Cedar Rapids Gazette, July 31, 1974, Page 7

Cedar Rapids Gazette

July 31, 1974

View full page Start A Free Trial!

Issue date: Wednesday, July 31, 1974

Pages available: 52

Previous edition: Tuesday, July 30, 1974

Next edition: Thursday, August 1, 1974

NewspaperARCHIVE.com - Used by the World's Finest Libraries and Institutions
About Cedar Rapids GazetteAbout NewspaperArchive.com

Publication name: Cedar Rapids Gazette

Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Pages available: 2,913,870

Years available: 1932 - 2016

Learn more about this publication
  • 2.10+ billion articles and growing everyday!
  • More than 400 years of papers. From 1607 to today!
  • Articles covering 50 U.S.States + 22 other countries
  • Powerful, time saving search features!
Start your membership to the world's largest newspaper archive now!
Start your genealogy search now!
See with your own eyes the newspapers your great-great grandparents held.

View sample pages : Cedar Rapids Gazette, July 31, 1974

All text in the Cedar Rapids Gazette July 31, 1974, Page 7.

Cedar Rapids Gazette (Newspaper) - July 31, 1974, Cedar Rapids, Iowa Why no LBJ accounting? Mayne: All too ‘circumstantial’ The Cedar Rapids Gazette: Wed., July JI. I97f this is the text of last week s statement by Iowa Congressman Moyne of Sioux Cif/ os a Republican member of the house judiciary committee, before the committee's first vote on ar tides of impeachment against President Nixon The statement by Iowa Congressman Edward Me/vmsky (First District, Democrat) appeared on this page yesterday By Wiley Mayne U S i eprpserttolivp Sixth district ot lawn TWT K * HAI It MAN I. Ion, wish to J-Vl express rn> appreciation to tin chairman, the ranking member and the stall members on both sides for the many courtesies shown me since this inquiry was lirst undertaken in October I have to recall that I was very critical of the long delays experienced in getting tin* inquiry underway in the first place lint once the staff was fully recruited and organized, it must be recognized they worked long and hard iii a highly professional manner I happen to think they either permitted themselves or were on' *ed to waste a great deal of time and money on matters which are quite irrelevant to impeachment, although they will undoubtedly provide good political grist for tin* mills of many future campaigns Now the lot of those members of the committee who did not prejudge tin1 case against the President long ago has not been an easy one. The possibility of being a party to tin* second impeachment of a President in the nation s history has to be extremely distasteful to any but the most partisan members of the committee. The careme partisans who have always opposed the President bitterly may indeed feel that they now have the best of both worlds. They are free to go all out iii their accusations and condemnation of tin* President, they can demand the penalty of impeachment, trial and removal from office with a vengeance. But for most members of the committee the sobering prospect of impeachment brings no joy whatsoever. It is especially repugnant to those of us who have been political allies of the President in happier days and for whom a pro-impeachment vote will be construed by some as an abandonment not only of the President of the United States but of the Rep. Mayne Republican party as well This is, of course, an erroneous concept, because the regular Republican organizations were systematically excluded from the Committee for the Re-election of the President and had no part whatsoever in the Watergate debacle including the cover-up In any event our duty as members of the house transcends all partisan poli-tical consideration We must reach our decision fairly and squarely on the relevant evidence, and insofar as we humanly can. without regard to partisan politics No vote by any member against one or more of tin* proposed articles of impeachment should Im* interpreted as an endorsement or approval of what went on at the White House Whether they vote for impeachment or not. most members of the committee will strongly condemn the many unwise, improper and iii some cases downright illegal acts which were committed or directed by officials at the Committee for the Re-election of the President or at the White House. Many of them have been indicted, have pleaded or been found guilty. I for one. strongly deplore the sorry example set by the Chief executive for his fellow citizens in his personal as well as his official conduct and responsibilities But the question is not whether we condemn and deplore presidential action or inaction no matter how disappointing it may be The question before us is Was the President guilty of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” which art* tile only constitutional grounds for impeachment” During recent weeks the majority stall has drafted and circulated more than 25 alleged grounds of impeachment, most of which clearly did not meet constitutional standards under the evidence The conclusion was inescapable that in drafting such omnibus articles the majority staff had thrown iii everything including the kitchen sink iii an effort to justify having spent more than one and a half million dollars in