to me to give scholarships to athletes as any other field of university endeavor. If this current trend of thought persists, maybe we, as Montanans, ought to take a Support It May I compliment you on your recent editorial on Mother's Day, where you mentioned the working mother and the vital role day care plays in her life. Your statement on the vast need of the working mother and the likewise equal problem of no financing of this service often leads to poor quality child care. Since a child is in day care longer than the parent works, it is critical that it is child development oriented. Through the concerns of children, Gov.

Judge has given quality day care a top priority. I feel that local communities, like the city government of Missoula, will also have to assist in helping to fund and maintain quality child care centers. Women are working, it is simply a fact of life. Many women have to work, whether in a home of modest income or because they are a single parent. Again may I compliment the editorial staff by urging Missoula to "seriously tackle the problem." Now it's up to the people of Missoula to support such groups like the Missoula 4-C's Council to obtain better child care.

James L. Pip-pard, director, Community Coordinated Chile Care, Helena. In fairness to Sen. Edward Kennedy, I wish to reply to Buff Hultman's letter that was printed in The Missoulian on May 15. I see no reason why Sen.

Kennedy or any other citizen should not expect a full investigation of the Watergate case, and by a person of unimpeachable integrity. Sen. Kennedy was involved in a tragic accident, but it was an accident and he was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the courts of Massachusetts. Mr. Hultman says that the solution to the Watergate case can be found in the Bible.

Immediately a quotation from Luke, Chapter 12, comes to mind: "Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; nor hidden that shall not be known. For whatever you have spoken in darkness shall be published in the light; and that which you have spoken in the ear in the chambers shall be preached on the housetops." In a free country this is the way it should be done according to the Bible. In view of the vast sums of money received and unreported by the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), one is reminded of the words of Jesus as he drove the money changers from the temple: "My house was a house of prayer for all 'Gold! And I can't afford it Russian Author Suppressed Copyright Will Hurt Dissidents (Editor's Note: This is the first of two articles on a new Soviet-written biography of Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn) By HEDRICK SMITH 1 (C) N.

Y. Times News Service MOSCOW The first Soviet-written literary biography of Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel Prize-winning novelist, has emerged with an inside story of the uneven struggle to publish his works in the Soviet Union, along with charges that some western publishers took his books without proper authority and have not properly used his royalties. The biography reaches beyond Solzhenitsyn's personal story to provide an insight into the intricate maneuvers and ultimately the dashed dreams of a small but important network of liberal intellectuals who had hoped that the top-level decision in 1962 to print Solzhenitsyn's first stark novel about Stalinist prison camps, "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," heralded a new era of freer expression in this country. It also discloses some of the techniques of censorship and tactics of suppression used by the Communist party and the literary and secret police bureaucracies to defeat the author and his friends.

Near the end it quotes Aleksandr T. Tvardovsky, the late poet and editor of the literary monthly Novy Mir, as commenting defiantly but prophetically about the pressures against the circle of liberals "They want to extinguish our fire. But it is so bright that they can't blow it out, or pour water on it. To extinguish it, it will probably be necessary for them to throw all the hot coals in and the representatives were "only self-proclaimed." Medvedev's manuscript was finished last fall and began to circulate among a small group of people about the time of the 10th anniversary of the publication Bf "One Day" on Nov. 19.

But after Medvedev was given permission to go to Britain in mid-January for a year's study, he reportedly decided against permitting foreign publication. He allegedly reversed himself this spring after Soviet authorities announced their intention to adhere to the Internatonal Copyright Convention, and the British publishing house, MacMillan, is expected to publish the book soon. As a chronicle of literary politics, it is revealing because of the cumulative detail it offers on the life of the liberal Soviet intelligentsia rather than because of sensational disclosures. Among its more interesting assertions are these: Solzhenitsyn, among others, was described as dismayed by the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 because he had pinned great hopes on the ending of censorship in that country. Together with Andrei A.

Sakharov, the physicist and civil rights advocate, he was said to have drafted a letter of protest, but so few promintent intellectuals signed it that they did not think it worth making public. So strictly have censors in recent years enforced the ban on literary references to Stalinist repressions that even a writer of the high official stature of Mikhail A. Sholokhov was reported to have been forced to eliminate a chapter from his book, "They Fought for the Motherland," because it described the illegal police methods and camps of the Stalin period. Even Sholokhov's personal appeal to the communist party leader, Leonid I. Brezhnev, noting that the hero of his book survived the camps and still believed in communism, could not save the material, the account said.

