His major weapon was the veto, a means only of negating unwanted legislation, but without the ability to put much forward positively. He had no appointive power, leaving the position without patronage. He could only recommend and try to rally public support for a position.

The General Assembly had the major power. But that body was comprised entirely of Democrats, without responsibility to their own party. It was as if they were all members of no party, without a platform, or that each member was his own party. It led to ineffective government.

Factionalism sometimes substituted for party conflict, insuring some discipline. It was most effective when violent controversy occurred in the state, keeping the members in session into the summer months.

What was true of South Carolina was in some respects true of other one-party states of the South. Without a counter-check on responsibility, officeholders tended to become fat and lazy and the crooked officeholder grew wealthy.

The South could not thrive until an active two-party system came to be. Labels did not matter, but rather the ability to present conflict, as the Founders recognized, was an imperative to insure honest and reasonably efficient government.

The Judge favored legislation which would impute to parents and guardians legal responsibility for their charges. Courts under such a plan could fine parents for the misdemeanors of their children and levy against them for the property damaged.

The piece agrees, except when the judge favored a return in extreme cases to the public whipping post—whether of the parent or child not being made clear.

It wonders, however, why such off-the-cuff remarks of judges never received attention from the Legislature.

Well, in this instance, it is rather obvious. For one, the public whipping post would have, even in 1946, been undoubtedly deemed cruel and unusual corporal punishment, as even capital punishment required a form which did not entail undue physical suffering. As to the Judge's other suggestion of having the offender's criminal responsibility imputed to the parent or guardian, except in the case of actual conspiracy or aiding and abetting, such imputation would have been contrary to every principle of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence throughout its history, negating the whole concept of causation and individual responsibility for crime.

One cannot impute responsibility for a crime to another who had no role in the act, either by active and specific encouragement to do it or actual participation in the planning of it. It would fly in the face of any recognizable precept in the law of criminal responsibility and set a dangerous precedent.

Would an employer then not be subject to being made criminally responsible for the acts of his employee taking place during employment and within the scope of his employment duties, under the civil law principles of respondeat superior? Such an employer is civilly liable for his employee's actions, but, if not an abettor or co-conspirator, not criminally.

So the answer as to why the Legislature did not take up the suggestion was simply that the suggestion in this instance did not follow established principles of the law.

Some states have legislated criminal responsibility on the part of a licensed vendor of alcohol for serving it to an obviously impaired individual, with the attendant reasonably foreseeable risk that the person might then immediately drive a motor vehicle; but that responsibility is premised on licensure by the state to serve alcohol and the history of regulation of same, plus the notion of encouragement subsumed under aiding and abetting an offense, even if indirect in that instance. Licenses always carry with them privileges which subject the possessor of the license to additional responsibility while the individual is acting within the scope of that license, premised on privilege of the license.

While rude, he was rude equally to nearly everyone, but, in the process, got things done. Each ill-mannered attack on the Czechs was counter-balanced by an equally ill-mannered stand against the Soviets taking away resources from the Czechs.

His style was much more efficient than the mild-mannered Herbert Hoover, whose approach appeared futile as against American selfishness and European greed.

It provided that surviving commanders of the military would select a civilian to act as interim President, who would then call a meeting of surviving Governors, who would elect one of their number to act as President and another as Vice-President, who would then serve the uncompleted term.

Mr. Childs posits that the whole drama would unfold on the nation's television sets, to the extent that television transmission lines had not been destroyed. He selects as the hypothetical President the Governor of Illinois, and the new, temporary capital as Springfield. The new President would tell the country that it was the first time that war had been carried to the shores of the United States and, being more awful than any previously known, would mean more sacrifice by the people.

It could, he warns, become a reality should the arms race continue to build.

It was not clear, however, how a modern war could be waged if the concentrated industrial centers of the country, or one or more of them, composed as they were as an interlocking web, would be destroyed. The country was particularly vulnerable to mass attack. The Army-Navy Munitions Board, in consequence, was surveying caves and mines as possible sites for locating vital industry and military facilities. Initially, these caverns would be used for storage of essential tools and critical raw materials.

Strictly speaking, the Congress was, and still is, subject to the 25th Amendment ratified in 1967, authorized under Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution to "by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected." It is true, however, that no provision determines what would happen if all three branches of the Government were wiped out simultaneously.

This important bill, overlooked by the newspapers, did not prescribe the protocol to be followed when whale met whale or if one spouted before the other.

The whaling protocol was a treaty drafted the previous fall in London between the major whaling nations, save Russia and Japan, the result of a conference called by the British to remove the whaling restrictions of 1937.

Norway, however, had opposed the move because of dwindling numbers of whales during the previous century from unrestricted hunting. The United States supported the Norwegian objection and put forth a proposal of its own. The result after a month of debate was a compromise that only limited whaling could take place.

For a whale to reach legal maturity, fit for the kill, took four years. In that time, it would have one calf. But after a five-year hiatus in whaling, Norway had found no appreciable increase in the whale population.

The United States was not significantly impacted by the whaling industry. While a leader in whaling in the 19th century when whale oil was necessary for lamps and used to make soap, and the whalebone was used for women's girdles, there remained only one whaling industry, in Eureka, California, and that had not been in operation since 1944.

Nevertheless, the State Department and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had seen fit to expend time on this treaty when other, far more pressing matters, such as long-term housing for veterans, had been left by the 79th Congress to hang.

Diversified crops, diversified industries, nine-month school years and county-wide public libraries were all interrelated mandatory requirements for progress, "with the liberal arts and sciences undergirding them all".

Research in both the pure and social sciences, research in the humanities, was necessary to achieve these goals. Teachers and scholars, paid at a decent living salary, were necessary to carry on this research. Laboratory equipment and libraries had to be established for the purpose.

"In this region of the Old South, where human slavery made its last stand in the modern world, industrialism makes fresh beginnings on virgin soil. We have the lesssons, in the tragedies of the one, and the opportunities, in the power of the other, to make a contribution to the cause of mankind and the history of civilization, distinctive and rich in a deeper sense of human personality and in social relations to be worked out, on the basis of freedom and justice, by friendly folk who live under the Southern sun in a pleasant land between the mountains and the sea."

The region had within it the capability, he states, "to develop with intellectual freedom nobler human attitudes than have yet characterized the history of any people."