Get 1 more page view just for clicking
to like us on Facebook
Cedar Rapids Gazette (Newspaper) - June 24, 1974, Cedar Rapids, Iowa Mirage? Editorial Page Sock the scavengers IN VIVID contrast to lowans' selfless aid following the Ankeny tornado tragedy of June IS stood this news notation: Iowa National Guardsmen patrolled the streets to deter looting. It lakes a singularly thoughtless species of human parasite to scuttle in and make off with belongings of disaster victims. Does that class of sneak-thief ac- tually thrive in Iowa? Or are the precautions taken in a storm's wake merely an offshoot of lessons learned in crime-infested metro areas? A call to Col. Howard Miller, Iowa's highway patrol chief, brushed aside the naivete. "I don't want to emphasize this, but there was evidence of looting when I got to Col. Miller said. "Before midnight one of the troopers saw two fellows carrying liquor from a store. They dropped the bottles and ran when he (the trooper) accosted them. He didn't give chase because, being headed for the most devastated part of town, he felt he was needed more there." Col. Miller said other in- stances of looting were reported at a service station just east of Ankeny and at a shopping mall where winds had blown out the fronts of stores. "Meanwhile in Ankeny, the man of the house stayed home in many instances to make sure no one would come in and take what little they had he said. The highway patrol chief stressed that would-be looters comprise a tiny minority. "People always seem to come to the front in times of disaster in Ankeny we had more volunteers than we could use. But it always seems that in a catastrophe there still are people around whose first thought is to acquire the property of others. Looting has occurred often enough that we guard against it; we think people have already suffered enough." Col. Miller said looters in some cases are persons who would not break or enter or commit other crimes but "cannot resist the temptation to pick things up following disasters. "But looting is still a he stressed. An especially pitiless type of crime, indeed. Which distinction raises the need for setting the of- fense apart from the dozen other kinds of larceny defined in the code of Iowa. (The closest sweep the code book makes now is a provision concerning theft from a building on fire.) The revision and attendant publicity would remind would-be looters that this form of stealing is in no way justified by someone's warped idea of salvage rights. The spotlight on looting also might inspire judges to study what rehabilitative forms of punishment might be appropriate: Work-sentences, perhaps, pre- scribing cleanup and repair as- sistance at disaster sites. cop-ouf FOR A 50-page, 500-item, all- encompassing state party platform, the newly approved compendium of Iowa Democrats serves up at least one distin- guished example of a naught-en- compassing nonitem. The plank on abortion declares: "We support the right of all candidates in the Democratic party to reflect their own moral considerations of their constituen- cies on the issue of abortion." In other words, each individual running for office should decide for himself how he stands on abortion and be guided by that in his actions rather than by any policy imposed by the group he belongs to. Ironically, that attitude is precisely what the law of Iowa advances, in its present form as modified by the latest supreme court doctrine, as to how society shall deal with abortion: In- dividuals free to decide for them- selves. No one forced to have or take part in abortions against personal wish. Moral judgment resting with the individual alone. To each his own. Why this freedom should apply through platform guidance to the party members seeking office but not through advocated law to everyone is a problem in logic that the platform makers might better explain, but probably won't. The reason being, naturally, that the abortion issue is so hot, so divisive, so emotionally charged up that you can lose more votes than you can gain by taking a stand on it openly this year either way at the state party level. Ironically again, four years ago both major parties' platforms did support reform of the restrictive law then covering abortions in the state. Now apparently the nerve is gone. But the Democratic statement still says more than it intends, perhaps. Fundamentally it says a person's own position on abortion is a matter of free, personal choice. Any candidate who lets that handy principle direct his own campaigning but would vote for a law depriving the public of the same sort of freedom on this issue will confront a reconciling- problem of the first degree. People's forum Judgment To the Editor: On June 13 in Dallas at the Southern Baptist convention the delegates reaf- firmed their belief in "The sanctity of human life." Then they supported a resolution allowing abortion for rape, in- cest, severe fetal deformity and probable damage to the mental health of the mother. It is common knowledge that in any of these cases mentioned the fetus is human and God did create it just as He did any of us. Just who are they to judge who can live and who must die? It seems that when some churches are confronted with the abortion issue