Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona • Page 6

ail Eomum TheArtzonaRepublic ti.c pomieni sTOnC Maybe We'd Better Send Out A Tracer Tax Reform Bill By Reg Manning Arizona Republic Staff Artist A Conservative View HaynsM prth Role In Case Recalled Page 6 Friday, Sept. 12, 1969 Called Unrealistic Where The Spirit Of The Lord $, There Is Liberty II Corinthians 3:17 Published Every Morning by PHOENIX NEWSPAPERS, INC. 120 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, Arizona 85004 1 MV LETTER mm WA6 MAILED GENERAL tVEKSAGO- IS Delivery are yure (mSm NO REPLY UxsJU HA COME FOR. By DAVID LAWRENCE WASHINGTON Congress for the first time in several decades is substantially changing the tax laws of the country.

The House of Representatives passed WASHINGTON In the course of its hearings on the nomination of Clement Haynsworth to the Supreme Court, the Senate Judiciary Committee will find itself nibbling at the edges of one of the EUGENE C. PULLIAM, Publisher janomarK cases ot labor law the great Deering Milliken case from Darlington, S.C. The great Deering Milliken case has been pending now for 13 years this month. It could easily run on for five or six years more. a bill with scant consideration, and the Senate Finance Committee is now holding hearings on the measure.

The administration didn't like the House bill, and suggested many changes. The big question is, The story actually KILPATRICK dates from 1883, when the Darlington Manufacturing Company came into existence. DARLINGTON may not have been the poorest of D-M's 27 mills, but it was among the most feeble. By early 1956, seven of its 10 best customers were cut ting back. At this juncture, the Textile Workers Union (AFL-CIO) appeared on the scene, with an intensive organizing campaign at the Darlington plant.

The com-, pany strongly resisted, warning that higher production costs might kill the operation altogether, but on Sept. 6, 1956, the union won a recognition election by 258-252. It was the last straw. On Sept. 12, the Darlington directors and stockholders voted overwhelmingly to :iyv.McSuht Syndicate, luc jjja On The Right Dirksen Was A Man Of Many Parts, But He Stood Fast On The Marigold liquidate the business.

THE UNION at once challenged this decision. Months of hearings followed. At last, the National Labor Relations Board, in a 3-2 ruling, held that a plant closing prompted even in part by employes' union activities constitutes an unfair labor practice. The NLRB ordered Deering Milliken to make restitution. In November of 1963, the Fourth U.S.

Circuit Court voted 3-2 to reverse the NLRB. The majority opinion was by Judge Albert Bryan; Judge Herbert Boreman and Judge Haynsworth joined him. They felt that it was Darlington's "absolute prerogative" to go out of business whenever it wished. Five more years of litigation followed. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the NLRB, which again ruled against Deering Milliken.

At long last, in May of 1968, a still-divided Fourth Circuit Court this time Haynsworth reluctantly concurred directed enforcement of the NLRB order: Back pay would have to be paid. As I See It By WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR. It is a sad fact that Everett Dirksen's death will not bring true national grief. On the left, they thought of him as a colorful politician who always maneu vered in such a I way as to serve the establish ment, particularly the business On the right, LAWRENCE what should be the motivation in writing a tax law? Should it be based on the demagoguery expressed by those who think it will be popular to "soak the Or should the main concern be with methods of raising revenue? Should not attention be given also to the fact that enterprising individuals and businesses cannot create new jobs or help develop our economic system if incentives are impaired and initiative is discouraged? The conclusion which may be drawn thus far is that the House passed a bill with very little thought given to the impact of some of its changes.

UNFORTUNATELY, widespread attention had been focused on a few individual cases where wealthy men were able, by means of legitimate deductions, to save themselves large sums in taxes. The assumption was made that this was generally true, and that it was a form of abuse which had to be stopped at once. But in attempting to prevent the laws from being used to avoid high tax levies, the so-called "reforms" imposed heavy penalties on worthwhile institutions, including charitable foundations. It is a serious thing for Congress to enact laws that will prevent colleges, health and educational foundations and many other organizations which do not make a profit, but devote themselves entirely to-the public welfare from getting the philanthropic aid which they have been accustomed to receive. WHAT IS WRONG about success? Is it to be penalized hereafter, or is it to be encouraged? If taxes were to take 50 per cent or more of earned income, salaries would have to be raised higher and higher so that the executives could actually receive more pay.