accumulating the so-called statements of information which went into these 'IM printed volumes, much of which are irrelevant and repetitious, but which will nevertheless he expensively printed and sent to every law school, college and high school in the country, not to mention Democratic campaign headquarters throughout the country as source material At any rate, only a relatively small number of the proposed articles of nil pcachmcnt which have been floating around are still included iii tin1 resolution winch was presented to us at the outset of this debate and is now before us I will Opinion Page Views Ideas    Insights Judgments    Comments try to avoid discussion of issues which have been dropped so that I will not consume time unnecessarily It seems lo me the strongest case has been made on the obstruction of justice charge as it relates to the alleged Watergate coverup, and I will be most interested in what my colleagues have to say on this Direct presidential involvement in the coverup must be proved, and so far as I have been able to determine until this time, all of the evidence on this is purely circumstantial. I am willing to listen and be persuaded iii our remaining deliberations, but as I listened to Mr. Door iii his argument for the prosecution, it seemed to me he pointed to no direct evidence of presidential involvement iii thi* coverup, but had to arrive at his conclusion of presidential involvement by a series of inferences from circumstances, and each time he made an inference it was unfavorable to the President. Nine witnesses were called to testify on various phases of the Watergate coverup, some at the request of the President and some at the request of the committee (Dean, Mitchell, La Rue, Bitt man, Colson. O’Brien at the request of the President and Kalmbach, Peterson, Butterfield at the request of the committee). It is fair to point out, however, that the counsel and members of the committee examined those requested by the President on matters far outside the scope of Mr St (’lair s questions of them. Reports wert* widely circulated that those called by the committee would drop a bombshell . . . that would blow the President’s defense out of the water. Well that bombshell never went off. and eight of the nine witnesses in fact testified unequivocally that the President had no knowledge of their illegal activities and was not involved in the coverup. They remained unshaken under rather strenuous cross-examination on this point. Only John Dean testified here for the first time that he had an impression in the conversation on March 21 that he felt the President had a desire that the payment be made and. of course, he had testified to the contrary several times in a number of forums. After a year of examination he suddenly came up with a different version of the March 21 conversation We can not escape the fact that the credibility of Mr. Dean is very much in doubt. For example, there can tic no doubt in any of our minds that lie lied most cruelly to Mr. Kalmbach But on this whole issue of the Watergate coverup I will continue to listen carefully to my colleagues looking for No opinion Cowed? By Jim Fiebig IN THI’. LATFST public opinion poll by George Gallup. HS percent disapproved of Mr. Nixon’s handling el the presidency, 24 percent approved — and a significant Pl percent professed “no opinion " W hile it is perfectly honorable to have no opinion on matters for which there is insufficient data (example “How would you rate the performance of tin* current congress?”). I fail to understand how anyone can la* upinionless iii respect to Mr Nixon Yet, if Gallup's latest survey is projected to cover the I S population, something like 2(1 million adults are walking around saying ‘‘Huh?” whenever the presidency is discussed. When it comes to evaluating Mr Nixon’s job performance, I don't believe we have that many wishy-washy citizens The probable reason so many fail to offer Way with words Ms.behavior By Theodore M. Bernstein R BURNTLY the UPI Reporter, a bulletin circulated among news paper editors, sent out a questionnaire lo United Press International subscribers to get some idea of how newspapers are handling their references to women these days One question was, “Under what circumstances do you use Ms to identify women?” The results were as follows When woman requests — 112 never — 51. sometimes — 7. all instances — ti Another question was, “Do you use only last names when referring to women any evidence which may have escaped me and I intend to reserve final judgment on this and the other remaining issues until all debate has been concluded and we begin to vote on each of the remaining articles I was impressed bv the concern shown by my friend from Illinois, Mr Rollback, for the effect which these proceedings will have on the youth of our country . I believe he suggested that if our young people do not feel we are proceeding fairly — they w ill be alienated to such ail extent that their reaction lo Lyndon B Johnson will seem tame by comparison I too would like to say to our youth and to all citizens to be fair iii comparing these two Presidents. Never before iii history has any President been subject to such intense investigation of his personal and public