they are adopting a situational ethics approach. They are trimming their theology to fit what they think the public wants to hear. I'm sure they would be more within God's guidelines if they had adopted a resolution'to eliminate human problems not human beings. E. Laschanzky 1530 Twelfth street, Marion Milk money To the Editor: When Edward Mezvinsky announced his candidacy for U. S. representative from the First district of Iowa, he was submitting his name to the voters as to being their choice of two candidates. The people most likely expected both can- didates to confine their dependence for financial support to their expected con- stituency. It is not expected that either candidate accept financial help from institutions tf from other states to finance his cam- paign, thus becoming involved in the interests of out-of-state commercial bodies. In a recent letter in The Gazette (June Rep. Mezvinsky said: "To re- turn the money to the contributor could be interpreted as admission that the dairy money was dirty money." Just possibly perhaps, accepting the money to help in one's election can be interpreted as meaning that the money would help one win. Thus it could mean selling your vote, unknown to the dis- trict's people, because to have returned the money would have been to notify the dairy folks that you were not for sale. It is more the responsibility ,of the can- didate to prove his honesty by saying "No" than to accept and now have some who voted for him awaken to deception. In following presidential elections for 66 years, I have never known of a presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, who had the temerity to say to the people or to other candidates, "Do as I do and you will be OK." But here is a representative advising the President to pattern after himself such conceit. Since this financing from an out-of- state source most likely had a part in securing some votes which would other- wise have gone to the opponent, that amounts to buying votes. If a guilty ver- dict is passed on the President, then ac- ceptance of out-of-state money should give the receiver a share of that verdict. In that case, in the coming election, the voters of Iowa's First district should in- vite Mr. Mezvinsky to stay home by electing a man who will take heed, go to Washington and properly represent his constituency, not constituents from other states Since Rep. Mezvinsky has said he would not return the money, the folks of First district may properly wonder how much money he is receiving to finance the present campaign. This goes for any other candidate in similar circum- stances, be the office sought higher or lower. Omer L. Allison 705 Second avenue SW If impeachment runs, public wants it tubed By Louis Harris Mtwru Svivfv BV 57 lo 36 percent, a inajorily (if Un- American itcuple favors televising nationally the impeachment procmliHgs in the house of representatives By an even (artier 59 to 34 percent, a majority also would favor putting a U.S. senate trial of the President on TV. People were asked to choose bet ween specific arguments in favor of televising everything from (he proceedings of the house judiciary committee up lo and including a possible trial of the President in the senate as against the fears expressed over creating a public spec- tacle. Decisive majorities came down every time on the side of the camera eye. Earlier this month, a nationwide cross-section of households in which interviews were conducted in person was asked this question: "Do you think the impeachment proceedings in the home of representatives should be televised nationally or Should be Should not Not sure 57 36 7 Traditionally, the house has always prohibited televising either its commit- tee or full house proceedings. At first, the judiciary committee indicated that it planned to open its hearings to television, a decision later reversed. The issue, however, is still being debated by members of the house and a vote to open up the judiciary committee investigation and a possible later debate on the house floor could well be in the offing. In the case of the U.S. senate, majority leader Sen. Mike Mansfield has already indicated that if a trial is held there after house impeachment of President Nixon, he would favor that it be before the television cameras. The cross-section was then asked: "If the President is impeached by Hie house of representatives and he is put on trial by the U.S. senate, do you think the trial in the senate should be televised nationally or Total public Should be Should not Not sure Clear majorities favor televising both the house impeachment proceedings and the ultimate senate trial, if it takes place. The public feels strongly about getting to see the impeachment process at work. They believe that television is the most direct means for them to know what is going on. The biggest single group favoring televising the proceedings, coming to one in every four persons, volunteers as their reason the people's "right to know." As a farmer in Jasper county, Iowa, put it: "We've got a right to know what's going on there in Washington, and on TV we ought to be able to see it all." Another key reason volunteered in support of televising the impeachment proceedings was the desire