But the proposed changes in the tax laws are even more harmful to other income groups which can by no means be classed as in the higher brackets. In many companies pension and profit-sharing plans have been established whereby each year a share of the profits is placed in a special fund for the employes. The percentage varies from year to year, but is applied alike to' all employes. These sums of money are then invested in securities and held in trust until the retirement of the employe. Such securities over a period of 15 or 20 years often appreciate in value so that, when the individual retires, his share in a trust fund may have grown to a large amount.

UNTIL NOW, the government has imposed a capital gains tax up to 25 per cent on the amount received at. retirement in a lump sum. This has always been considered a fair tax. But the present proposal would increase the levy, and in some instances other limitations on income would be applied. It is difficult to ascertain just what was behind some of the drastic changes written in the proposed tax law which affect not just a few people, but lots of persons in lower income groups as well.

Should Congress write legislation of this kind without spending more time in study of the possible effects? Revisions of tax laws are rare. Fortunately, in some of the amendments being suggested, the provisions will not be retroactive. But the future of other individuals will be hurt, and the many people who will be working just as hard in the 1970s as their predecessors did in the 1960s will not be getting the advantages that the Congress of the United States granted in the past. Uhey thought of him as a stabilizing force, on the whole; but BUCKLEY Brief Portrait Of A Columnist Censorship And Smut Throughout history there have always been those who took it upon themselves to decide what others should be permitted to write, to read, and to view. For the most part, these self-appointed censors have been at best a nuisance.

At worst they have been dictators, eager to impose their particular moral code upon others. It can fairly be said that one of the things that separates a free society from a regimented society is the amount of variety that can be found in each, the tolerance each exhibits for bizarre or different beliefs. To that extent, we agree with much that a Tempe Methodist minister recently had to say against censorship. For example, the question of who will act as a censor in a community, what he will censor, and where he will stop. But we believe that in taking a stand against any form of smut control or censorship, the Rev.

Edwin Grant of Christ Chapel is expressing an idealistic but impractical viewpoint. And we believe he is mistaken to oppose the efforts of a group of Valley ministers who are gathering signatures on petitions decrying pornography. To take the second item first, the ministers are asking petitioners voluntarily to express their views against pornography. Surely one who believes that taste is an individual matter, as does Mr. Grant, can have no serious objection to individuals formally affirming their distaste of obscene material even as those individuals can have no serious objection to anyone expressing greater fear of censorship than of pornography.

Where we believe smut control is necessary is for protecting youngsters who are largely incapable of making those distinctions which the "no-censorship-of-any-kind" school apparently believes everyone is capable of making. It is arguable whether pornography is harmful to an individual or leads to anti-social behavior; despite the controversy, the jury is still out on that question. But there is no question whatsoever that pornography degrades the individual as an individual, that it holds up the human body (and therefore the human being) to ridicule and ultimately to contempt. Thus, if society has no legitimate concern with an adult's involvement with pornography, it certainly has a genuine concern with a juvenile's involvement. It simply is not true, as Mr.

Grant maintains, that any form of censorship is wrong. Any form of censorship is potentially dangerous. And many forms of censorship are wrong. Thus the believer in individual freedom will always be wary of censorship of any kind. But society has an obligation to protect its impressionable youngsters from exposure to pornography, a sleazy trade which exploits the basest motives of the human mind and spirit.

Principled Politics When John Lindsay first ran for mayor of New York City, the influential liberal press couldn't say enough kind things about him. Forget that he sought and received Liberal Party support although running as a Republican. Forget that he repeatedly repudiated the GOP's national candidates. Forget that what he was offering New Yorkers were the warmed-over cliches of the 1930's. What mattered, at least to his hagiographers in the press, was that he was "with-it," handsome, and above all veddy.veddy liberal.

Now suddenly the world has caved in on John Lindsay. Running for re-election, he was repudiated in the Republican Party primary. So he will run as a liberal-independent in November. But New York's powerful liberal Jewish community is hostile toward Lindsay. So are the blacks.