life as has Richard Nixon The senate has spent more than $2 million on its Watergate investigation, the house more than $1*2 million on our committee. Two dozen lawyers at the senate committee, another dozen at this committee, numerous public interest law firms and most of the investigative reporters in tin1 country have been working fulltime trying to uncover any possible irregularity on the part of the President lf we an* interested in fair play. was any such investigation ever launched against Lyndon Johnson, a man who came to the congress in 1937 with no resources other than his congressional salary of $10.IMH)? Until he became vicepresident in 19H1 In* had never received a salary of more than $22,501). Yet during Ins years in the house, the senate, the vice-presidency and the presidency he acquired a multi-million dollar empire based on monopolistic licenses granted by the federal government in the lucrative television and radio industry. The Johnson family for many years held the only commercial television station iii the highly populated Houston area. These were the years when Mr. Johnson was the powerful majority leader in the United States senate, with great influence over the FCC which denied tin* repeated applications of prospective competitors who wanted to come in and share that market. With the tremendous profits gleaned from this government-controlled industry , the Johnson family then branched into other investments which also were dependent to some degree on government influence. Ly ndon Johnson left the White House a very wealthy man, but was he ever investigated in the manner that Richard Nixon has been investigated? Could tin* reason lie that for all but four of the 32 years he was in public office, both houses of congress were controlled by Ins own party, and during much of the time he was a highly influential bulder of that party? There was no disposition on the part of the Democratie-eontrolled congress to spend over $4 million dollars or any amount iii investigating the Democratic majority leader, vicepresident or President. So let's keep that iii mind when we talk about fairness. But fair or not. Richard Nixon must be impeached if and only if we find him guilty by relevant competent ev idence of bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors a clear-cut opinion is that they’re intimidated by tin1 office. That is. they feel unqualified lo pass judgment on a man who’s holding down flu' same chair as the likes of Abraham Lincoln and George \\ ashington. When a pollster suspects an interviewee is suffering from this intimidation. he’d have a better shot at collecting a definite opinion if his question were disguised iii less definite terms For example: “I am not going lo ask you whether you approve or disapprove of Mr. Nixon s handling of his job After all. who are we to say? But I would like to pose a hy pothetical situation: Let’s assume you own a small neighborhood grocery store and one of your stockboys is a kid named Dicky Nixon On the basis of his performance, would you fire him, give him a 25-eent raise or keep him at the same salary?” The people who would keep him at the same salary really do have “no opinion WED. 3 Ways to THURS. Choir.. It at ««• S SAT. p mi ONLY a IOO I 6 I 4 7„ v (I ° * 40 » . IO I ego I Sits 1 OO '    , , ,, . 40 , IRM Cord Sn* v‘    Jfc    t    a I 0 S»< U.ll, S*«jl r jrf; « ■*' ENVELOPES OR WRITING TABLETS your Choice Our Reg 48c 8ft-shee* pad 5'j x9 while bond plain or ruled or box 30 6J,% envelopes Choice of quality white business en velopes in the most-used sues Save1 Cool and Refreshing Julienne Salad Plate eeeeeeee ..99c S. S. KRESGE COMPANY wmr% the second time”” The answers to that one were Ne —- 141. yes —■ 22; sometimes — 7 The indications would seem to he that the women’s libbers have made some progress iii this cause hut not a great deal • Evoke, invoke What a difference a little prefix can make \ news story about a political candidate who look action against a Florida newspaper said thief* tunes that he had evoked an obscure IHLI Florida law Three times the article was iii error. The word that the reporter should have used was invoked The verb evoke means bi elicit, summon or call fort ti and none of those meanings have the sense lie intended Invoke, un the other hand, means to cull upon or resort to a source of authority. iii this instance the 1913 law New York J imus Sv’Hlit uiK. WHEREVER you go, whatever you do on your vacation, you ll want to know what s going on at home, and there's nothing like your own hometown newspaper to keep you abreast of all the happenings JUST let us know your vacation address and how long you 'll be staying there a few days before you leave, and we ll see to it that you don't get left out. We ll forward your newspaper to you each day and resume home delivery when you return. OR, if you prefer, talk with your carrier and he will be happy to keep your papers for you on a day-to-day basis until you return and have a chance to catch up on all that's been going on EITHER way, there s no charge. Phone our circulation department now or let your carrier know before you go. You ll be glad you did! Our Circulation Department telephone number is 398-8333 CEDAR RAPIDS ;

RealCheck