to "see things for without any filtering through media interpretations. This implies some public skepticism about the way electronic and print media report the news. As a business man in Rochester, N.Y., said: "I'd like to get it like it happens] without all the commentary and the shadings in the papers or on TV or radio." Opposition to televising the impeach- the tune of the Washington Post March Macabre Lesson in how justice percolates to the very top By Russell Baker WASHINGTON Senator Goldwatcr wants the Washington Post prosecuted for printing government in- formation the government doesn't want published. At first glance this seems like a good idea if you are one of those people who would ju.st us soon not know the government up to and considering up to lately, only a mas'X-U-.'. want to even slightly OrJv however, is to that lh': senator's proposal is unsatisfactory. Mr. Gold- water has not thought tho thing through. I.tt us do it for him. us assume that the 1'ost receives in mail a typical government document classified "secret." It arrives in the mail room where a clerk empties the mail bags and puts it in a batch of envelopes lor delivery lo the news room. A copy boy sorts the news room mail and the document lo a clerk on the city desk. The dork, observing that the document is written in typical govern- ment gubbledygook and that it deals with, say, the price of butler, assumes Oiat it is another routine press rcleasi- Russell Boker and routinely sends it to the reporter covering the butter beat. In due time it is printed in the paper, having been checked by a reporter, processed by a copy reader, read by an assistant city editor, reread by the city editor, okayed by an assistant managing editor, approved by the managing editor and mentioned casually to the publisher, Mrs. Katherine Graham, at an office lunch the day it goes to press Now, Ihe crime having been commit- ted, the government swings into action. A grand jury is convened. The justice department sets up a three-man prosecuting team to insure that the perpetrators of this hellishrioss will pay for their sins. Its no I at all Ihi- rriall-ronrri who received the forbidden document and passed it on to the copy boy is con- victed of receiving illegally circulating federal papers and sentenced to 3 to 7 years at hard labor in Leavenworth. He has implicated the copy boy who look the document to the news room, and the copy boy, facing 5 to 10 years in Ihe federal penitentiary at Atlanta, begins plea bargaining with the special prosecutors. In return for telling them to whom he handed the forbidden document the clerk on the city desk he is allowed to plead guilty and is sentenced to one year in Danbury. The prosecutors go after the city-desk clerk, but they are really after Mr. Big, so they make a deal. They let the city- desk clerk plead guilty and get off with nine months in in return, he agrees to identify the man whom he passed the secret paper lo. It is the reporter who covers the butler beat. After plea bargaining the reporter identifies the copy reader who processed his story and the assistant city editor who read it, and is sentenced to six months in Lowisburg. The copy reader gets off with four months for agreeing to testify against the assistant city editor, who gets off with two months in Allenwood, where he will be taught to groom radishes, in return for implicating the city editor. The city editor pleads guilty and is sentenced to 30 days at an ITT-Sheraton motel in suburnan Washington. In exchange, he agrees to testify against the assistant managing editor. More plea bargaining ensues. The upshot is that the assistant managing editor agrees to testify against Ihe managing editor, and after pleading guilty he is sentenced to pay a fine, which is suspended. Confronted with the assistant manag- ing editor's testimony, the managing editor pleads guilty, weeps before the judge and throws himself on the mercy of the court. He is given a one-month vaca- tion In Venice with all accommodatons prepaid on the Lido. Al this point the prosecutors are ready In nail Mr. lilg, or In this case, Mrs. Hlg Katherine Graham, Hit; publisher. Now, however, higher policy con- siderations must be taken Into account. Would il be good for the ctninlry In have a publisher hauled inlo court? Would it not do irreparable damage to the insti- tution of the Publishcncy to press things ttio far? Urgent high-level conferences are held and their transcripts classified "secret" so that the mail clerk of any paper daring to publish them can be sentenced to hard labor at Leavenworth. Yes, someone points out, if Mrs. Graham were just any publisher justice should be served. She should be sen- tenced to a three-month winter vacation in the Caribbean. But she is a woman and, moreover, a widow. It would be bad (or the administration's image to send women to the Caribbean unescorted. Thus image's demands confound de- termination to do justice; and Ihe case is closed. The mail-room clerk will be eligible for parole from Loavt'iiworlli In only two more years. That is how justice works, Senator Goldwatcr. If you read Ihe papers Instead of confining yourself to what Ihe govern- ment wants you lo know, you would have known that all along. Louis