So are the Puerto Ricans. So, apparently, is everyone except ul-traliberal GOPers, Sens. Jacob Javits and Charles Goodell, and such out-of-town liberal Democrats as Arthur Schlesinger and Frank Sinatra. The reason Lindsay is in trouble is that, despite the talk about his principles and courage, New York voters regard him as an opportunist. A few recent items help explain why: Recently Lindsay gave a key to the city to Irish Catholic Bernadette Devlin.

When Irish Protestant minister Ian Paisley called on Lindsay at City Hall the other day, guards said Lindsay had a "full schedule" and could not see him. (Translation: New York has far more Irish Catholic than Irish Protestant voters.) Lindsay recently spoke against the impending nomination of Judge Haynsworth to the Supreme Court because he was not in the "unique tradition of Justices Cardozo, Brandeis, Frankfurter, and Goldberg." This "unique tradition," it was widely noted, was that all four were Jewish. Did Lindsay then believe in an ethnic qualification for service on the Supreme Court? Perish the thought! "I don't think that any ethnic or religious or national group has any claim on any seat on the Supreme Court," he said whereupon he promptly recommended three candidates for the office all of them Jewish. On June 25, Lindsay lamented: "The taxpayers of New York send $3 billion in tax money every year to fight an indefensible war in Vietnam They spend $6 billion more every year to finance the continued growth of the military-defense empire. That is $9 billion of New York money that goes every year into the work of death.

That kind of priority is insane, and it is time we had the courage to say so That money belongs in the streets, the homes and the hopes of the cities." But only 35 days later, on July 30, Lindsay said: "We must not supply words and promises. We must supply action. We must not look away from Israel with the excuse that our own problems are so great our own needs so urgent that we have no time or energy or help to give Israel." As one observer put it, in just one month of election campaigning, Lindsay decided that the streets, homes, and hopes have become able to shift for themselves. As several others put it, if only there were a sizable number of South Vietnamese living and voting in New York, Lindsay and Jacob Javits would be one of the nation's most vociferous hawks. The above evasions and contradictions are what often pass for principled politics in New York City and other citadels of leberalism.

"THE WHOLE bosom of God's earth was ruptured by a man-made contrivance that we call a nuclear weapon." A couple of those, and who cares what Dirksen said yesterday? And then, (2), there was the theatrical Dirksen. I don't care, I liked it. Politics is so much a fraud, it ought to be entertaining, particularly in an affluent society. Listening to Dirksen was a pleasure, as listening to politicians goes. He sought to please, to cultivate the uses of rhetoric, and bombast, and color.

He was as sincere in his cultivation of the art as he was in his related passion for his garden, to which he returned lovingly day after day, with the inescapable relief of someone who turns his attention to creatures easier to bribe. FROM TIME to time I have indulged the fantasy of the hedonist's schedule Columbus Day in Vermont, Washington's Birthday in Switzerland, nightfall at Kilimanjaro, that sort of thing. Always his staple has been the Senate gallery when Everett Dirksen delivers his annual testimonial to the marigold. Have you never heard him on the marigold? What a splendid tribute it would be if the Congress voted to remember this memorable man by voting into law the only proposal he truly cared for, winter and summer, season after constant season, secure from the statistician of the Chicago Sun Times: naming the marigold as the national flower. was utterly meaningless empty of content lacking in any development.

He received a standing ovation. The audience had come to him on his own terms. They desired the resonant tones, the patriotic attitu-dinizations, the diapasonal rhetoric. I should have added that, notwithstanding, I was enraptured. The Chicago Sun Times, somewhere along the line, recorded about Senator Dirksen that in his 17 years in the House of Representatives he changed his mind 62 times on foreign policy matters, 31 times on military affairs, and 70 times on agriculture.

Upon reaching the Senate, as we all know, he achieved his stride, and greatly improved on that record. AND YET, and yet (1) he was a great democratic politician. By great, I mean that he was able upon shifting positions to justify his new position in terms that satisfied the moral conscience. If a politician changes his mind merely because he has whiffed the Gallup Poll, he can look craven, and in doing so can undermine the democratic pride. Senator Dirksen always made his tergiversation appear to have been the result of divine sunburst, so that the silt of cynicism never came down to choke him.