Medvedev also writes that efforts he made on Solzhenitsyn's behalf to gain use of royalties from American editions of "One Day," printed by Praeger Publishers, and Fawcett Publications, were broken off by both publishers. (Next: opposition from the Soviet different directions and then it will burn cftit." It was Tvardovsky who recognized Solzhenitsyn's talent and pressed for personal approval from Nikita S. Khrushchev, then premier, for publication of "One Day." The Solzhenitsyn study was written by Zhores A. Medvedev, a well-known geneticist and dissident essayist who is one of Solzhenitsyn's most intimate and trusted friends. He has called it "Ten Years After 'One Day in the Life of Ivan In the mid-1960s, after the success of "One Day" had faded and official pressures were running against Solzhenitsyn, scientists at a military research institute reportedly took up a collection to help relieve his "financial difficulties." But he was said to have refused to take the money, and he has since lived in a modest simplicity.

Although Solzhenitsyn's novel "The Cancer Ward" has never been published here officially, "tens of thousands" of people in the Moscow region alone have read it. Though his works were no longer being published in 1968, Solzhenitsyn received 600 telegrams and 100 letters congratulation on his 50th birthday that December. But when he was ousted from the Soviet Writers' Union in late 1969, little active support was mobilized in his behalf, the book says, partly because the harshness of his own protest alienated friends. Problems abroad compounded those at home. Dissident authors like Solzhenitsyn live in fear that works of theirs that circulate unofficially in the Soviet Union will be taken by secret police agents to Russian emigree publications in the West and then, if published there, used to discredit them on charges of "anti-Soviet" activities and connections.

Toward the end of 1968, Solzhenitsyn watched helplessly as reputable foreign publishers printed unauthorized versions of his books. Despite his published protest against foreign publication of "The Cancer Ward," Farrar, Strauss Giroux and the Dial Press went ahead without his permission. Harper Row did the same with "The First Circle." These publishers said they had contracts with Solzhenitsyn's representatives but, Medvedev writes, these were not sanctioned by the author Soviet authors will henceforth have the power to enjoin western publishers from printing their works. It is expected that Soviet security officials will encourage dissident writers to make full use of this power. On the other hand, the Soviets may balk at the idea of taking western publishers to court to enforce an injuction.

Lord Nicholas Bethell, writing in the Times of London, pointed out that the Russians will pay royalties in rubles, but will receive them in dollars. This arrangement will offset the Soviets' anticipated "unfavorable balance of trade" in books. There is some concern in Europe that translation of Russian articles and scholarly manuscripts may now become more difficult than heretofore. A number of American and British publishing concerns have profited from being able to print translations of Soviet articles without having to pay royalties. Solzhenitsyn, who in the past has complained about the Soviet Union's non-adherence to UCC, has yet to voice an opinion about the Kremlin's action.

It seems ironic, however, that an international convention designed to protect authors' rights may instead be used as a tool of repression against him- Solzhenitsyn insisted he had given neither of them, or anyone else, permission to print the novel. The Soviet Union will become the 64th country to subscribe to the Universal Copyright' Convention. While most nations in the world adhere to the Bern Convention of 1887, the refusal of the United States to sign in the 1940s led to drafting of the Geneva Convention (UCO in 1952. Under the 1952 agreement, "Each contracting state undertakes to provide for the adequate and effective protection of the rights of authors. The trouble is that different countries "protect" authors in different ways.

In the Soviet Union, the state can retain title to copyright and make the final decision on what may or may not be sent abroad for translation. Article 3 of the convention stipulates that no contracting state may be prohibited "from requiring formalities or other conditions for the acquisition or enjoyment of copyright. This provision has the effect of permitting censorship. And although the convention bans the expurgation of foreign works, it will be difficult to stop the Russians from resorting to this practice. By YORICK BLUMENFELD Editorial Research Reports LONDON If all goes according to schedule, the Soviet Union will formally adhere to the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) on May 27.

Such action has long been sought by western authors whose books have been pirated by the Russians. Chances are, though, that concern for foreign authors' royalties played little part in the Kremlin's decision to sign the convention. Peter Carter-Ruck, an expert on copyright law, suggests that the real reason for signing is that Soviet leaders want "to control writers they disapprove of and to limit the dissipation of their works throughout the world." Contrary to popular belief, it is not illegal for Soviet writers to send their works abroad for publication. It is illegal to do so, however, if the material is adjudged to be anti-Soviet propaganda. Novelists Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and Boris Pasternak came to grief via this route.

Pasternak asked the Italian publisher Feltrinelli not to publish "Doctor Zhivago," but Feltrinelli went ahead anyway. And when Mondadori in Italy and Bodley Head in Britain were fighting over the rights to "Cancer Ward," 4hft micrfcf iiir wwwMllWU 3 Founded May 1,1873 "kiI "l- mill JOHN TALBOT-PUBLISHER i 7 EDWARD A. COYLE EDITOR SAM RfcYnKJLDo-fcUITUHVU-.