Harris men! or trial tended U> be rallter diffuse, with raising such reservations as: (1) "We have seen loo much of Water- gate already." "The proceedings should he kept private, to only those in- volved." (3! "II might undermine the office of the presidency." (4) "The people can read all about it In Ihe news- paper If they want to." (5) "II would be cruel to President Nixon." (6) "It might (urn the proceedings into a sideshow." But none of these reasons was volun- teered by more than H percent of the public. Finally, basic propositions for and against televising the impeachment proceedings were pul directly to the cross-section. "Let me read you some statements some people have made about televising the hearings of the house judiciary committee and on im- peochmonl trial ofNlio President by the full U.S. senate. For each, tell me if you agree or disagree (read Dis Not agree sure 58 34 8 35 53 12 Pro-televising: They should be televised because the American people have a right to know all the facts about ttlis highly important event in American history The public can't judge if congress is doing the right thing on impeachment unless the people are allowed to see it all Anti-televising: No proper judicial trial can be held fairly under the glare of television lights and cameras The possible impeachment and conviction of a President is too serious a business to turn into a television spectacular, so it should not be televised..............35 59 6 In each case, a solid majority clearly opts for televising the impeachment process in either the house or, if it gets there, the senate. Basically, the people are trying to say that it is not idle which leads them to want to see the impeachment proceedings, but rather a deep involvement, themselves, in the process and a desire to see that justice is meted out to all concerned. Televising the proceedings, in the judgment of a majority, is a way lo in- sure this fairness, not to impede it. Chicago Tribune-New York News Svndicote liquor lib' By Don Oakley ALONG WITH everything else they established in 1787, the founding fathers made a "common market" out of the United States. The "commerce clause" was intentionally inserted inlo the Constitulion to remove trade barriers between the states, which had been one of the principal grievances of the former colonies. Prior to Prohibition, the supreme court ruled that intoxicating liquor was a legi- timate subject of commerce, "as much so as cabbages and candlesticks." Since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, however, court opinion has held that the 21sl Amendment (repeal) overrides all other constitutional provisions and per- mits individual states complete latitude in the area of liquor control, including the right to discriminate against wine produced in another stale. The result has been a pattern of In state liquor laws, es- pecially in regard to wines. A bill currently before congress II. R. 2090 would give alcoholic beverages the protection thuy were once guaranteed under the Constitulion. The bill has been passed by a substantial majority in the house of representatives and is now awaiting action in the senate. The only right that would be denied lo an individual state would be the "right" to discriminate In favor of the wines of any unit area over those from any other area. It could not force a retailor, whether a (Hale-operated store or a prlvale licensee, lo buy or to refrain from buying any wines offered for sale by suppliers, nor would il Inlerferc wild a slate's adoption of local opllon laws. II. It. would, In short, remove a shadow Dial has hovered over Ihe legal slalUK of alcoholic beverages for some '111 years. Hl'WMKinrrr t nlnrprlMf ft'.vjr liillon
Once upon a time newspapers were our main source of information. Now those old newspapers are a reliable source for hundreds of years of history and secrets of the past. Now you can search for people, places, and events without the hassle of sorting through mountains of papers!
Newspaper Archive is the world's largest online newspaper database featuring over 145+ million newspaper pages. Plus our database expands by one newspaper page per second for a total of around 2.5 million pages per month! The value of your membership grows along with it.
Those looking to find out more about their forefathers can empower their genealogy search with Newspaper Archive. Within our massive database, users can search ancestors' names for news stories and obituaries. We must understand our past to understand our future!
24 hours a day Monday-Saturday
Your full introductory membership payment will be credited toward the cost of full membership any time you choose to upgrade!
"It is amazing how easy and exciting it is to access all of this information! I found hundreds of articles about my relatives from Germany! Well worth the subscription!" - Michael S.
"I love this site. It's interesting to read articles about different family members. I've found articles as well as an obituary about an uncle who passed away before I was born, and another about a great aunt. It's great for helping with genealogy." - Patricia T.
"A great research tool. Allows me to view events and gives me incredible insight into the stories of the past." - Charles S.