Pleading for a nuclear test ban notwithstanding that the proposed treaty failed to incorporate provisions Senator Dirksen had a while before pronounced to be absolutely essential, he opened his oration with words that would have embarrassed Joyce Kilmer: Today's Postcard By HOLMES ALEXANDER I had written often of other persons, and there came a time when others would write about me. A young Asso-' 'dated Press reporter, Don Carson, followed me around for a couple of days to do a class paper for a Master's degree at American University. Carson wrote this sketch in December 1965: "He swiveled his chair around, and leaned back. Only the rear of his head and 1 1J so much the pragmatist that you couldn't really count on him in a pinch. Murray Kempton, the columnist, began a dispatch a few years ago by remarking that the Friends of Katanga had "begun its career where most conservative organizations end them with a desertion from Senator Dirksen." The circumstances come to mind.

A GROUP of Americans who objected to the United Nations' declaration of war against Katanga formed a committee and invited the usual luminaries to join it. In came a telegram from Senator Dirksen consenting to the use of his name as a That evening he was called to the White House by President Kennedy. On leaving, and being questioned by reporters about his support of the Katanga Committee, he replied that he had never authorized the use of his name. I sent him a Xeroxed copy of his telegram, to which he replied with that sublime evasiveness which enraged and disarmed so many of his critics, that "as Lincoln said, the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present." I REMEMBER an occasion when I heard him deliver a speech, and amused myself by doodling away at what the academicians call an "intellectual schematic," i.e., a sentence by sentence paraphrase of the analytical narrative. I am telling you, that speech Blue Hawaiian Blues By STAN DELAPLANE WAIKIKI A blue day in ter from Diamond Head pick- blue Hawaii.

A few rain clouds drift across the Pali, the cliffs King Kamehameha pushed his enemies over. In the early morning there is no surf. No trade wind. The sun slants across the wa- iieut cuuiu ue seen ALEXANDER His appearance and manner are unusual Wild, unruly eyebrows attract immediate attention, and he carries much more weight since the college days when he was a 130 pound steeple chase rider. "In person, he is warm, friendly, thoughtful; over the phone, he often sounds brusque.

"The bluntness may stem from self-imposed deadlines, and an eagerness to get his questions answered as soon as possible, to get the information into print before anyone else thinks of the same thing. "BECAUSE his column must be ten three days in advance of intended publication, he feels he must leap ahead of the news, to be the first to explain its full significance He sees his job as one requiring original reporting and personal opinion. "When the weather is good, he bicycles to the National Press Club building where he maintains a 13th floor, two -room office. "The office walls are dotted with mementos letters from leading politicians, artist's drawings of the covers from some of his books. "ONCE DOWNTOWN, Alexander checks the Associated Press city wire to learn the day's scheduled business in Washington.

If there are no early appointments, he settles down with either the New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. "His basic reading accomplished, he begins the battle for ideas. "As the thoughts come, he records them, then considers his knowledge on each and the sources available to him The writing is done at unscheduled periods, and he says he seldom re- writes. There I was. nrrf far frnm mv fiHh Well, Speak Of The Devil ii tvr ta i a wip ing up instant diamonds.

Down toward Pearl Harbor the sea is mother of pearl. About mid morning comes the first puff of the trade, and the coco palm fronds go clap clap. The first line of sugar white surf comes up on a painter's blue sea. Along Waikiki the surfers paddle out to meet it. THE MORNING swingers (last night's life of the party) saunter down to the thatched beach bar at the Royal Hawaiian.

"A tall one, Joe. Lots of The wahines in their brief bikinis are stretched on the golden sand. Oiled for another day's warm embrace with the Hawaiian sun. All along the beach the pile drivers go chuck a puff, chuck a puff. The islands run on a lease basis much of Hawaii is never sold.

Residents build houses on land they hold only on a lease. As tourists pour in, the land increases in value. The lease price goes up. And hotel owners find the only way to meet the rent is to build higher. Into the free air.

birthday, as an outsider saw me..